In a time when the television and movie saturation is so great in America that it feels as if every conceivable story has been told in one way or another, many writers or TV producers resort to telling the same story again and again, but with a twist. The twist can be a plot device, a setting, a new character archetype or, in the case of The Good Guys, it can be the lead actors, Bradley Whitford and Colin Hanks. And despite myself, I have to say that Whitford and Hanks might just be enough to elevate this dramedy above mediocrity.
Whitford plays Dan Stark, an 80s cop hero who relishes reliving his glory days, rehashing stories of his exploits with then-partner Frank Savage to anyone who will (sometimes unwillingly) listen. Jack Bailey, portrayed by Hanks, is the by-the-booker (book-er?), ostracized by many on the force for his razor-straight attitude (correcting his captain’s grammar; panning the “childlike” investigation of a now-cold case to his captain, who happened to be the investigating detective at the time). What creator Matt Nix has done is focused his attention on creating two starkly different characters who are, despite their differences, in exactly the same place, literally and figuratively. Stark only remains on the force because he saved the governor almost thirty years previously, according to Lieutenant Ruiz (Diana Maria Riva); Bailey is on the outs with everyone in the force for his geeky, passively smarter-than-thou demeanor. These are two alienated people, who do not cherish each other’s partnership—though it clearly bothers Bailey more than Stark—but who are stuck together, working the lowest of the investigations. Add to that Stark's eccentricities (his fear that computers might turn on people one day, for instance), and it's a regular Felix and Oscar scenario.
As I said, these stories have all been told before, but with shows like The Good Guys, the life or death of this series will lie not so much in the stories themselves, but in the characters, or more accurately, the actors’ portrayals of the characters. Since Orange County, Hanks has proved he can play the straight man while still effusing charm, likeability, and relatability. Whitford, best known for The West Wing, breathes life into Stark, right up to the absolutely superb mustache. And I do think that Whitford is up to playing the quirks and silliness inherent in a character like Stark—while I may be one of the only thirty or so people who watched it, I absolutely loved Whitford on Studio 60 on the Sunset Strip, where he imbued director Danny Tripp with the perfect mix of snarkiness and heart. If he can continue to make Stark likeable, half the battle’s won.
Still, I would be remiss if I didn’t point out just how far this show goes into cliché. Stark is supposed to be a cliché—not to be taken completely seriously—but some of the minor characters fell just too far across the line of obnoxiously melodramatic, to the point of cheesiness. I think mostly it was the drug dealer antagonist and his cousin who, due to the writing of their characters, became complete caricatures of actual bad guys. That being said, I don’t think it hurt the story as a whole (though it could easily become a chore), and I did like seeing Andrew Divoff, who played one-eyed Mikhael on Lost, as the world’s “second best” assassin.
I really think there could be a future for The Good Guys. With a bit tighter writing, and Hanks and Whitford performing at the level of the pilot, this show could go far. Though if we’ve learned anything in the last few years, it’s that even the best shows need an audience, and networks don’t seem to want to give them a chance to get one.
No comments:
Post a Comment