Bates Motel

Discuss TV shows old and new.
Post Reply
Message
Author
User avatar
domino harvey
Dot Com Dom
Joined: Wed Jan 11, 2006 2:42 pm

Re: TV of 2013

#1 Post by domino harvey » Mon Oct 07, 2013 6:51 pm

Bates Motel is some piece of work. Trash TV at its most highly-pitched, this confused meld of a dozen different ideas transposes the prequel to 1960's Psycho into some weirdly defined present that appears to have been stocked by the wall of a TGI Friday's (Norman has an iPhone but his TV is some tube monstrosity from the fifties, the family fridge is some year-one post-icebox model, &c). The show is of course anchored around Vera Farmiga's histrionic playing-to-Jupiter perf as Norma Bates, and her name alone clues you into the level this show's operating on. Her frazzled, mooning facial tics and dog-whistle pitch of an emotional register slowly transform the show to meet her campy level and by the latter half of the ten episodes that make up the first season, the show's given up any auspices of being taken seriously, if it ever had any such desire in the first place! Freddie Highmore drops the conscious imitations of Anthony Perkins after a few episodes as well and becomes his own whiny mess, and then there's the half-brother, the assorted lawmen and, yes, of course Jere Burns shows up too because why not at this point? Special points awarded to Olivia Cooke's Emma, who is one of the most blatant Mary Sues to be attempted in modern popular culture for some time-- this perfect little creature, beautiful and quirky but gosh darn it just the right kind of quirky for us, the stupidest audience alive, is given a single not-flaw flaw in her Cystic Fibrosis, which almost never ever comes up and gives her some kooky but keut oxygen tubing in the bargain. It's symptomatic of the show's contempt for the viewer, as every character is either pitched to the Farmiga Zone or is penciled in with the thinnest of motivators. And beyond the characters, every narrative aspect and hint is explained to death, as compelling mysteries are swept away for dull ones as the series makes its turn halfway through towards... well, I don't think anyone involved has any idea what they're doing.

And yet... the show is perversely watchable, in a trainwreck, incredulous laughter-spurring, stunned disbelief fashion. This is the poster show for hate-watching. Farmiga is a riot, Cooke is cute, the show is well-shot, the locations are beautiful, and the attempts at world-building are so moronically misguided that in the absence of being able to give it one of those internet "You Tried" gold stars, you start to root for it. Just a little bit, and out of pity. My God, I'll be watching Season Two, won't I?

User avatar
Matt
Joined: Tue Nov 02, 2004 12:58 pm

Re: TV of 2013

#2 Post by Matt » Mon Oct 07, 2013 7:43 pm

I agree completely. It's a maddening show, but I kept coming back week after week (mainly for Farmiga and high-strung Highmore's performances).

User avatar
Andre Jurieu
Joined: Tue Nov 02, 2004 3:38 pm
Location: Back in Milan (Ind.)

Re: TV of 2013

#3 Post by Andre Jurieu » Tue Oct 08, 2013 11:28 am

domino harvey wrote:Bates Motel ... is the poster show for hate-watching.
The comments section of any review for The Newsroom would beg to differ.

User avatar
domino harvey
Dot Com Dom
Joined: Wed Jan 11, 2006 2:42 pm

Bates Motel

#4 Post by domino harvey » Tue Oct 08, 2013 12:30 pm

Too many people actually ended up liking it this season though

User avatar
colinr0380
Joined: Mon Nov 08, 2004 4:30 pm
Location: Chapel-en-le-Frith, Derbyshire, UK

Re: Bates Motel

#5 Post by colinr0380 » Tue Oct 08, 2013 2:34 pm

I refuse on principle to watch any Psycho prequel that doesn't feature Norman Bates recounting his childhood in flashback to a radio phone-in shrink played by CCH Pounder.

User avatar
domino harvey
Dot Com Dom
Joined: Wed Jan 11, 2006 2:42 pm

Re: Bates Motel

#6 Post by domino harvey » Mon Mar 03, 2014 4:04 pm

This hot mess is back on the air starting tonite

Post Reply