k***@gmail.com
2005-12-20 05:26:35 UTC
Six Feet Under is a rich meditation on death, and life. It's life,
against the eternal (and very present backdrop) of death, finding
meaning and richness: Claire's creative and coming-of-age journey,
David's quest for love and identity, Nate's struggle with meaning and
mortality, Ruth's sense of alienation as an aging widow. It also jolts
the audience and characters out of denial of death to look at the value
and urgency of getting on with our finite lives.
At least, so it was for two seasons.
The third season begins with a dream-sequence, and it's never quite
clear when that ends... it just sort of mushes into an episode, and
then a series of episodes, so bad, so flavorless, so without purchase,
that I was wondering if the dream sequence had ended at all.
(If not, it's very tedious dream sequence. Speaking of which, those
sequences in general, so interesting and amusing at first as they
displayed characters thoughts spinning off crazily, have long-since
gone stale, mostly because they're poorly thought out and badly
realized.)
I wish that the reviews had been more accurate and honest. I wish that
every review had been one star. That way, I would've just given up on
the series at the end of season two, when it was still good, and
figured that unresolved ending was just the way it was meant to be. I
would've still loved it. Now, I just find the whole thing grating.
The main thing about season three is that there's just not enough
substance. There is, in the entire season, enough for maybe half an
episode of season one.
Many said the first season was the best television show ever. Though I
watch very little TV (I watched this all on DVD) season one is
certainly by far the best show I've ever seen, more like a series of
movies than television, and good movies at that.
The second season, though much inferior to the first, was still very
good, with exceptional moments.
But the third season... well, it bears very, very little relation to
the first two. The audience's interest is retained only by the soap
opera aspects. (That happens with television: Audiences are still
intrigued by the characters and the producers, though they're out of
ideas, milk it for a while by turning the show into a soap opera.)
It's like the funeral home was indeed taken over by a corporation -
seems to be the same establishment, but what's inside is totally
different, and lifeless.
The characters are played by the same actors, of course, but even
Rachel Griffiths can't do much with scripts that have become boring.
Though everyone is still doing their jobs well, it seems like Lauren
Ambrose (Claire) is the only other actor putting her heart into it.
The way the deaths were woven into the fabric of the episodes, so
crucial to this series, is absent. It's just a business, and they might
as well be selling lawnmowers. The scripts could be transferred to or
from any other show, and seem to have been.
David's become effeminate and swishy (and gets even more so in the next
season) - closer to a stereotype and out of character from who he was
in season one - and his romantic travails have become monotonous.
Ruth just seems goofy, and lost. Without that marvelous interplay of
her lusty Russian, Nikoli (full of irrepressible life, including the
symbolism in his vocation), her world is just comfortingly dull, even
when a bit spiced up by a naughty friend (introduced with a lame
addiction storyline that seemed to be just introduce the new friend).
Claire's journey, though it's the most interesting thing about the
season, and its focus (sort of), has become tedious as well. (Her
art-school teacher is just a well-rendered stock character.)
Nate we just can't make ourselves care about anymore. The character he
was before had a certain core that this one just doesn't. Maybe it's
his brain problem, but he's not him anymore. (And what's with the
expensively-mainted, trendy, bad haircut?)
Frederico remains little more than a prop, continuously exploited by
Fishers. They pay him less than he's worth, treat him terribly no
matter how much he does for them, and then, though they left him to
twist in the same situation (when they could have easily helped him),
he comes through with a lifesaver when they're desperate (for which,
with typical ingratitude, they take advantage of him again). It's crazy
that anyone would entrust money to people who handle it so badly. Talk
about a doormat. It's strange that there's no explanation or
exploration of that.
Keith, once so intriguing, has become a prop as well, almost on the
level of comic relief. He has a boring job that's boring for us to
watch, and they've decided he has to become a boring guy.
It seems like the writers just can't imagine anyone in a mundane job
could have an interesting and worthwhile existence, and the show has
taken on a mildly racist tinge.
Lisa, originally a one-dimensional, one-off character, should have
remained such, or stayed in the background. Her story is dull - it
doesn't have to be, but it is - and drags down the rest with it, if it
can be dragged lower.
Brenda is only interesting at all because she's so well-acted. The
character, like everything else, has gone flat (uh, so to speak). No
matter how well acted, the characters have become cardboard cutouts.
The writers also introduce a mildly autistic, slightly creepy nerd. For
some reason. (Also very well acted... and pointless.)
I like who the characters were on the first season. For example, I
liked Brenda's self-assurance, even though there was all kinds of
damage beneath it; that played nicely into Nate's air of detached,
rugged cool, just beneath which he was perpetually skating over the
thin ice of an empty and meaningless existence.
