Kings: A Post-Mortem

As much as it pains me to write that title, it’s true. The best single season of a television series to come out of NBC since the first season of Heroes has come to an end. Kings, a modern adaptation of the story of King David in the books of Samuel and Chronicles, is no more, the series finale aired yesterday with more than a little air of shame from the network. Booted around the schedule like a football, originally intended for ERs vacated spot, was then put to Sundays, and after declining ratings shifted to Saturday before being unceremoniously dumped to the middle of summer. According to the executive producer and creator of the show, there was a significant divide between NBCs creative and marketing staffs, which apparently led to the disruptive scheduling and distinct lack of any advertising campaign.  While the show was arguably the best on NBCs lineup, and certainly the most creative, it is no more, with the chances of it being picked up by another network are slim to none. But one can hope, can one not?

Plot: The plot of the series, while obviously covering the King David story, was remarkably complex. It expanded on the story, filling in spots left untold in the biblical account. The main conflicts of the story, particularly the Gilboa-Gath conflict are left ambiguous, which in my opinion kind of hurt the show, and the focus on ending that war left a little to be desired. But the introduction of the William Cross character as a powerful industrialist who bankrolled Silas and the creation of Gilboa was well done, and provided a much more natural and believable source of conflict within the Court. That being said, the evil industrialist who wants war to continue to line his own pockets was a bit blah. That being said, the basics of the plot were strong and compelling, particularly the ways in which the conflict between Silas and David emerged.

Acting/Characters: This is where the writers got into the most trouble with me, particularly in the way they changed some of the elements of the story around. Some of it had to do with the fact that this was definitely a post-modern retelling (David’s dad is dead), but a couple places here and there were self-inflicted and totally avoidable. The first mistake, and in my opinion the most egregious, was the Samuel character. While it is clear that his character has vast influence over the population, it’s not entirely clear why or how he developed it, and to be frank why he deserves it. Until the last episode, Samuel sputters around looking lost in the drama with no real purpose within the plot and lacking the moral foundation that served the Biblical Samuel so well. Even with some of the other character changes that I didn’t like, but eventually made sense within the thematic context of the show, it just didn’t work, mostly because the scences in which Samuel’s humanity is revealed lack context. They almost redeem themselves though in the last episode with his impassioned prayer before he gets whacked, and if it was anyone but Samuel, it would have been genius, but it was Samuel, so it wasn’t.

Another character that rubbed me the wrong way was David, at least for the first 9 episodes until he finds out that Silas killed his daddy and goes all bitter on us. Much like Samuels, he just didn’t have much to do other than blow up the tank, rescue the prince and sit in Shiloh looking all angsty and awed at the big city. It wasn’t that his character was built as a pushover, the character was subsumed into the others, reacting only as the writers needed him to. The character, in short, had no agency, until late in the show. I think it suffered because of it, but I can at least understand why, given the early focus on Silas and the Royal Family. The writers redeemed themselves with David’s growth later in the season, but they shot themselves in the foot by sidelining arguably the central character in the story so early.

One change I didn’t have too much of a problem with, mostly because there wasn’t ultimately enough time to develop the relationship, was Jonathan’s portrayal. This is where the writers of the series editorialize the story the most, making Jack much more like his father. Now obviously, there were bound to be some “OMG JACK IS GAY!!1!11! HERESY!” reactions, I actually think it was handled extremely well within the thematic context of the show’s discussions on the nature of power and what men will sacrifice to obtain it. Jack is not gay because to show is trying to promote gay rights, but it flows naturally from what the show is trying to discuss regarding the nature of an absolute monarchy and what is required of that monarchy. Which is nice, still a little annoying considering the whole “Jonathan and David were gay!” school of thought, and thus a little excessively provocative. But really, what can you expect from NBC? On two side notes though, the moment during “Javelin” when Silas calls Jack a faggot was in my mind one of the most powerful moments on the show, and proof positive that a single well-aimed insult is more powerfull than a thousand f-bombs. Second, Jack’s punishment for trying to take Silas place was one of the most creative ways to create hell for a character than I’ve seen in a long time. Well done.

Now, enough with the negatives, on to the positives. First, Ian McShane is a genius, a brilliant actor playing a brilliantly written character. After watching this series, I wonder if it was originally written for Silas, because he was the star of the show, commanding every scene he was in with royal dignity. I’d have no problem believing that Ian McShane could actually be a king and pull it off extremely well. Silas’ descent into madness was brilliance, and he delivered dialogue that a lesser actor would make melodramatic with such flair and panache that I really believe that McShane actually talks like that. Simply brilliant.

Second, Susannah Thompson was brilliant as the complex Queen Rose. While her original characterization was that of a shallow figurehead, she is shortly revealed to be a cunning and ruthless public servant who would do (and does) anything to protect her family, the throne, and the nation. It’s remarkable how she manages to portray someone so continually on the edge yet with such poise and amorality. Another brilliant casting choice and well developed and well written character.

Thirdly, Brian Cox is amazing in his few short appearances as the former king of Shiloh, Vesper Abaddon. His first appearance is that of a insane tyrant rotting in Silas’ special dungeon, he become the devil on Silas shoulder, enjoying pushing him over the edge to the point where Silas with overthrow himself. But he is not without regrets, clearly demonstrating to David in the second-to-last episode, he delivers the line with clear regret and powerful emotion, “It is always better to be loved than feared.”

In the end, this series was almost too good to be true. Excellent production values, and a high level of Biblical knowledge and backstory development, continually remarkable writing, brilliant acting, a reasonably well-developed plot and amazing secondary characters  means this show goes with great sorrow from me.

~ by Mark on July 27, 2009.