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

Oh, you got me right in the pantaloons, partner.

The Party (1968) (SPOILERS) Blake Edwards’ semi-improvisational reunion with Peter Sellers is now probably best known for – I was going to use an elephant-in-the-room gag, but at least one person already went there – Sellers’ “brown face”. And it isn’t a decision one can really defend, even by citing The Party ’s influence on Bollywood. Satyajit Ray had also reportedly been considering working with Sellers… and then he saw the film. One can only assume he’d missed similar performances in The Millionairess and The Road to Hong Kong ; in the latter case, entirely understandable, if not advisable. Nevertheless, for all the flagrant stereotyping, Sellers’ bungling Hrundi V Bakshi is a very likeable character, and indeed, it’s the piece’s good-natured, soft centre – his fledgling romance with Claudine Longet’s Michele – that sees The Party through in spite of its patchy, hit-and-miss quality.

They'll think I've lost control again and put it all down to evolution.

Time Bandits (1981) (SPOILERS) Terry Gilliam had co-directed previously, and his solo debut had visual flourish on its side, but it was with Time Bandits that Gilliam the auteur was born. The first part of his Trilogy of Imagination, it remains a dazzling work – as well as being one of his most successful – rich in theme and overflowing with ideas while resolutely aimed at a wide (family, if you like) audience. Indeed, most impressive about Time Bandits is that there’s no evidence of self-censoring here, of attempting to make it fit a certain formula, format or palatable template.

I never strangled a chicken in my life!

Rope (1948) (SPOILERS) Rope doesn’t initially appear to have been one of the most venerated of Hitchcocks, but it has gone through something of a rehabilitation over the years, certainly since it came back into circulation during the 80s. I’ve always rated it highly; yes, the seams of it being, essentially, a formal experiment on the director’s part, are evident, but it’s also an expert piece of writing that uses our immediate knowledge of the crime to create tension throughout; what we/the killers know is juxtaposed with the polite dinner party they’ve thrown in order to wallow in their superiority.

I'm an old ruin, but she certainly brings my pulse up a beat or two.

The Paradine Case (1947) (SPOILERS) Hitchcock wasn’t very positive about The Paradine Case , his second collaboration with Gregory Peck, but I think he’s a little harsh on a picture that, if it doesn’t quite come together dramatically, nevertheless maintains interest on the basis of its skewed take on the courtroom drama. Peck’s defence counsel falls for his client, Alida Valli’s accused (of murder), while wife Ann Todd wilts dependably and masochistically on the side-lines.

Miss Livingstone, I presume.

Stage Fright (1950) (SPOILERS) This one has traditionally taken a bit of a bruising, for committing a cardinal crime – lying to the audience. More specifically, lying via a flashback, through which it is implicitly assumed the truth is always relayed. As Richard Schickel commented, though, the egregiousness of the action depends largely on whether you see it as a flaw or a brilliant act of daring: an innovation. I don’t think it’s quite that – not in Stage Fright ’s case anyway; the plot is too ordinary – but I do think it’s a picture that rewards revisiting knowing the twist, since there’s much else to enjoy it for besides.

You must have hopes, wishes, dreams.

Brazil (1985) (SPOILERS) Terry Gilliam didn’t consider Brazil the embodiment of a totalitarian nightmare it is often labelled as. His 1984½ (one of the film’s Fellini-riffing working titles) was “ the Nineteen Eighty-Four for 1984 ”, in contrast to Michael Anderson’s Nineteen Eighty-Four from 1948. This despite Gilliam famously boasting never to have read the Orwell’s novel: “ The thing that intrigues me about certain books is that you know them even though you’ve never read them. I guess the images are archetypal ”. Or as Pauline Kael observed, Brazil is to Nineteen Eighty-Four as “ if you’d just heard about it over the years and it had seeped into your visual imagination ”. Gilliam’s suffocating system isn’t unflinchingly cruel and malevolently intolerant of individuality; it is, in his vision of a nightmare “future”, one of evils spawned by the mechanisms of an out-of-control behemoth: a self-perpetuating bureaucracy. And yet, that is not really, despite how indulgently and glee

A herbal enema should fix you up.

Never Say Never Again (1983) (SPOILERS) There are plenty of sub-par Bond s in the official (Eon) franchise, several of them even weaker than this opportunistic remake of Thunderball , but they do still feel like Bond movies. Never Say Never Again , despite – or possibly because he’s part of it – featuring the much-vaunted, title-referencing return of the Sean Connery to the lead role, only ever feels like a cheap imitation. And yet, reputedly, it cost more than the same year’s Rog outing Octopussy .

Do you know the world is a foul sty? Do you know, if you ripped the fronts off houses, you'd find swine? The world's a hell. What does it matter what happens in it?

Shadow of a Doubt (1943) (SPOILERS) I’m not sure you could really classify Shadow of a Doubt as underrated, as some have. Not when it’s widely reported as Hitchcock’s favourite of his films. Underseen might be a more apt sobriquet, since it rarely trips off the lips in the manner of his best-known pictures. Regardless of the best way to categorise it, it’s very easy to see why the director should have been so quick to recognise Shadow of a Doubt 's qualities, even if some of those qualities are somewhat atypical.

She was addicted to Tums for a while.

Marriage Story (2019) (SPOILERS) I don’t tend to fall heavily for Noah Baumbach fare. He’s undoubtedly a distinctive voice – even if his collaborations with Wes Anderson are the least of that director’s efforts – but his devotion to an exclusive, rarefied New York bubble becomes ever more off-putting with each new project. And ever more identifiable as being a lesser chronicler of the city’s privileged quirks than his now disinherited forbear Woody Allen, who at his peak mastered a balancing act between the insightful, hilarious and self-effacing. Marriage Story finds Baumbach going yet again where Woody went before, this time brushing up against the director’s Ingmar Bergman fixation.

I think you’re some kind of deviated prevert.

Dr. Strangelove  or: How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb (1964) (SPOILERS) Kubrick’s masterpiece satire of mutually-assured destruction. Or is it? Not the masterpiece bit, because that’s a given. Rather, is all it’s really about the threat of nuclear holocaust? While that’s obviously quite sufficient, all the director’s films are suggested to have, in popular alt-readings, something else going on under the hood, be it exposing the ways of Elite paedophilia ( Lolita , Eyes Wide Shut ), MKUltra programming ( A Clockwork Orange, Full Metal Jacket ), transhumanism and the threat of imminent AI overlords ( 2001: A Space Odyssey ), and most of the aforementioned and more besides (the all-purpose smorgasbord that is The Shining ). Even Barry Lyndon has been posited to exist in a post-reset-history world. Could Kubrick be talking about something else as well in Dr. Strangelove ?