(spoiler)
In "Homeland," the highly awarded Showtime series, two complicated and driven major characters collide and separate surrounded by intrigue and deception. This series could become the hallmark series for internal conflict, not the classic conflict where qualities intersect and interfere with each other to the detriment of the character but conflict where major characters have intense devotions to competing loyalties or disintegration to the point of incoherent loyalties. Playing sincerely for both teams--or all teams-- makes for serious problems in the audience.
The potential for loss of audience interest is made up for by high stakes intrigue, violence and National Inquirer-like loaded cultural questions. Can a captured marine join the religion of his captors? What responsibilities does a wife have to a husband missing in action for eight years? Is she guilty of infidelity when he returns? Should she trap him if the country suggests his infidelity to it? Can a very competent and devoted agent keep her job if she is also a bit crazy? How many benign cross cultural relationships are necessary to balance out one gigantic cross cultural animosity?
There are some practical problems as well. Early in the story it is evident that there is a high level leak in the CIA; this is noted but rarely discussed or worried about. A complicated plan two years in the making of murder and mayhem hinges on the almost impossible coincidence that allows a conspirator to be elected to public office and become a close friend of the Vice-President. After the complex plot fails, the decision is made by the mastermind to have the unsuccessful conspirator kill the conspirator who successfully completed his assignments under the most difficult of circumstances. The unsuccessful conspirator fails in his two year quest because he is talked out of it at the last moment by his daughter in an innuendo-laden thirty second phone call. The conspirator who plans a mass assassination is not a terrorist; he is a vigilante with a justifiable personal hatred for a public official and some collateral damage he has caused; the collateral damage of his revenge--which would be considerable--is not a problem for the character or the writers.
None the less, like "The Godfather,' this is gripping, exciting and entertaining. I will keep watching. But I worrry. Craziness can be cured. A vigilante can straighten out, settle down and sell insurance.
No harm done.
In "Homeland," the highly awarded Showtime series, two complicated and driven major characters collide and separate surrounded by intrigue and deception. This series could become the hallmark series for internal conflict, not the classic conflict where qualities intersect and interfere with each other to the detriment of the character but conflict where major characters have intense devotions to competing loyalties or disintegration to the point of incoherent loyalties. Playing sincerely for both teams--or all teams-- makes for serious problems in the audience.
The potential for loss of audience interest is made up for by high stakes intrigue, violence and National Inquirer-like loaded cultural questions. Can a captured marine join the religion of his captors? What responsibilities does a wife have to a husband missing in action for eight years? Is she guilty of infidelity when he returns? Should she trap him if the country suggests his infidelity to it? Can a very competent and devoted agent keep her job if she is also a bit crazy? How many benign cross cultural relationships are necessary to balance out one gigantic cross cultural animosity?
There are some practical problems as well. Early in the story it is evident that there is a high level leak in the CIA; this is noted but rarely discussed or worried about. A complicated plan two years in the making of murder and mayhem hinges on the almost impossible coincidence that allows a conspirator to be elected to public office and become a close friend of the Vice-President. After the complex plot fails, the decision is made by the mastermind to have the unsuccessful conspirator kill the conspirator who successfully completed his assignments under the most difficult of circumstances. The unsuccessful conspirator fails in his two year quest because he is talked out of it at the last moment by his daughter in an innuendo-laden thirty second phone call. The conspirator who plans a mass assassination is not a terrorist; he is a vigilante with a justifiable personal hatred for a public official and some collateral damage he has caused; the collateral damage of his revenge--which would be considerable--is not a problem for the character or the writers.
None the less, like "The Godfather,' this is gripping, exciting and entertaining. I will keep watching. But I worrry. Craziness can be cured. A vigilante can straighten out, settle down and sell insurance.
No harm done.
No comments:
Post a Comment