Detectives and the Story

In watching a lot of British TV (Inspector Lewis, Wallander, Law & Order: UK) I realized that there are two main types of detective shows: those more concerned about the case and those more concerned about the effective of the case/work on the detective.  I prefer the first.

Let's take two excellent examples of their respective categories: Inspector Lewis and Wallander.  Inspector Lewis grew out of the long-running series of TV movies starring Inspector Morse.  Lewis was his Sergeant for all 33 movies and eventually moved over to his own series of which there are now 10.  Each one begins with a crime, which Lewis and his partner Hathaway eventually solve by the end of 90 minutes.  There is the steady accretion of detail from episode to episode so that you  progressively learn more about the characters and the toll/pleasure they derive from the work, but the solving the murder is paramount.


Wallander is a similar, British-made series starring the excellent Kenneth Branagh as Kurt Wallander a Swedish homicide detective.  It follows the same tried-and-true formula with a murder opening the episode and resolution concluding it.  However, the effect of the case of Wallander is the primary focus of the show.  For long stretches of the show the exact details of the case fade into the background as Wallaner struggles for sleep, nourishment, and any trace of human connection.  Of course the "irony" here is that Wallander suffers from an excess of empathy with the victims but is unable or unwilling to connect with his increasingly senile father or semi-estranged daughter.

To me, the beating a dead horse nature of the Wallander approach is less effective than the subtle explication of Inspector Lewis.  By focusing on the case itself, the moments of emotion in Inspector Lewis are more effective.  You can actually extrapolate this case to all shows, probably all narratives.  They either focus on plot or character.  Plot-centric uses the events to develop the characters and Character-centric uses the characters themselves to make us care about the plot.  I enjoyed House when it was about the week to week cases with characters in the background, now that they seemed more concerned with House's happiness and romance with Cuddy, I do not especially care.  The exception to my preference seems to be Walking Dead.  More anon.

Lovable Losers

I spent a good part of the day watching three TV shows: Rubicon, Mad Men, and Terriers. All 3 are low-rated cable shows and 2 of the 3 (Terriers and Rubicon) seemed destined for non-renewal. Still, this was not a wasted day. I love all 3 of the shows, and the common denominator seems that of the lovable loser.

This is the hero or anti-hero who stands for something. Who, in the words of Omar on the Wire, has a code. Both Terriers and Rubicon trace the stories of brilliant but flawed men who try to unravel a vast conspiracy, but ultimately fall short. Mad Men seems the exception, but it too is populated by flawed characters who beat back unsuccessfully against the winds.

The first I remember noting this theme, and admiring, was watching Cool Hand Luke as a kid. Here was a man who stood against the system for no good reason and was killed for it. In hindsight, the rebellion seems stupid (at least in Terriers and Rubicon there are motives to expose corruption and protect innocent lives) and the Christ imagery incredibly offensive and heavy-handed. Still, it made an impression on a kid and I've noticed my sympathy for noble failures ever since.