Flounders On Film

I’ve recently finished the final episode of The Shield and I realised how rare it is far me to see a show (any show, not just ones as wonderful as this) from start to finish. I can list a good few that dropped by the wayside, through either my fault or theirs (The Practice, Nip/Tuck, The X-files), despite a good start to the love affair and countless more that didn’t even have a good start. I’ve recently blasted through a couple of great shows that were cut down in their prime (Arrested Development, Deadwood) and they didn’t get to tell their stories in full. Either way, the point is investing in a loved show over time often doesn’t reward the loyal viewer. Ask Seinfeld fans.   

Having time to fully reflect on The Shield 75-minute extravaganza, I can honestly say it’s the best, most satisfying and complete finish to a series I’ve personally experienced. Seven years and 88 episodes is a lot to condense into a finale, but the strength of the Shield is that every that happened since that opening episode felt like it was a result, a consequence and an escalation of that. Yes, we had a Glenn Close season and a Forest Whitaker season, but other than that, it was one of the hardest shows on TV to pin to a season if you saw an episode out of context. The entire events of the show were meant to have taken place within the space of about 3 years.

What this meant was that the characters who had started the show all those years ago finished it too. We took the journey with them and their victories and defeats, compromises and terrible decisions, were all the sweeter because of the time we had spent in their company. Compare and contrast with NYPD Blue, which by the time of season 12, had surrounded Andy Sipowicz with a gang of newbies, no-marks and whats-his-names. It was no wonder that the finale did not have a real impact, what with all the tearful goodbyes and good wishes being given and received by characters who’d only been around two minutes in the scheme of things. I should point out that I only joined Blue around season 5, but screw it, I was still a fan for a good long while.  

A similar problem of cast changes affected The West Wing, although not to the same extent at all. By the end of season 7, the cast was vast (yes, it rhymes) and while it was still a very, very good show at this stage, it wasn’t the stomach-ache-inducing genius of those first four years. Genius is an overused word (especially on my part), but in television I would unhesitatingly put forward the names of Aaron Sorkin and David Chase. Anyway, the gang which began The West Wing (and was the real thrust of the show) by the end of the series were all either awaiting prison, retired, unemployed or working for the new President. It wasn’t a terrible ending by any means, and “The Last Hurrah” and “Institutional Memory” are two of my favourite episodes of ‘Wing’. It’s just that the finale “Tomorrow” seemed to be 45 minutes of people saying goodbye to one another. It might well have reflected the downbeat mood of a presidential transition, but I refuse to believe Sorkin would have ended the show this way. There would have been a mood of victory, a celebration of the Bartlet years and all that was still to come. I guess, really, I wanted (and still want) a conclusion to the early years and what I got was a conclusion to the later years.

And then we come to the Sopranos – the most debated finale on TV ever (?) and the final part of my ‘trinity’ (as I like to call it), alongside The Shield and The West Wing. Suffice to say, it was a fantastic episode of television to rank by all the other fantastic episodes they gave us over the years. But…      

…they’ll always be a “but”, because of that cut-to-black. Always a question mark. Was it great? Was it a cheat? Do you love it? Do you hate it? Do you only think you love it because you’re a Sopranos fan and you’d eat their shit off cream crackers if that’s what they asked you to do?

There’s no real answer, but my view is that endings can become too important to people and too over-analysed in regard to TV and books and films. Yes, I know I’m writing about them, but bear with me. When I think of The Sopranos I think of Richie Aprille and Ralph Cifarretto and banging Russian hookers and hanging out in the Bing. Those few seconds of “what the…?” can’t cancel out years of wonderful entertainment. What were the other seasons? Filler before the finale? And the way my heart raced and my knuckles whitened as the family sat in the diner listening to Journey while Meadow attempted to parallel park was reward enough. How many shows can make you feel like that? And isn’t that why we watch TV; to be transported utterly and have our thoughts and feelings expertly manipulated to either comedy or tragedy?

The Shield had a wonderful finale and for that I’ll always be grateful. A fantastic end to a fantastic story, told with verve and passion. However, the real deal is the journey we took with those characters and the fun and tears we had along the way. Yeah, we’ll never get to hang out in the Barn again, but wasn’t it great while it lasted? The Shield ended as it began, which for me was many years ago on a little portable in my old box-room, late at night on channel 5 when I knew I’d found something special.

