Sorry about the long delay in written posts. I’ve been heavily preoccupied with my other writing outlet, playwriting. Not to mention that movie theaters haven’t been open. Argh, I’m SO FREAKING JEALOUS that states all over the country have movie theaters open starting today and CA has no date for that.
Nonetheless, there’s been a plethora of content on the small screen. Early during the pandemic I finally watched all of The Americans. Along the way I learned about the new series based on iconic character Perry Mason.
Such a thing seemed perfect for my blog, and although it was a bit of Matthew Rhys overload watching the two series one after another, I immediately fell in love with this new serial. I was actually a little annoyed that they did it the old school way, showing one episode a week, when I desperately wanted to see everything as soon as possible, LOL.
I started watching shortly before episode five aired and for three weeks Perry Mason was one of the highlights of my week. Perry Mason is a character who’s famously enigmatic; other than his being an astonishingly brilliant attorney with ice in his veins, little is known about him.
This miniseries took an interesting approach by essentially giving us Perry Mason: Year One. It almost feels like a cliché to show someone highly renowned struggling with the mess that is his life in his early days, but that doesn’t mean it can’t still be compelling.
Rhys gives a terrific performance showing Mason as a low-grade private eye, taking tabloid photos to make ends meet via blackmail – and sometimes not even succeeding there.
There’s a character clearly based on this guy.
When his much more successful and respected associate, lawyer E.B. Jonathan, gets involved with a sensational case concerning a baby possibly kidnapped and killed by its own parent, Mason ends up doing rogue detective work to try and help Jonathan and Jonathan’s hard-working, more-than-an-assistant Della Street.
The media and the general public are quick to try and crucify the baby’s mother, because Emily was shown to be having an affair. In the early 1930s, when the series is set, the biggest sin a woman could commit was not being a perfect wife and mother. Of course, more than a century later, a great deal has…NOT CHANGED!
Anyway, was Emily responsible for what happened to little Matthew? Or did something else happen? Figuring out the something else is an incredibly complex, gripping journey, just like in every episode of the TV show. Except increased by nearly a magnitude, as we have seven fantastic episodes devoted to the same story instead of just one.
Notice I said seven instead of eight though? And how I earlier said the week episode five aired was the first of only three weeks this show was one of the highlights?
Obviously I didn’t care for the finale. I didn’t hate it enough to pull the “if you care at all about my opinion you’re not gonna watch it anyway” card so I will include spoiler tags. What comes after them won’t be positive though.
<SPOILERS\>
WTF? We’ve been sitting through seven hours, watching Perry and his cohorts dig through so much minutiae and actually piece together the incredible maze of crime and corruption that led to the baby dead and his mother unjustly on the stand. Although it seemed awfully fast when the last episode started off with the main perpetrator already on the witness stand getting grilled by Mason, it was still exciting – until we suddenly get a reveal that is essentially “that was a dream”. Actually, worse – it’s “that was a dream that can never come true”, as Hamilton points out that nobody confesses on the witness stand. That seriously seemed like a giant FU to the original series, and the whole concept of Perry Mason!
I was still looking forward to seeing how he was going to pull this off, expecting something ingenious, but instead we just got Perry simply telling the jury tearfully, “We don’t have any proof that this woman did anything but have an affair. Let’s not punish her simply because we desire vengeance for the baby.” What was the point in everything we just saw then? Perry could have just sat on his hapless ass, let the DA present all the evidence he had, and then muttered, “Uh, that still doesn’t prove Emily was involved with the kidnapping and murder.”
His attempt at a closing statement led to three jurors voting for acquittal, and thus a hung jury. Boo-yeah?
Oh, I should mention the confidence in Perry’s getting an acquittal was so low that one of those jurors was actually bribed.
So we have a mistrial but the DA says the case will be tried again. By the end of the episode, though, people are referring to Emily being as good as free, so I guess that’s not an issue anymore? I presume it’s because Hamilton is now the DA and he knows Emily’s innocent, but considering this is what their happy ending hinges on I wish the writers had made it more clear. We also get what feels like a cheat, where the main mastermind behind the whole ordeal gets killed by his cohorts. Apparently the writers felt a Perry Mason who could actually take down the corrupt system would be unrealistic in this day and age (despite how long ago this series is set) but still made a lame attempt to send the viewers home happy. The church, who is as guilty as that cop, continues with business as usual. They seem to even gain business thanks to the resurrection stunt they pull.
Perhaps there’s some hope for the future, since at the end, besides the seemingly non-corrupt Hamilton becoming DA, determined Della is about to become a lawyer herself and strongly moral Paul Drake has quit the police force to work for Mason. Still, the title character continued to disappoint me.
If he’s not going to actually get an acquittal or expose any of the criminals in this case, AT LEAST have him gain motivation from the experience and make it his goal to bring as many perpetrators to justice as possible and gain a steely resolve. Instead, we get Perry simply whining about how he figured everything out but couldn’t prove it, while the Sister Alice character, whom I thought would be a whistleblower for the church but ends up being COMPLETELY POINTLESS, gives him some pretentious monologue about how life isn’t always fair and people at the bottom of the barrel like the two of them shouldn’t care. Seems like the writers were attempting to give us something profoundly nihilistic but instead it was just dumb. Finally, we get Perry blowing a piece of evidence from the dead baby into the ocean, apparently saying, “I failed. Oh well.”
</SPOILERS>
The showrunners have said that they didn’t want to simply recreate the old Perry Mason, when that’s been done. I appreciate the sentiment, but if this is essentially a brand new character why should I care about him? All we see is some slovenly guy getting thrust into a lawyer role he’s unprepared for, working incredibly hard to get justice, and essentially failing. Is that the sort of person I’m supposed to want to watch for another season?
Perhaps the second season this show has already been renewed for will be better, what with Della being co-counsel, Paul working for them, and trustworthy Hamilton as the opposition. After all the hours I wasted on the first season though, I feel betrayed. Even though it deserves props for diversity (Paul is black, Hamilton is gay, Della is a lesbian and a career woman), I don’t think I’ll give this show another chance. Too much great television out there, including mystery/thrillers. When’s Fargo Season Four coming out?
Bottom line: No.
Up Next: The original series.
%
Recent Comments