People change, but there's something left of who they were, instead of
someone completely unrelated - David lurching into a stereotype, for
example. When he asks the new assistant (in season one) what makes her
think he's gay, we might wonder the same thing. In season three, it's
so obvious that the only answer is, Duh.
Why?
Why does Nate lose his entire personality and replace it with a new one
with no connection or even transition (brain surgery)? Was Keith's
entire identity based on being a cop who hadn't shot anyone yet (and
why, in that scene, didn't his partner fire as well - who'd want to
have a partner that wouldn't do anything when someone swings a gun
around to shoot you)?
In short, though called by the same names and played by the same
actors, the characters are otherwise unrelated to those of season one.
There is no point to watching this season. Though I was soon bored, I
kept on because I figured there had to be some payoff somewhere. There
isn't.
The first season is stunning. The second, though uneven, is still
excellent.
The third, though, looks like some goof took the characters and wrote a
weak fan-fiction version.
The technique is still superb: There are marvelous touches, like when a
character gets shocking news there's no ominous theme music or
heavy-handed camerawork; it's just an ordinary afternoon.
It's just that the writing has fallen apart.
To the injury of wasted time and money, one writer adds insult,
literally: Wondering why the second season was inferior to the first, I
listened to the writer's commentary on an episode. She starts by
insulting the audience for having nothing better to do than listen to
her. It's not funny - it doesn't seem to be meant to be funny - and it
turns out to be a well-founded, as she has nothing interesting to say.
Might explain why the following season is so crappy. Everything is just
plot devices and recycled sitcom gags (e.g., bumping into the priest at
the video store).
I was curious enough about why this was so bad, when the first season
was so good, that I poked around on the Internet a bit. A lot of
comments were along the lines of will X and Y get back together? Will A
and B break up? Soap opera comments for a soap opera season.
There are people who liked season three; there are people who like soap
operas, and this season basically is one (centered around a funeral
home).
Read the episode guides. By the second episode of the first series, so
much had happened it felt like I'd been watching for at least a season
already. And although the second season faltered, with a lot more
filler, it still had a great deal to offer.
Had the entire third season been cut down to make up one episode, or
maximum two, it might have been good, but as it is, it's all just vague
filler, a waste of time and talent.
Anyone who likes Six Feet Under and hasn't yet watched beyond season
two would be well advised not to. Just pretend it ended at the end of
season two, maybe leaving some things unresolved, but that's just the
way it ended. Leave it there and appreciate it for what it was. Unless
you're a big fan of fan-fiction, there's no point in watching beyond
that.
against the eternal (and very present backdrop) of death, finding
meaning and richness: Claire's creative and coming-of-age journey,
David's quest for love and identity, Nate's struggle with meaning and
mortality, Ruth's sense of alienation as an aging widow. It also jolts
the audience and characters out of denial of death to look at the value
and urgency of getting on with our finite lives.
At least, so it was for two seasons.
The third season begins with a dream-sequence, and it's never quite
clear when that ends... it just sort of mushes into an episode, and
then a series of episodes, so bad, so flavorless, so without purchase,
that I was wondering if the dream sequence had ended at all.
(If not, it's very tedious dream sequence. Speaking of which, those
sequences in general, so interesting and amusing at first as they
displayed characters thoughts spinning off crazily, have long-since
gone stale, mostly because they're poorly thought out and badly
realized.)
I wish that the reviews had been more accurate and honest. I wish that
every review had been one star. That way, I would've just given up on
the series at the end of season two, when it was still good, and
figured that unresolved ending was just the way it was meant to be. I
would've still loved it. Now, I just find the whole thing grating.
The main thing about season three is that there's just not enough
substance. There is, in the entire season, enough for maybe half an
episode of season one.
Many said the first season was the best television show ever. Though I
watch very little TV (I watched this all on DVD) season one is
certainly by far the best show I've ever seen, more like a series of
movies than television, and good movies at that.
The second season, though much inferior to the first, was still very
good, with exceptional moments.
But the third season... well, it bears very, very little relation to
the first two. The audience's interest is retained only by the soap
opera aspects. (That happens with television: Audiences are still
intrigued by the characters and the producers, though they're out of
ideas, milk it for a while by turning the show into a soap opera.)
It's like the funeral home was indeed taken over by a corporation -
seems to be the same establishment, but what's inside is totally
different, and lifeless.
The characters are played by the same actors, of course, but even
Rachel Griffiths can't do much with scripts that have become boring.
Though everyone is still doing their jobs well, it seems like Lauren
Ambrose (Claire) is the only other actor putting her heart into it.
The way the deaths were woven into the fabric of the episodes, so
crucial to this series, is absent. It's just a business, and they might
as well be selling lawnmowers. The scripts could be transferred to or
from any other show, and seem to have been.
David's become effeminate and swishy (and gets even more so in the next
season) - closer to a stereotype and out of character from who he was
in season one - and his romantic travails have become monotonous.
