Poker Face

Surprised we didn't have a thread on this (unless the search is on the fritz?).

Finally started it last night. Not bad. Not blown away yet, either. I wonder if the central conceit can lead to many "aha" moments or not. Genuinely curious there. But I enjoyed the first episode and I'm curious to see how (if?) it develops.

I do like Lyonne's resume and its on my list.

For a moment there I thought you meant that guy:

__________________
Look, I'm not judging you - after all, I'm posting here myself, but maybe, just maybe, if you spent less time here and more time watching films, maybe, and I stress, maybe your taste would be of some value. Just a thought, ya know.

Yoda, I've seen all of season 1. How would you like to see it develop? What is it missing for you in Episode 1 that you're hoping might produce more aha moments as the show progresses? I might be able to offer a perspective of whether or not that happens or not.

Natasha Lyonne in her role as Charlie Cale puts me in mind of a cross between a female version of Peter Falk, and Janis Joplin. If her hair is not a wig, I feel sorry for her...

Yup. Lyonne has obviously studied Falk in his Columbo role. I was not a Columbo fan...

I think the inspirations for the Charlie character were "Columbo" and "Monk". Charlie shares the eccentricities and kind of oddball nature of Monk, and has the investigative skills and intellectual curiosity of Columbo. Additionally, although "Poker Face" is quite different in tone to "Columbo", which is much more of a straight drama, there are some other clear parallels. Firstly, the viewer is shown who the murderer is in advance, and the audience is often in possession of more information earlier than the person investigating the crime, and in both "Columbo" and "Poker Face" both characters are consistently underestimated and are much smarter than they initially appear to be, which lulls the murderer into a false sense of security. A major difference from "Columbo" is that the Charlie character often has direct knowledge of the person who was murdered, while "Columbo" never becomes part of the story and does not typically have any prior experience with the murder victim. He solves the crime purely through the application of his own detective skills.

Oh, I suppose a few things where she incorporates what she learned (or who she met) from/in previous episodes. She does seem to be amassing quite a collection of friends and favors and all that. Have to imagine that's by design.

But I like it fine as-is. I actually think too many shows are too heavily leaning into serialization for its own sake, thinking that's what's made so many great shows great, in and of itself.

Oh, not necessary, we're forging ahead regardless. About halfway through.

They are largely stand alone episodes. There are some continuing characters and stories, such as the people that she met in the first episode who remain looking for her, but that's largely on the periphery of the show rather than central to it. It's very much a case of the week format, until towards the end of the first season.

Makes sense. I'll be very surprised if they don't bring in those other characters more in season 2. Give us enough time to forget about a few of them until she calls in an FBI favor or whatever.

Person of Interest was a show that did that extremely well, started very episodic and became more serialized, and by season 3 and beyond it had a vast, interesting array of secondary and tertiary characters they could bring in and out. It was extremely well done and I'm getting the same vibe here.

If I like "Poker Face" and shows about criminal profiling and the solving of crimes like "Criminal Minds", "Castle", "Bones", etc. should I add "Person of Interest" to the rotation? Is it the kind of show that I might like that may share similarities with the above type of show? For those that are interested in checking this out, it appears to be available for free through Amazon's Freevee.

I adore it, so I might find it hard to give a personalized recommendation untainted by that. But yes, lots of great criminal profiling stuff, but in a way that breaks out of the usual formula. I don't wanna say too much because even the premise is great (and expands in interesting ways). Definitely worth a shot.

That's one of the reasons that I've never seen "Person of Interest". I've never really understood what the show is about, but it sounds like that's part of its appeal, that it doesn't fit neatly into a particular categorization. I'll give it a shot! Thanks for the recommendation.

As for "Poker Face", I like it, and I think the actress they chose was a very good fit for the character and brings the kind of quirkiness that would likely not be as easy to replicate with another actress. I don't really love it, since "Columbo" is one of my favorite shows, and to me, it doesn't compare particularly favorably to it, even though it was very clearly inspired by it. I do appreciate that it's not a remake of "Columbo" though, and that Rian Johnson is doing his own show rather than just trying to reboot "Columbo". Outside of financial motivations and connection to existing IP likely being more profitable due to a pre-existing fan base, I really don't understand why it is becoming so popular to reboot existing shows.

