With a Metacritic score of 91, Showtime’s Homeland is by far the critical darling of the fall television season. In fact, it ranks as one of the biggest critical hits since the advent of Metacritic, good enough for 8th place all-time, putting it ahead of Louie‘s second season and Breaking Bad‘s third season, in my opinion two of the most impressive feats in the history of television.
We’ll see if that holds, and if the tension-packed initial narrative can eventually draw to a satisfying close. To be sure, Homeland is intriguing, nuanced and more promising than anything Showtime has done before. But I’ll be honest, I’m not getting it.
Okay, let me clarify: I get why the show is compelling. I get that it’s one of the most impressive new shows we’ve seen in a while. Homeland has absolutely entered my weekly viewing routine. Claire Danes plays the role of mentally unstable CIA analyst Carrie Mathison so well I forget it’s her, which is my amateurish benchmark for determining good acting. Damian Lewis plays rescued Marine POW/possible Al-Qaeda mole Nicholas Brody with taut energy and enough layers that it’s difficult to pin him down, but he gets the military ethos. Morenna Baccarin, who plays Brody’s wife, is pretty great.
But the further we get in the narrative, the more noticeable the cracks. There is something about Homeland that feels second-rate, and I find myself thinking the same thing over and over: HBO and AMC would not do things this way.
Let’s start with the opening title theme, because that’s a big deal to me. Homeland‘s is one of the worst I’ve seen. But you don’t have to take my word for it!
Guh. Between the shot of eyes, the kid in the maze with a lion mask, the trumpet bleats, and the upside-down clip of Barack Obama, it’s like a freshman film student’s initial forays into avant garde, only if the film student had no sense of hearing, was the most pretentious person in his class, and the film school was University of Phoenix. It’s absurdly heavy-handed. Here’s how my friend Tyler put it: “I feel like they’re trying to make sure we grasp the idea of terrorism and homeland security. We’re aware, Showtime. We’re all familiar with the concepts.”
It would be difficult to work through my other issues with the show without explaining substantial portions of the plot. For the most part, the dialogue and acting is solid, even in minor characters. I’m especially drawn to Mandy Patinkin’s role as a grizzled intelligence veteran, a role that sounds cliche and probably would be in the hands of a less dynamic character actor. But there are too many eye roll inducing moments to discount, the sort of moments that simply don’t happen on HBO unless Paz de la Huerta is involved. It’s too clear, at too many times, that Homeland is not produced by the network that brought us The Sopranos and The Wire, or Breaking Bad and Mad Men. It’s produced by the network that brought us Weeds and Dexter, two good shows that fall well short of great.
With Homeland, Showtime has its best show to move up the ladder. A score of 91 may be high, but I would definitely put the show in the mid-80s. Still, it’s startling to realize the gulf between good and great depends so heavily on small details, and to realize that gulf is still very wide.
This article appears in Oct 27 – Nov 2, 2011.
You are obviously just looking for hits so I’ll give you one.
Hmm, you don’t think the show is great but you won’t explain why. That’s lame. If you can’t give a legitimate argument then it’s hard to take your position seriously.
I don’t think it’s great either, but it has potential to be great. The writing and acting are vastly superior to anything I saw on The Walking Dead, Rubicon and The Killing. It’s also superior to a ton of one-season-only HBO dramas that have come and gone throughout the past decade.
Johh:
“Hmm, you don’t think the show is great but you won’t explain why. That’s lame.”
Well, I probably could’ve given it a better shot…it would just take a LOT of time explaining these really minor instances to people who’ve never watched the show, particularly on a blog where space is limited. In early drafts, I went through a few scenes in detail, but I cut it all because it was extremely tedious. A better writer might’ve gotten to the core of it, for sure.
“The writing and acting are vastly superior to anything I saw on The Walking Dead, Rubicon and The Killing.”
I agree.
“It’s also superior to a ton of one-season-only HBO dramas that have come and gone throughout the past decade.”
Which ‘ton of one-season-only’ HBO dramas are you talking about? “John from Cincinnati”? “Tell Me You Love Me”? I looked at the list of what HBO has aired in the past decade, and that’s all I could find. I’d hardly qualify that as a “ton”, though, particularly in light of their successes.
As for “potential to be great”, I agree, though history indicates great shows are pretty enthralling off the bat. Of the shows I’d consider “great” (Breaking Bad, The Wire, The Sopranos, Mad Men, Louie) I can’t think of a single scene in any of them where I thought “This is pretty half-ass”. MAYBE “Breaking Bad” had a few, but never due to writing.
An addendum to my last comment: Your point is very well taken on Rubicon, Walking Dead, and The Killing, all of which featured scenes I distinctly remember rolling my eyes at. So maybe I should’ve said, “This wouldn’t happen on HBO”, because I seriously can’t remember a time when it did…
…OH! WAIT! Any of the Anthony Bourdain written scenes in “Treme”. Those were pretty bad.
