On principle, I like the idea of
updating classic themes and stories for the modern age. Classic stories are classics for a reason. They carry universal themes that don’t depend
on their time of origin. That’s why the
Sherlock Holmes concept has been so successful at breeding diverse adaptations over the years: its universal themes of intellect and emotion
needing each other, of devoted friendship and problem-solving, of the romantic
ideal that mysteries can be solved like puzzles— these themes are themes we all
need to hear, and they can be adapted to any time and place. Likewise, most of Shakespeare’s stories
translate to other times and places.
Their characters and themes are timeless. (Well, mostly so. Taming of the Shrew is, I admit, hard to
watch nowadays.)
And right there is a problem with
reboots of old stories. If not done
mindfully, the classics too easily carry forward their old attitudes and social
expectations. The concept of the “dark”
or “gritty” reboot, which reintroduces a well-known story but heightens the
stakes and lets characters’ malevolence show through, can easily amplify the
problematic bits by wallowing in objectification, racial stereotype, and
violence against women. I don’t mean
this to be an indictment of dark/gritty reboots generally. I often like them, much the same way I like
updated classics on a gourmet menu. The
high-stakes part is often quite gripping, and the malevolence is modern, within
reason. But it’s worth keeping an eye on those other bits.
Each of these shows takes a classic
concept and puts it in the modern day. Results are mixed.
Emerald
City (NBC, new. Fantasy.)
Watched: First three or four episodes (depending how
you count the two-hour premiere)
Premise: A modern-day nurse from Kansas gets
transported via tornado to a place called Oz, where magic exists but the Wizard
of Oz has outlawed magic.
Promise: There are a lot of things to like about this
show. Its costuming is beyond gorgeous. Its cast is fresh, with some interestingly
diverse and well-chosen people. Its filming
locations (augmented, I presume, by CGI) are stunning. It’s good at crafting cool moments for its characters. It’s given itself some future opportunities (which
it may or may not take) to do some neat
things with gender identity and disability.
But it’s built on a problematic foundation, and its story is totally all
over the place. And it’s trying so hard
to be edgy that you’re almost embarrassed on its behalf, like a broody suburban
teenager.
The main problems are, I think,
errors in what to update and what to keep the same. It’s updated some of its
themes and characters so that the “your power comes from within” moral is
groaning under the weight of the changes, and may be gone. It’s not a great sign that I don’t know
whether that theme is gone or just hiding.
But it’s kept its exoticism and dream logic. The result is gorgeously-rendered racial and
gender stereotypes—women are mothers or unfathomable, vaguely threatening magicians
(or both!); nonwhites (aside from our Latina lead) are mystical or vaguely
ill-grammared. And the disjointed story,
for which we probably have Game of Thrones’ influence to thank, doesn’t make
the show feel “epic” so much as
random. The result has some
amazing visual and character moments that feel like luck rather than
skill. One moment, for which I will
avoid spoilers only by saying that a young person has to make a decision, will
stick with me, because I don’t know if it realizes it’s a criticism of the show
itself: “so you’re saying that as a
girl, I have two choices: nun or whore?”
Verdict: I like enough of its ideas just enough to
watch more of it, but it’s a toss-up whether boredom-quit or rage-quit will hit
me first.
Riverdale (CW,
new. Drama.)
Watched: pilot
Premise: the characters from Archie Comics grapple
with their classic teen drama plus the mysterious death of a classmate.
