Spontaneous Musings

Watched Revenge and Ringer again this week. And while it is unfair to compare them, it's difficult not to. Revenge is the episodic/serial combo that I think many Ringer fans were looking/hoping for and never got because Ringer is a straight up serial, complete with cliff-hanger plot twists. Revenge on the other hand is turning out to be in some respects an "anti-Fugitive set-up", although that's admittedly pushing it, since the character stays in the same place and does plan everything she is doing in detail, while the Fugitive was sort of unorganized and reacting to stuff. In other words, we have a "pro-active" protagonist for a change of pace, normally they are "re-active". So this is new. Also, Revenge couldn't be further from the "save one person each week" trope that the Fugitive started way back when. Revenge is more along the lines of the "destroy the rich wicked nit wit each week". Or as one friend likes to put it - exact "justice". Feels very Alexander Dumas to me, and the characters are as twisty as Dumas' were, also I think the writing is as clunky and cliche at times (admittedly not a fan of Alexander Dumas writing, just his plots - I think he overwrites (over-wrote?) or writes in flowery prose). Perhaps he's better in French? It could very well be the translation.

[ I've always wondered about translations...would I like Tolstoy better if I knew Russian? Or Garcia Marquez less if I understand Spanish? I know Voltaire's Candide and Georges Simenon's Maigret read differently in their native tongues, as did Le Petite Prince. Can the texture, the beauty, the meaning be lost in the translation? Makes me wish I had a facility for language - no one in my immediate family does, although we all did try really hard - Momster took four years of German, Popster - six of Russian, Kidbro - three of Spanish, and Me? Six of French. Of the four of us, only my father and I can read the language or do an occasional bit from it - but we're also the only ones who attempted and failed miserably at it in College. My inability to learn languages crushed all hope I had of becoming either a diplomat or a foreign correspondent. I guess I should count myself lucky that the language that I am somewhat proficient at is the international language of the moment - English. Sorry for the whiny tangent.]

Anyhow...Revenge starts out the same as Ringer did this week - with a mislead, that turns out to be dream. Revenge does this the correct way, while Ringer makes a complete mess of it. If you want to know how not to do a false dream sequence that starts out an episode - that's pretty much it.

Ringer - the dream is basically Andrew confronting Bridget!Siobhan with Bridget's bag and evidence that she's actually Bridget. Which would be fine - except it is out of the blue. And does not fit at all with the last episode. I thought, wait a minute, did I miss an episode? No, it's a dream that's the only explanation. And yep, sure enough, ghost Siobhan, drowned shows up and obviously it is one. Bridget!Siobhan wakes up screaming and I roll my eyes then giggle for five minutes at how incredibly bad it was verging on unintentional parody. Compare to Revenge - which also starts out this week's episode with a dream sequence, except it makes sense. Emily dreams that Victoria Grayson has figured out who she is and has shown up with a Swat team. The marketing people cleverly teased this bit in trailers - so we thought it would occur later in the episode and not be a dream. At first you aren't sure...it makes sense that Victoria could have figured it out - after all, we know she's hired someone to investigate Emily. But with the Swat team, no, most likely a dream, but you never know. Was relieved when she woke up. This time to Sam - the dog - scratching at her door. She thinks it is a burgular and pulls out her gun. (Hint at the murder that took place in the first episode - was it Emily's gun that did the deed?). This played well, provided just the right level of suspense followed by relief.

While Ringer is entertaining...it's terribly clunky writing wise, more so than well most of the new fall tv shows, which is saying something, I guess. The plot and story just don't quite work. I keep wanting to take the writers aside and gently slap them into shape - edit their story, fix things.

In this week's episode, Gemma overhears Bridget!Siobhan and Henry talking. Now, we aren't told how much she heard, but it is a good bet she heard enough to figure out there's something off about Siobhan. Also, Gemma found out in the same episode, not too long before this conversation that Siobhan has a twin sister named Bridget who is on the run from the FBI, and Siobhan claims visited her and left town - although the FBI isn't buying it. A twin that Gemma never knew existed. So, she overhears Henry tell Siobhan!Bridget or Siobet that he's upset that Siobhan no longer looks at him the way she did oh about a week or two ago, and now all of sudden she looks at Andrew that way. Granted she also hears about their affair and that he thinks Siobhan is pregnant with his kid, and Siobhan doesn't care about Gemma. But Siobhan insists this isn't true and wants him to just walk away. Which is a lot of information to digest all at once. Add to this - the writers choose to have Siobet eat meat, which Siobhan hasn't eaten in three years. And Gemma reacts to it.

