Looking for MANHUNT: UNABOMBER

Article first published as TV Review: MANHUNT: UNABOMBER on Seat42F.

Discovery Channel’s newest series, MANHUNT: UNABOMBER, premieres this week. Unlike most of the programming on the network, this one is completely scripted, with a cast of familiar actors playing the roles of actual people, rather than interviews with experts and historians. I’m not sure why Discovery needs scripted shows, but given the focus on forensic linguistics, a practice largely dismissed at the time of the events depicted, this makes sense as the type of program that their core audience will likely be interested in.

Sam Worthington (Avatar, Clash of the Titans) stars as Jim ‘Fitz’ Fitzgerald, the FBI agent who gets inside the head of serial killer Ted Kaczynski (Paul Bettany, The Avengers movies) and brings him to justice. Fitz is a loner himself, smarter than most people, and he comes to understand Ted in a deep way that is, at times, disturbing. As Ted complains about how society is changing, Fitz can’t help but see his point, which does allow him to save lives, but screws up his own pretty completely in the process.

Worthington’s performance, full of complexity and nuance, is worthy of a feature film, and the style and tone of the program seems to bend that way as well. While watching the two-hour premiere, I couldn’t help but feel like I was at the theatre, similar as MANHUNT: UNABOMBER is to films in the genre. In fact, other than its clunky title, it seems like a pretty quality feature.

The supporting cast helps, too, with Keisha Castle-Hughes (Game of Thrones), Chris Noth (Sex and the City), Elizabeth Reaser (Twilight), Jeremy Bobb (The Knick), Brian F. O’Byrne (Aquarius), Mark Duplass (Togetherness), Brian D’Arcy James (Smash), Lynn Collins (John Carter), and Jane Lynch (Glee) making for a pretty formidable ensemble. And that’s not even a full roster.

But where MANHUNT: UNABOMBER suffers is where it differs most from a feature film: the running time. At eight hours, it is too long, telling a story that would have been hard to cram in two, but isn’t interesting enough for a full miniseries. Yes, I make that claim after having only watched twenty-five percent of it, but the amount of wasted screen time in those initial two hours is why I feel comfortable saying it.

A lot of time is given over to Fitz begging his bosses to let him use his talent, do his thing, and his bosses refusing him, telling him to just follow orders. Now, I like the point this makes, as Ted’s whole thing is about not being blindly obedient to the system. But it could have been told in one scene, not many. It started to feel pretty repetitive by the third time it happened. And it’s not like seeing it over and over built much suspense because, given the framework story, even those who didn’t follow the case as it was playing out know that eventually the higher ups will listen to Fitz.

I didn’t care for the framework story in general, either. Showing us what happened to Fitz later on, starting just before he goes to talk to Ted, who is awaiting trial, could be an interesting tale. But it’s a different tale than most of the rest of the episodes are telling. It gives away an ending unnecessarily, and is actually quite a bit less interesting than the investigation itself. Maybe it would have worked if it was saved for the conclusion, showing the arc of growth over time, rather than revealing it right away. But what’s here just doesn’t feel all that well planned out.

So, I like MANHUNT: UNABOMBER for its cast, performances, and style. But I probably won’t finish it because the pacing and story just doesn’t engage the way it should.

MANHUNT: UNABOMBER premieres this Tuesday at 9/8c on Discovery.

Take it EASY

Article first published as EASY Review on Seat42F.

NETFLIX is making your viewing decisions EASY this weekend (excuse the pun). It’s new eight-episode anthology series, EASY, which follows a diverse group of people in modern Chicago, dropped this morning. I’ve watched the first two half-hour installments, and my early impression is that it’s neat, authentic, well cast, and has something very relatable and very interesting to say.

The first episode is titled “The F**king Study,” which should tell you right away that the content is for mature audiences. Title stars aside, nudity and swearing are not bleeped in the show, though I will say the main characters are treated with dignity and realism, which means their bodies are only shown sparingly, not gratuitously. Usually, they are wearing something as they get it on.

Anyway, the plot of this first episode, to give you a taste of what EASY is, begins at a party where a study is being discussed. Apparently, it has been found that couples who stick to traditional gender norms have more and better sex. This greatly worries a husband (Michael Chernus, Orange Is the New Black) who stays home to write plays and take care of the kids. Although she plays it off, his wife (Elizabeth Reaser, Twilight), is also bothered, although she handles it differently.

What follows is a portrayal of two people who have been in a marriage a long time, do love each other, but aren’t sure what that means any more. We’ve seen couples struggle to maintain that intimacy and love before (HBO’s Togetherness springs to mind), and I won’t say EASY is entirely breaking new ground here. But what it does, it does very well. I fully believe these two actors, and can easily empathize with them, getting into their heads and understanding where they are coming from. Sure, it’s a bit depressing, especially for someone approaching who is that point in their own life (full disclosure: I am). However, as young people so often fail to understand, there’s no blueprint for any phase of life, and all we can do is figure it out as we go along, which is something that must be learned in of itself.