The most egregious example of this is HBO's "Perry Mason", which bears little to no relationship to the original show or the Perry Mason movies. It is so different in tone, feel, and content, and the character is so fully altered from Raymond Burr's portrayal, that they could have very easily used a different characters name and had it be a completely new show with no connection at all to the original Perry Mason.

I am really enjoying HBO's "Perry Mason" (currently in its second season). Clearly they have zero intention of working in the same style or even era as the most famous version of the character, Raymond Burr's 1957-1966/1985-1995 indelible portrayal. The original Perry Mason novels and the radio show were from the 1930s, and that is exactly where we find HBO's Mason who, when the series begins, is not even a lawyer but a low rent gumshoe.

This Perry is also psychologically and morally scarred from his service in World War I. This incredibly morally ambiguous character slowly but surely making turns to become more like the stalwart and steady Mason of Raymond Burr is an interesting ride. And of course being made in the 21st Century and for HBO there are no limits to how violence, sex, and race are examined. Think of how scandalous and "dirty" Otto Preminger's Anatomy of a Murder was considered by so many in 1959, the time when Burr's television Mason was flourishing! Now compare that to the dark depravity and cruelty depicted on HBO.

I really like HBO's "Mason" and hope they get at least a third season to bring these characters further into the righteous light from the very slimy darkness of this 1930s Los Angeles. It is also beautifully shot with excellent period detail and with a terrific cast.

But...to each their own.

__________________
"Film is a disease. When it infects your bloodstream it takes over as the number one hormone. It bosses the enzymes, directs the pineal gland, plays Iago to your psyche. As with heroin, the antidote to Film is more Film." - Frank Capra

Great post, Holden! They were clearly trying to do something different with the show, as you suggest, and I agree that they do it well, but kind of feel like, while the approach is interesting, this didn't need to be done as a Perry Mason vehicle. I've read a few of the novels as well when I was much younger, so let me know if you remember something differently, but the portrayal of the character in the novels is also very different from the depiction in the HBO show. I haven't gotten to the second season, since I was kind of turned off with the massive changes they've made to the character in Season 1, so I haven't seen him making turns to becoming closer to the original depiction. I think all the things you cite are true, but what I didn't like about the show. They've kind of turned a paragon of moral virtue and propriety who fights for justice for the wrongfully accused into a morally ambiguous and scarred private detective set in a very seedy, dark, and depraved setting, which is all quite different than any other iteration of the character that I have read or seen. I actually like Matthew Rhys, as I am a big fan of "The Americans", which is among the best spy shows that I have seen, along with "Homeland". I'm also a fan of Perry Mason and Raymond Burr's take on the character, so when I first heard of this new show, I was looking forward to it, and so I think that may have added to my disappointment seeing how different it was.

How you doing with "Poker Face" Yoda? Are your impressions still the same or has the show improved for you as you've seen it gel as the season has progressed?

I started watching "Person of Interest" and am 3 or 4 episodes in, but I'm finding it to be kind of difficult to follow, as the stories are complex. Is that the nature of the show, or does it get easier to follow as the show progresses?

Finished it up. I like it fine. I guess I'd like to see the world loop back on itself a bit more, and I feel like the "solutions" (so to speak) are just moderately interesting and clever. I haven't been blown away by any of them. But it's a really solid show, I enjoyed every single episode, and I'm genuinely impressed by their ability to make me care about the inciting murder each time. They manage to tell really compelling little mini stories in their own right, where in a lesser show those would feel obligatory, or drag, while you wait for the "real" show with Charlie to start.

This is surprising to hear, because my memory is that for the first several episodes it's basically a standard crime procedural. It's only later in the show that it becomes more serialized (and, frankly, a lot better as a result). Maybe I'm misunderstanding you, though, and you can elaborate on the complexity idea.

We watched 1 or 2 seasons, and thought it was an interesting idea, acting, and so forth. But IMO it got a little long in the tooth. Maybe that's why they added a character. I think Caviezel is a medium weight actor.