I, for one, hope that Heath Ledger is nominated for and wins the Oscar for Best Supporting Actor next March. He’s been nommed for the Golden Globe and that’s a step in the right direction, but the Globes are generally more populist and eager to notice things beyond the usual award fodder. Now it’s easy to be snobbish and claim that this is a superhero film, a blockbuster, not a ‘proper’ film, but let’s look deeper.

For a start, what is a ‘proper’ film? Can only ‘Schindler’s List’ or ‘The Piano’, etc, qualify as being worthy of being awarded trophies for achievement in movie-making? The Dark Knight can stand next to virtually any film as an outstanding example of writing, directing and acting, not to mention the more technical aspects which action films generally have to excel at. Ledger is monumental here, a towering performance which could be the breakthrough that comic-book films need to be ‘legitimised’. Look back to last year. Javier Bardem won the supporting award for ‘No Country for Old Men’, playing a psychopathic killer on a rampage, with no conscience, doubt or mercy. Sound familiar? Ah, but you can win awards if you star in a Coen Brothers film. They are legitimate. They are award-worthy. I, personally, don’t think ‘No Country…’ has a particular message, a meaning or a point to it all. I have no idea what it’s about; it’s just a cracking good story and I respond to it. Arguably, the Dark Knight has more to say about the world we live in and the debate about how to fight terrorism/anti-social elements/scum, without losing your soul/decency and all that is worthwhile about the society you are trying to protect. How do you stop someone who isn’t afraid of death and just wants to destroy peace and stability?

Spiderman and X-Men (and their superior part 2’s), followed by Batman Begins and now Iron Man have lead the charge of comic books becoming the predominant action blockbusters of the decade only because they are good. If the 80s was the ‘one-man army’ decade (Arnie, Sly, Bruce) and the 90s were all disaster films (Independence Day, Armageddon, Godzilla), the 00’s surely belong to the comic books. This is largely because they have been given to great directors with passion and ideas who have cast good actors (i.e. not Vin Diesel) and they have blown away the competition. Yes, there are still weak superhero films and they are definitely weak blockbusters released every year (so-called event movies, which are no longer really events and are forgotten so soon – I am Legend, The Day After Tomorrow, The Mummy films and anything starring The Rock can all stand up – God knows what else I’ve forgotten; I guess that’s the point). The Dark Knight is merely the pinnacle of these films so far and I pity anyone trying to follow it.

Titanic and Lord of the Rings managed to be both massive box office hits and massive Oscar winners. So did The Silence of the Lambs. The Godfather was the biggest box office hit of all-time (at the time) before it was an Oscar-plated classic. The Fugitive was nominated for Best Picture and it’s a classic Hollywood action thriller.

These are the exceptions. Hollywood, bizarrely, would often choose to ignore its own kind and reward the tiny indie film with a message and only 11 viewers. If that happens to be the best movie of the year, so be it, God bless. But sometimes, just sometimes, the biopic of the black musician who has struggled against oppression and disadvantage might be quite a straightforward, unexceptional example of movie-making and the man with the cape and rubber mask might be starring in the best, most visceral, exciting and thought-provoking thing out there.

I don’t expect a Best Picture nomination, or Best Director (richly deserved though they would be), and things won’t change overnight. Forrest Gump beats Pulp Fiction after all. And why is that exactly? Is Gump more ‘important’ because it mentions Vietnam and Watergate? It isn’t saying anything about those things, or saying much about anything at all really, anymore than Pulp Fiction is really ‘about’ anything. Few would argue now that Gump is the better film. Pulp Fiction may be style over substance, but my god, what style. And sometimes style, on its own, is enough. Or at least it should be every once in a while.

If Ledger does win, the debate will continue. Snobs will say it makes a mockery of awards for excellence in film to reward a comic book movie. Some will say it’s only because he died so young and so tragically. But let’s forget that for one moment and just appreciate a wonderful performance by an exceptional actor. Truly the ‘best performance by an actor in a supporting role’ this year. And, do you wanna know where he got those scars…?