The second episode jumps to the very beginning of a relationship, as a woman (Kiersey Clemons, Transparent) questioning her sexuality (and everything else about herself) meets her “Vegan Cinderella” (Jacqueline Toboni, Grimm). It’s obviously quite a different take than the first episode, and yet it feels consistent in tone and style, even if the point of view shifts dramatically. Quality is maintained, and there are some fun little connections, the protagonist for installment two being the babysitter from episode one.

I’m not sure all the episodes will be so focused on love and sex, as the series description also mentions navigating technology and culture. In general, though, I think it’s safe to assume that it’s a brief circle through many perspectives, with an indie-movie feel and some genuine characters. Again, this is not a totally new concept, but it’s one that I dig when well executed, as it certainly is with EASY.

Television is entertainment, yes, but the best of it is meant to give us insight into our world and ourselves. That’s not as lofty a goal as it might sound, with the earliest examples of theatre seeking to do just that. EASY holds a mirror up, and maybe we don’t see our reflection every time, but it keeps turning that mirror until we do identify something looking back at us, or at a friend or family. It’s feel-good without being soapy, and drama without being dramatic. It’s comfortable, enjoyable, and I still come out of it feeling like I learned something about life. I can totally get behind this.

EASY is now available on Netflix streaming.

BONNIE AND CLYDE Lacks Pizzazz and Depth

Article first published as BONNIE AND CLYDE Lacks Pizzazz and Depth on TheTVKing.

Bonnie and Clyde, a four hour miniseries that aired on History and other networks this week, is a typical docudrama. It roughly tells the story of the titular outlaws, with a focus on Clyde a little before they met, through their tirade together, and ending in their deaths. Most people have heard of this terrible duo, and even if many are fuzzy on the details, the outcome is known ahead of time.

I wouldn't say I learned much from viewing Bonnie and Clyde. Normally, a docudrama will open my eyes to certain details and aspects, making it informative, as well as entertaining. This one does not. It skims over interesting people, like a female reporter named P.J. Lane (Elizabeth Reaser, The Good Wife) trying to make it in a man's industry, or a legendary hunter named Frank Hamer (William Hurt, Damages) brought in to catch the pair, without giving us anything memorable about them.

In fact, the entire production is light on depth. We are told that Clyde (Emile Hirsch, Milk) is a psychic, and it's hinted that he sees their end coming, but his feelings about this aren't explored, and we don't see any toll this might take on him. We can surmise that Bonnie (Holliday Grainger, The Borgias) is desperate for fame and wants her name remembered more than anything, including being with Clyde, but what does that do to their relationship?

Bonnie and Clyde is not without some character development for its leads. Viewers are able to figure out their dynamic, and the couple go through a rough patch or two. Yet, we are not taken into their heads. Plot points are brought up several times to make a point, but there is not the substance to them to really bite into.

I am unsure whether to blame the acting or not. One could argue that more subtle performances from Hirsch and Grainger, communicating the unwritten emotions in their expressions and movements, could have changed my impression of the piece. Yet, it's not like they are given a lot of time to do this. The pacing is quite quick, and while I wouldn't say there's a ton of action, it does seem like Bonnie and Clyde jumps from one little outing to the next with barely a pause to catch its breath and engage in character development.

Late in the show, a little of this missing element begins to come out. Clyde hates that Bonnie killed a father unnecessarily on Christmas, and the deed haunts them beyond the action. And her selfishness gets Clyde's brother, Buck (Lane Garrison, Prison Break), killed, which Clyde is angry about. But by then it's too little, too late, with the credits upon us and the relationship has to be solid again, so those things are swept past.

Perhaps this commentary reflects the life of the criminals as much as this particular telling of it. Maybe they whizzed by too fast to consider their actions or feel bad about them. But that's where creative license comes in. Bonnie and Clyde is not a compelling story the way it's presented here, and if changes need to be made to make it so, by all means, enact those changes.

I do enjoy Reaser and Hurt. It's clear that both are fantastic actors, even if their characters are under served. Hamer is basically interchangeable, any law enforcement officer would have caught the pair eventually, and Lane is more a stereotype than a developed individual, but the performers bring something on screen, as they always do, that draws one in. Holly Hunter (Saving Grace) also makes a mark as Bonnie's mom

However, other supporting players fare worse. Clyde's mother, Cummie (Dale Dickey, True Blood), gets a single, too brief, meaty scene. Father Henry (David Jensen, The Curious Case on Benjamin Button) has even less. Henry Methvin (Garrett Kruithof, Magic City) is pivotal to the ending, but not stand-out as a role. Most disappointing, audience don't get much chance to see if Sarah Hyland, who plays Buck's wife, Blanche, can do much more than she does on Modern Family.

Also, beginning Bonnie and Clyde at the end and flashing back is a mistake. I know it's a genre staple at this point, meant to hook in the watcher, but it's a tired trope that needs to be put down, and starts the show off on the wrong foot.

In the end, I feel like a really good miniseries about Bonnie and Clyde could be made, going by little bits that shine through, such as when Bonnie takes posed pictures and sends them to P.J., but this isn't it, not going far enough with what works, and overall being forgettable and mediocre.