Due South season 3
Feb. 5th, 2008 11:07 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
bookzombieWe've started watching the DVDs of Season 3 (note for our US friends: what was shown as season 3 and 4 in the US was shown as season 3 over here) of Due South in the last week or so, I think we've got up to about episode 9 or 10.
But I'm not enjoying it as much as I enjoyed the previous seasons.
But I'm not enjoying it as much as I enjoyed the previous seasons.
Just to get the obvious out of the way: no, this is not because of the new Ray. Callum Keith Rennie is an actor I've always liked.
My problem is that it is that, with a couple of exceptions, it is much more broadly comical than the earlier series. There were always comical moments of course, more often than not rising out of Fraser's interpretation of the world, and it often had surreal elements. But there was always a strong backbone of drama to support it.
But season 3 seems happy to throw much of that backbone out. Take for example the last episode we saw (title escapes me): a body is found in the drywall of one of the cells in the station house. The result is a knockabout 'Weekend at Bernies'-style comedy as, helped by a stereotyped black minor criminal, Ray and Fraser try to stop the body being discovered while they find out how he was killed.
There are two problems with this for me:
1. The dramatic set up is that the body is of a crook who was beaten by the original Ray after he attempted to rape Fransesca, Ray's sister. If the body is discovered then it is likely that Ray's cover will eventually be blown. This is a serious story (attempted rape for goodness sake and possible revenge killing) which shouldn't be used as the excuse for such stupid comedy.
2. Fraser doesn't act like Fraser. In the previous seasons he would have insisted that the body be revealed. At the very least he would have removed himself from being involved in the hiding of the body. Remember this is a character whose behaviour is predicated on always doing the right thing, however inconvenient.
My theory, for what it is worth, is that it is down to Paul Haggis no longer being involved in the running of the show (judging from the credits not even in an executive role) and the increased involvement of Paul Gross as both an executive and writer for the show. I suspect that Haggis saw it is a drama with comical elements, whereas Gross saw it as a comedy first and foremost. I could be completely wrong, of course...!
In fairness there are some good dramatic episodes ('I Could Have Been a Defendent') for example, and some fairly comical episodes that actually work well (the multi-viewpoint 'Seeing is Believing' which actually tells you something about the characters) but the comedy just tips over the balance into 'too much' for me.
My problem is that it is that, with a couple of exceptions, it is much more broadly comical than the earlier series. There were always comical moments of course, more often than not rising out of Fraser's interpretation of the world, and it often had surreal elements. But there was always a strong backbone of drama to support it.
But season 3 seems happy to throw much of that backbone out. Take for example the last episode we saw (title escapes me): a body is found in the drywall of one of the cells in the station house. The result is a knockabout 'Weekend at Bernies'-style comedy as, helped by a stereotyped black minor criminal, Ray and Fraser try to stop the body being discovered while they find out how he was killed.
There are two problems with this for me:
1. The dramatic set up is that the body is of a crook who was beaten by the original Ray after he attempted to rape Fransesca, Ray's sister. If the body is discovered then it is likely that Ray's cover will eventually be blown. This is a serious story (attempted rape for goodness sake and possible revenge killing) which shouldn't be used as the excuse for such stupid comedy.
2. Fraser doesn't act like Fraser. In the previous seasons he would have insisted that the body be revealed. At the very least he would have removed himself from being involved in the hiding of the body. Remember this is a character whose behaviour is predicated on always doing the right thing, however inconvenient.
My theory, for what it is worth, is that it is down to Paul Haggis no longer being involved in the running of the show (judging from the credits not even in an executive role) and the increased involvement of Paul Gross as both an executive and writer for the show. I suspect that Haggis saw it is a drama with comical elements, whereas Gross saw it as a comedy first and foremost. I could be completely wrong, of course...!
In fairness there are some good dramatic episodes ('I Could Have Been a Defendent') for example, and some fairly comical episodes that actually work well (the multi-viewpoint 'Seeing is Believing' which actually tells you something about the characters) but the comedy just tips over the balance into 'too much' for me.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
(no subject)
Date: 2008-02-05 01:38 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2008-02-05 05:51 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2008-02-05 05:15 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2008-02-05 05:51 pm (UTC)