Ruth just seems goofy, and lost. Without that marvelous interplay of
her lusty Russian, Nikoli (full of irrepressible life, including the
symbolism in his vocation), her world is just comfortingly dull, even
when a bit spiced up by a naughty friend (introduced with a lame
addiction storyline that seemed to be just introduce the new friend).
Claire's journey, though it's the most interesting thing about the
season, and its focus (sort of), has become tedious as well. (Her
art-school teacher is just a well-rendered stock character.)
Nate we just can't make ourselves care about anymore. The character he
was before had a certain core that this one just doesn't. Maybe it's
his brain problem, but he's not him anymore. (And what's with the
expensively-mainted, trendy, bad haircut?)
Frederico remains little more than a prop, continuously exploited by
Fishers. They pay him less than he's worth, treat him terribly no
matter how much he does for them, and then, though they left him to
twist in the same situation (when they could have easily helped him),
he comes through with a lifesaver when they're desperate (for which,
with typical ingratitude, they take advantage of him again). It's crazy
that anyone would entrust money to people who handle it so badly. Talk
about a doormat. It's strange that there's no explanation or
exploration of that.
Keith, once so intriguing, has become a prop as well, almost on the
level of comic relief. He has a boring job that's boring for us to
watch, and they've decided he has to become a boring guy.
It seems like the writers just can't imagine anyone in a mundane job
could have an interesting and worthwhile existence, and the show has
taken on a mildly racist tinge.
Lisa, originally a one-dimensional, one-off character, should have
remained such, or stayed in the background. Her story is dull - it
doesn't have to be, but it is - and drags down the rest with it, if it
can be dragged lower.
Brenda is only interesting at all because she's so well-acted. The
character, like everything else, has gone flat (uh, so to speak). No
matter how well acted, the characters have become cardboard cutouts.
The writers also introduce a mildly autistic, slightly creepy nerd. For
some reason. (Also very well acted... and pointless.)
I like who the characters were on the first season. For example, I
liked Brenda's self-assurance, even though there was all kinds of
damage beneath it; that played nicely into Nate's air of detached,
rugged cool, just beneath which he was perpetually skating over the
thin ice of an empty and meaningless existence.
People change, but there's something left of who they were, instead of
someone completely unrelated - David lurching into a stereotype, for
example. When he asks the new assistant (in season one) what makes her
think he's gay, we might wonder the same thing. In season three, it's
so obvious that the only answer is, Duh.
Why?
Why does Nate lose his entire personality and replace it with a new one
with no connection or even transition (brain surgery)? Was Keith's
entire identity based on being a cop who hadn't shot anyone yet (and
why, in that scene, didn't his partner fire as well - who'd want to
have a partner that wouldn't do anything when someone swings a gun
around to shoot you)?
In short, though called by the same names and played by the same
actors, the characters are otherwise unrelated to those of season one.
There is no point to watching this season. Though I was soon bored, I
kept on because I figured there had to be some payoff somewhere. There
isn't.
The first season is stunning. The second, though uneven, is still
excellent.
The third, though, looks like some goof took the characters and wrote a
weak fan-fiction version.
The technique is still superb: There are marvelous touches, like when a
character gets shocking news there's no ominous theme music or
heavy-handed camerawork; it's just an ordinary afternoon.
It's just that the writing has fallen apart.
To the injury of wasted time and money, one writer adds insult,
literally: Wondering why the second season was inferior to the first, I
listened to the writer's commentary on an episode. She starts by
insulting the audience for having nothing better to do than listen to
her. It's not funny - it doesn't seem to be meant to be funny - and it
turns out to be a well-founded, as she has nothing interesting to say.
Might explain why the following season is so crappy. Everything is just
plot devices and recycled sitcom gags (e.g., bumping into the priest at
the video store).
I was curious enough about why this was so bad, when the first season
was so good, that I poked around on the Internet a bit. A lot of
comments were along the lines of will X and Y get back together? Will A
and B break up? Soap opera comments for a soap opera season.
There are people who liked season three; there are people who like soap
operas, and this season basically is one (centered around a funeral
home).
Read the episode guides. By the second episode of the first series, so
much had happened it felt like I'd been watching for at least a season
already. And although the second season faltered, with a lot more
filler, it still had a great deal to offer.
Had the entire third season been cut down to make up one episode, or
maximum two, it might have been good, but as it is, it's all just vague
filler, a waste of time and talent.
Anyone who likes Six Feet Under and hasn't yet watched beyond season
two would be well advised not to. Just pretend it ended at the end of
season two, maybe leaving some things unresolved, but that's just the
way it ended. Leave it there and appreciate it for what it was. Unless
you're a big fan of fan-fiction, there's no point in watching beyond
that.