Anyway, my point is you’re right. Still wouldn’t give “Homeland” a 91, though. I’ll stick with the mid-80s.
Critics tend to overrate new shows with great potential. Boardwalk Empire and The Killing also had grades from Metacritic in or around the 90’s. Even from the beginning I didn’t consider either show to be anything noteworthy. At least Homeland is deserving of the gist of its praise.
Mad Men imo started off intriguing but not great. Its first few episodes were a bit shallow and listless, and the characters were archetypes. The Wire didn’t start off great either. Breaking Bad began with an enthralling pilot, but much of the rest of season one wasn’t that special. It was a bit one-note and overly dependent on Cranston’s performance. That show didn’t hit its stride until season two. Game of Thrones’ first few episode were dawdling and heavy in exposition. So yeah, it is rare for a drama to start off as strongly as Homeland.
I can understand the slight confusion over its acclaim, but if it doesn’t become what it has the potential to it will be called out by the masses, just like The Walking Dead and The Killing (which had its Metacritic score start out at 93 and then slip down to the lower 80’s as the season progressed).
Homeland isn’t as artfully done as many shows on HBO and AMC. It’s not as visually slick and showy, but I’ve enjoyed the hell out of these first four episodes. It’s had the strongest start of any drama I can think of. I’m seeing a confidence in the storytelling that has me convince that it will become something special. I’m prepared for it to be great or to fall off the rails or to simply not meet expectation. Either way, when it gets there most people and critics will have no issue pointing out its flaws or its genius. And of course, you or I have all right to disagree with the consensus.
Great catch on those old Metacritic scores. In the case of Boardwalk Empire and The Killing, I would’ve thought early raves were undeserved, too. Walking Dead had such a strong debut, but dropped off with each subsequent episode. Mad Men…it’s difficult for me to remember. I thought Game of Thrones started off with a bang, though.
I do have high hopes, especially with the end of the 4th episode. But even with the interesting turn, there was something about that last line that was way too on-the-nose. It was clear they were flirting, right? Why hammer it with the “second or third meeting” bit? A couple other issues I’ve had:
– Jessica and Mike having a conversation right outside the freaking church while Brody was talking to the head politician.
– Jessica and Mike touching frequently while lots and lots of people are around.
– That, in investigating one of the leads, the analysts didn’t pick-up on the fact the family had just recently purchased a house right under a flightpath.
– That characters’ interactions fluctuate so wildly, it seems inconsistent with the characters we know. It makes sense that Brody would be charming and would make a connection with Carrie, but I guess I don’t get why some of his charm wouldn’t have come out before.
– Probably my biggest eye-roll was reserved for the dialogue between Brody and his wife after the deer shooting incident:
Brody: “Hey, you alright?”
Jessica: “Yeah. Just watching the storm.”
Brody: “Oh yeah? Is it coming or going?”
Jessica: “Hard to tell.”
We get it, they’re talking about their relationship, or the show’s overall drama here, but geez. Does it look to either of you like a storm just passed over your house? Are there telltale signs, like, say, the ground being wet from rain. Or having heard a storm pass over your house?
So, again, there’s a ton of potential here, but I just don’t picture great showrunners or writing teams missing such glaringly bad interaction.
I did take issue with bit about the storm bit. That was the only “come on” moment for me thus far. I’m having more issues with some of the editing here and there than any of your other examples, but though they’re been iffy moments in the writing they’ve bee greatly outnumbered by the many tension-filled, perfectly executed moments. You can have some doubt while still giving a series time. No show is “the next great series” until it finishes its first season. The potential is there, it’s sharply executed and completely engaging. Right now it’s lacking some finesse. But I still believe it’s had the strongest start of any drama in recent years. Even if it doesn’t become more polished in its first season it’ll still likely end up being my second or third best show of the year if they keep delivering episodes of this quality.
As far as Game of Thrones goes, I thought the first few episodes had way too many “tell don’t show” moments, which may have been necessary to get the story started, but was distracting and too on-the-nose nonetheless. Even its supposedly best episode “Baelor” had a couple of those moments. Still a very good show, but I’m not willing to call it great yet. Though I have an open enough mind to think that might change with season two
First, thanks for stopping in and commenting. You’ve got some great insights, and it’s clear we’ve got similar tastes. I agree with you on “Homeland”, that we’ll need to wait and see, which is always tricky about television writing. I’m definitely excited about the show, I think it’s just that I have a tough time trusting Showtime.
Having just recently read through the first 4 books of the Song of Ice and Fire series, I’d say the adaptation was pretty impressive, particularly considering the sprawling nature of the books. I’ll be even more curious to see how they handle future seasons both from a special effects and larger scope perspective.
As far as why didn’t the govt. know that Faizal and his girlfriend had bought the house under the flightplan, well that’s because they didn’t get his name/picture and start following him until AFTER they had bought the house.
Also they paid for the house outright in cash, so no credit/bank trails. I believe the real estate agent even pointed out how it was rare that someone bought a house in cash.