Promise: Archie Comics has a very wholesome
reputation, and it seems clear this show strives to reveal the sordid
underbelly that lurks beneath many wholesome things. The show’s pilot bounced between classic teen
drama (bizarrely literate teens, love triangles, sexual discovery, trying to
find one’s place in the social hierarchy, trying to discern one’s goals) and a
much darker web of drama involving a murder, an institutionalized young woman,
and an illicit relationship between a student and teacher (remember, these
characters are sophomores; even 19
years after Dawson’s Creek did it, it’s still highly unsettling). The challenge here is one of tone: when Scream deals with death, it’s campy horror. When Eyewitness deals with death, it’s
high-stakes drama. This show hasn’t quite
situated itself on that continuum, so instead everything feels overwrought, and
the viewer is left not knowing which characters to like and trust. Betty and Veronica are likeable and complex,
and while they’re rivals, the show does a nice job of also making them
believable friends. The show isn’t
pushing any boundaries in terms of race or class stereotypes, but there’s still
time for that. I hope the show’s mystery side falls into a
nice groove, though; I’d rather watch that than the teen drama side.
Verdict: jury’s still out.
Van
Helsing (Syfy, Fall 2016.
Horror.)
Watched: first couple of
episodes
Premise: A woman awakens from a long coma to discover
that (a) vampires have taken over and (b) she is invulnerable and capable of
curing vampirism.
Promise: This show took what I thought would be an
interesting premise and managed to bore me with it. A big part of my boredom came from the
structure of the pilot, through which the viewers spent most of the time having
no idea what was going on or why people were doing things that made no sense. Pacing-wise, it alternated between slow-moving
atmospherics, confusing action, and graphic violence. Something that gave us a bit more of the
characters’ interior processes with a more steady pace would have been much
more enjoyable. Part of my boredom came
from the fact that I didn’t like anyone
involved. This shouldn’t surprise
me: Neil Labute, who wrote the pilot,
has made a career of creating unlikeable characters. But when that’s the setup for a season of
television, I’m going to be out pretty fast.
But a lot of my boredom came from
what the show did to its central character, which takes a little nuance to
describe. So: this show is produced by Simon Barry, which
gave me high hopes for it. It’s fair to
say that Barry’s previous show, Continuum, is one of my favorite shows
ever. It also took a woman out of her
time and away from her beloved child, made her a pawn in a larger scheme, and
gave her powers beyond the understanding of the people around her. Her central motivation, too, was trying to get
back to her child. Both shows shift back
and forth between the woman’s “normal” and “new” lives. But Continuum was a show about brain, and Van
Helsing is a show about brawn. Continuum
raised thought-provoking political and intellectual questions, while Van
Helsing growls and slashes and drips. Each woman’s quest might be difficult to the
point of being doomed, but the heroine in Continuum had a kind of agency that
came from understanding and having influence over her world(s), whereas Vanessa
Helsing is tossed by circumstance and driven by temper.
Verdict: The things I disliked
may have changed over the course of the Van Helsing season, but I was turned
off enough by the unlikeable characters and Helsing’s lack of agency that i
wandered away.
The
Exorcist (Fox, fall 2016. Horror.)
Watched: season
Premise: The lives and consequences of family, priests,
and broader community when a new young woman is possessed by the same demon that
possessed the little girl in the original Exorcist film.
Promise: This is somewhere between reboot and sequel. The Exorcist story was shocking in its day,
and has become almost clichéd now. So why
this show, and why now? It isn’t exactly
a new take on an old story, so much as a continuation of an old story that
takes advantage of a new episodic medium.
Sometimes the show feels hackneyed
or self-conscious in its execution. But
the idea that flawed righteousness may be able to defeat literal evil is a
classic for a reason, and one that we may need reminding of now more than
ever. This show really takes every
element of that idea to its extreme. The
righteousness is real, and deeply flawed.
The evil is real, and really evil.
The characters all have what feel like real hopes and needs, and the
series really does benefit from its medium—it takes advantage of the time to
pull us through twists and turns and see in an extended sense who each of the
players are and how they relate to the broader world. No one in this series is completely blameless
or flawless, but many are likeable, and the show has the ultimately optimistic
idea that striving for goodness is sometimes enough. The cast is fantastic.
Verdict: Like its characters, it’s not without flaws,
but more good than bad. According to the
TV Grim Reaper, It will probably not be renewed.
In
the queue: much more to come
from both 2016 and 2017!
