The “Hung” Jury has returned its verdict. The new HBO series premiered on Sunday night (6/28) and it is neither an Updike-ian analysis of American society through the prism of a middle-class man with a humongous hard-on (Rabbit Re: Dicks?) as conjectured in Tube Stakes (6/25) nor, through a supporting character, a fantasy of female empowerment (Erin Cockovich?) as asserted by Alessandra Stanley in the 6/26 NY Times. It is, in fact, not much of anything.
At best, “Hung” is an attempt to exploit the economic securities of the moment for their entertainment value. See the hardworking, middle-class, middle-American white man live in a tent after his house burns down and he has no insurance. See his annoying neighbor, who lives in the McMansion next door. In terms of craft, they run afoul of the Mimetic Fallacy. How do you show someone who is stupid and dull without being stupid and dull? They also begin with the backstory, which one shouldn’t do – that’s why it’s called backstory. As for being a Madoff-era melodrama, they fall far short of what demagogic politicians and demi-brained talk show hosts do with the same material. Meanwhile, the Tube Stakes is running and “Hung,” an early favorite from HBO Farms is fading fast in the back stretch. It may not finish, much less in the money.
No comments:
Post a Comment