Monday, November 26, 2012

why i love Homeland

1. this show is smart. i love a smart show. it doesn't dumb-down its content in a bid to appeal to the widest possible audience base. in fact, just the opposite: it's a wonderfully tricky and complex web that asks viewers to be smart, to pay attention, to play armchair spy. nothing is ever clear-cut or simple or so obvious as to make it almost insulting. in the making-of documentary included in the season one DVDs, the producers explain that they purposely wrote, shot and scored every single scene in the show so that it could be interpreted two ways: brody is guilty or brody is innocent. genius.

2. claire danes, as CIA operative carrie mathison, is fantastic. like, katey-sagal-as-gemma-teller, ass-kickingly good. having a strong female lead is one thing; having a strong female lead who isn't afraid to be unlikeable, unpleasant, volatile and unsympathetic on occasion, is another. carrie is terrifically flawed on so many levels and is, therefore, immensely watchable.

3. it is never, ever* boring. i never finished an episode and thought, "meh." my first thought was always: "OMG, are there enough hours left in the day to squeeze in one more episode???", followed fairly closely with "and do i have to get up to go to work in the morning?" i couldn't wait to find out what happened next, and i did a good job of keeping myself unspoiled (even though season one ended last year for the rest of the world). i'm fairly certain there was a chunk of the first-season finale during which my heart was pounding at twice its normal rate. [*except for the last 20 minutes or so of the season-one finale, which i thought were uncharacteristically uninteresting and which sort of undermined what came before.]

4. there's no such thing as "good guys" or "bad guys." the producers have done a fine job of fashioning every character with enough breadth and depth that their actions never unequivocally fall under "good" or "evil." that goes for terrorists and government officials alike -- no matter where you think your allegiances lie in any given moment, they might shift based on what happens in the next few scenes. and, no matter what you think you know about any given character, you're bound to be surprised by something unexpected down the line.

5. it's just really well-written and well-acted and well-produced. i have no idea what season two will hold, or whether it'll be a step up or down from what i just finished watching, but i can't imagine it being a disappointment. these folks (the writers, directors, producers and actors) are churning out some really amazing television, and i'm looking forward to diving in to the next chapter… right after i watch all of SoA season five. :-D

4 comments:

Lou said...

Yes to all that. I began watching during the first season and have said often that the adrenalin pump sometimes makes me afraid to watch. The best part, for me, is what you note about the blurring of villains and heroes. If fact, I'd like more blur. Carrie on!

vickie said...

*rimshot* for "carrie on!"

:-)

i think they've got just the right amount of blur -- any more and viewers would start to resent the lack of clarity, and it could look like the producers really don't know what the end game is.

cod said...

Damn, you should think about writing reviews!

;-)

I will add that to our Netflix queue.

vickie said...

oh, for sure ADD IT! :-D