So...you'd think Gemma would figure it out on her own - Bridget is playing Siobhan and Siobhan has taken off or is gone? Or at the very least they'd let Gemma figure it out? But nooo - instead, Gemma races off to leave, and Siobet hunts her down - running into the FBI guy again - who has somehow snuck into their exclusive and gated retreat out in the Hamptons - to confront her. Siobet manages to dissuade FBI guy, but not all that effectively - since in her frantic hunt for Gemma, she leaves her cell phone behind - which allows FBI guy to discover - whoa Siobet has been calling Bridget's sponsor Malcolm Ward. Siobet finally finds Gemma, and oh, maybe five - six feet away from FBI guy - blurts out to an angry and threatening Gemma, that she isn't Siobhan, she's Bridget! This, she blurts out to a woman she barely knows, and is threatening to tell Andrew about her affair and her lies (both of which she could actually cover fairly well, since Andrew is not really close friends of Gemma or trusts Gemma - as shown by prior episodes). Add to this - the fact that we've been told that Bridget is being careful about her identity and not wanting anyone to know. Her blurting this out to Gemma is so far out of character and so illogical, it's not even funny. And it was not necessary. It would have been far better and far easier to have Gemma figure it out on her own - they had laid the groundwork. Gemma isn't stupid. And it would have been more suspenseful and interesting. Doing it the other way - was melodramatic and showy. It did not work. And that's what is wrong with the writing in this thing - they go for the easy, they don't earn their moments. It's sloppy. I can write better than this, and so can 90% of my flist.

I'm sticking with the story, because I obviously like aspects of it. There is a lot of potential there. They just need to get better writers. For example, I find whatever Siobhan is up to in Paris, interesting. She's clearly going after her husband's company. Not quite sure why though. And I'm equally curious why she hates her sister, Bridget. I'm guessing there's more to that story than just Bridget's addiction. Siobhan - I'm still curious about. I'm also curious to see what Gemma does - I'm pretty sure she's going to try to blow Siobet out of the water - Gemma is a bit brassy. But not positive. Ringer isn't completely predictable, just sloppy and a bit soapy.

Switching to Revenge - the Momster and I are hooked. Granted it's far from perfect. We already tore apart last week's episode - there's a logic gap in the investigation in Emily Thorne in that episode that makes no sense to us. The investigator stated that he was able to get all this info on Emily Thorne but the period between 16-18, which was sealed by the juvenile court and they couldn't open. Okay, first off, she's changed her name - so the part about prison or juvenile record should be under Amanda Clark's name not Emily Thorne's. Second, why 16-18? Wouldn't it be 10-18? That's a weird time period. It makes no sense. How old is Emily Thorne, anyhow? She's apparently spent a lot of time planning this - as in years. Because as Emily Thorne - she managed to build a reputation as a wealthy volunteer and philanthropist, serving on various committees and as a volunteer for a politician's campaign. Also was on the Equestarian Team. That takes a lot of time, unless it was all fabricated, which it does not appear to be. So is she in her 30s or late/mid twenties? She's clearly not a teenager. Has to be late 20s, early 30s - to do all of that, and have the prison background. In some respects, I think this might have worked better if she were older - except then everyone else would have to be older too.

I'm loving the revenge of the week motif. This thing has apparently been set up as a sort of multi-part episodic serial. In that you have a character seeking vengeance or justice, each week they take down a different bad guy (sort of like Leverage but a lot more fun), building up to solving a central mystery. Through each episodic take-down you learn a bit more about the characters and why this is happening. So far that part is fairly well plotted. Has a few gaps here and there, but nothing major. It's also a nice subversion of the whole "save a person/redemptive arc" motif that we normally see in this particular trope. (Sign of the times?)

Characters? Nolan (the billionaire nerd who is clearly in love with Emily and aiding her) is rather fascinating. He's not at all what he seems. Actually none of the characters appear to be what they seem. Including the villianess - Victoria Grayson. The only character plot arc that does not work is the teen triangle. I keep wishing they would get rid of it. I can't stand those three characters. But Madeline Stowe's Victoria - the cold bitch, who may actually have a heart that she broke herself...is interesting. As is Emily Thorne - who may well be going down the same road as Victoria...whether she intends to or not. I see a definite "Heart of Darkness" theme emerging here. Revenge is very literary in some respects and I sense Philip Noyce's hand in the pot.

Emily's take down's are planned in detail and clearly months in advance. We are told, much like Leverage, after the fact, how she did it. We see the take-down from the pov of the victim, then we jump to Emily's point of view as to why, and then back to the victim's reaction, and finally Emily tells us and Nolan what happened to the victim, and we find out, through her conversation with Nolan how she accomplished it.

While far from perfect (please, this is ABC), it is better than most things I've seen on the broadcast networks of late. And highly entertaining. Not to mention the most innovative narrative style I've seen since maybe Lost. The Monster of the Week or Crime of the Week - is Emily's Justified Rich Victim of the Week. The mystery? How she pulls it off. The metaphor or theme - how this is effecting her, those around her, why she's doing it, and where it is leading. There's an odd cathartic thrill when Emily takes down her victims, even if you know she's chipping away at her own soul in the process. As her partner, Nolan, states : "You are beginning to scare me." Emily: "Good."