Damages–the cable series about a law suit against a CEO who bankrupted his company while enriching himself–shows just how much of a pleasure plot can be. The action unfolds in steps that are both satisfying and surprising.
That said, the series doesn’t bear a second viewing the way Weeds or Twin Peaks does. The characters just aren’t sympathetic enough, whatever that means. Character development is almost an afterthought. First, Ted Danson emerges as a nuanced monster who steals every scene he’s in. Later, Glenn Close and her adversary Zeljko Ivanek take on their own complexities. The younger cast members, quite possibly remarkable actors in other productions, appear to have been cast by Pottery Barn. A part of the problem is the show’s perspective, which relies too much on these glossier characters.
And yet “lacks character development” is one of those reviewer phrases–useful as a judgement, but not quite satisfactory as diagnosis. What really makes an engaging character? I don’t know, for sure. This is an essay, an assay, in the original sense: an attempt. But I do have two data points: Agent Cooper in Twin Peaks, Nancy in Weeds. Some sense of flawed struggle and vulnerability seem to be at the core of their appeal. Cheri Johnson once wrote on a story of mine that I had created a character she loved; now I just had to make him do something she hated—or something that put him into danger. That suggests something more essential than nuance, complexity, contradiction, blemishes. Maybe the answer I am looking for, the thing that explains the lack I feel in Damages is this: a character is a quest. Despite some of our best actors doing some of their best work, Damages remains a case.
This is a very interesting analysis - character as quest. And I love the Cheri Johnson comment.
Posted by: carolyn Jean | July 15, 2008 at 08:18 AM