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

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…

Something something trident.

Aquaman (2018)
(SPOILERS) If Aquaman has a problem – although it actually has two – it’s the problem of the bloated blockbuster. There's just too much of it. And the more-more-more element eventual becomes wearing, even when most of that more-more-more is, on a scene-by-scene basis, terrifically executed. If there's one thing this movie proves above all else, it's that you can let director James Wan loose in any given sandpit and he’ll make an above-and-beyond castle out of it. Aquaman isn't a classic, but it isn’t for want of his trying.

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.

You look like an angry lizard!

Bohemian Rhapsody (2018)
(SPOILERS) I can quite see a Queen fan begrudging this latest musical biopic for failing to adhere to the facts of their illustrious career – but then, what biopic does steer a straight and true course? – making it ironic that they're the main fuel for Bohemian Rhapsody's box office success. Most other criticisms – and they're legitimate, on the whole – fall away in the face of a hugely charismatic star turn from Rami Malek as the band's frontman. He's the difference between a standard-issue, episodic, join-the-dots narrative and one that occasionally touches greatness, and most importantly, carries emotional heft.

The wolves are running. Perhaps you would do something to stop their bite?

The Box of Delights (1984)
If you were at a formative age when it was first broadcast, a festive viewing of The Box of Delights may well have become an annual ritual. The BBC adaptation of John Masefield’s 1935 novel is perhaps the ultimate cosy yuletide treat. On a TV screen, at any rate. To an extent, this is exactly the kind of unashamedly middle class-orientated bread-and-butter period production the corporation now thinks twice about; ever so posh kids having jolly adventures in a nostalgic netherworld of Interwar Britannia. Fortunately, there’s more to it than that. There is something genuinely evocative about Box’s mythic landscape, a place where dream and reality and time and place are unfixed and where Christmas is guaranteed a blanket of thick snow. Key to this is the atmosphere instilled by director Renny Rye. Most BBC fantasy fare doe not age well but The Box of Delights is blessed with a sinister-yet-familiar charm, such that even the creakier production decisions may be vi…

Never compare me to the mayor in Jaws! Never!

Ghostbusters (2016)
(SPOILERS) Paul Feig is a better director than Ivan Reitman, or at very least he’s savvy enough to gather technicians around him who make his films look good, but that hasn’t helped make his Ghostbusters remake (or reboot) a better movie than the original, and that’s even with the original not even being that great a movie in the first place.

Along which lines, I’d lay no claims to the 1984 movie being some kind of auteurist gem, but it does make some capital from the polarising forces of Aykroyd’s ultra-geekiness on the subject of spooks and Murray’s “I’m just here for the asides” irreverence. In contrast, Feig’s picture is all about treating the subject as he does any other genre, be it cop, or spy, or romcom. There’s no great affection, merely a reliably professional approach, one minded to ensure that a generous quota of gags (on-topic not required) can be pumped out via abundant improv sessions.

So there’s nothing terribly wrong with Ghostbusters, but aside from …

I take Quaaludes 10-15 times a day for my "back pain", Adderall to stay focused, Xanax to take the edge off, part to mellow me out, cocaine to wake me back up again, and morphine... Well, because it's awesome.

The Wolf of Wall Street (2013)
Along with Pain & Gain and The Great Gatsby, The Wolf of Wall Street might be viewed as the completion of a loose 2013 trilogy on the subject of success and excess; the American Dream gone awry. It’s the superior picture to its fellows, by turns enthralling, absurd, outrageous and hilarious. This is the fieriest, most deliriously vibrant picture from the director since the millennium turned. Nevertheless, stood in the company of Goodfellas, the Martin Scorsese film from which The Wolf of Wall Street consciously takes many of its cues, it is found wanting.

I was vaguely familiar with the title, not because I knew much about Jordan Belfort but because the script had been in development for such a long time (Ridley Scott was attached at one time). So part of the pleasure of the film is discovering how widely the story diverges from the Wall Street template. “The Wolf of Wall Street” suggests one who towers over the city like a behemoth, rather than a guy …

I am so sick of Scotland!

Outlaw/King (2018)
(SPOILERS) Proof that it isn't enough just to want to make a historical epic, you have to have some level of vision for it as well. Say what you like about Mel's Braveheart – and it isn't a very good film – it's got sensibility in spades. He knew what he was setting out to achieve, and the audience duly responded. What does David Mackenzie want from Outlaw/King (it's shown with a forward slash on the titles, so I'm going with it)? Ostensibly, and unsurprisingly, to restore the stature of Robert the Bruce after it was rather tarnished by Braveheart, but he has singularly failed to do so. More than that, it isn’t an "idea", something you can recognise or get behind even if you don’t care about the guy. You’ll never forget Mel's Wallace, for better or worse, but the most singular aspect of Chris Pine's Bruce hasn’t been his rousing speeches or heroic valour. No, it's been his kingly winky.

Mountains are old, but they're still green.

Roma (2018)
(SPOILERS) Roma is a critics' darling and a shoe-in for Best Foreign Film Oscar, with the potential to take the big prize to boot, but it left me profoundly indifferent, its elusive majesty remaining determinedly out of reach. Perhaps that's down to generally spurning autobiographical nostalgia fests – complete with 65mm widescreen black and white, so it's quite clear to viewers that the director’s childhood reverie equates to the classics of old – or maybe the elliptical characterisation just didn't grab me, but Alfonso Cuarón's latest amounts to little more than a sliver of substance beneath all that style.