A Review in Three Parts: The Good Doctor

To start- two tidbits of information. One: since I was a kid I have always been uncomfortable around people with disabilities, it doesn't much matter if they are on the spectrum or advanced physical disabilities. Two: I have always really, really enjoyed medical dramas.
I am unsure how unique either of these two things are.
I suspect liking medical dramas is not unique. God knows there's a lot of them.
I am completely clueless how other people emotionally respond to people with disabilities. It's not something I think people talk about. At a certain point we all learn the appropriate responses regarding touchy topics and after learning those responses so often we don't talk about them earnestly ever again. I have never expressed my knee jerk emotional response to what in the 90's we called encompassingly, and admittedly derogatorily, 'handicapped' people but I have always felt guilty about it.

Enter the cross roads of these two seemingly unrelated sentiments, 'The Good Doctor' a show about a young man on the spectrum, highly functioning autism, with some savant traits. I started it knowing that I was going to be uncomfortable, but pushed onward because I was not unsure that I wasn't supposed to be.


Style
I am not such an avid watcher of Television that I can name creators of a show just by looking at it. But about 3 episodes I was pretty sure I had seen this before... at least regarding the packaging. IMDB confirmed my suspicions.
So if you liked the medical drama 'House' about a perplexing, anti-hero-ish genius diagnostician played by Hugh Laurie, and I most certainly did, then you will probably see some elements that look familiar to that show.
The intro to the show seems so similar that it seems less of a rip off and more of an homage, though admittedly playing homage to another show you created is either inexplicably bizarre or delightfully narcissistic.
Beyond that the set up of the entire show is in fact very similar. There's a medical group of 3 students being lead by a gifted singular practitioner. Albeit in this manifestation the main character is not the leader, and they've done a much better job of injecting more people of color into the plot. Of our core foursome two are of African decent, one is Hispanic, and one White- our main character Shaun Murphy, though him being on the spectrum means that technically he's a minority representation of another sort. Sean's mentor/father figure is Jewish and his seeming opposition is African American.
If one can ignore the childish saber rattling of our closeted, and not so closeted, white supremacy society members I think it's praiseworthy to produce a show that is going to make us look at scenarios where all of our selfish preconceived ideas are not played to.
The style of the show- the cut of the shots, the feel of the rooms, and the progression of the plots feel very, very similar to the show 'House'. If I came across information that suggested certain episodes were abandoned plots for 'House' reworked for this show not one part of me would be surprised.
There's no judgement based in this assessment. It's neither good nor bad.
It must be noted that I think the show takes a few episodes to figure out what it is about.
In the first scenes of the show we see Shaun (Freddie Highmore) behave as some interesting mix between Genius, Socially dysfunction, and MacGyver.  Admittedly, this is the hook scene for the show. But this is not how Shaun will operate for the entirety of the series. The episodes are not dominated by Shaun triumphing where other non-autistic doctors fail.
And if for nothing else I would applaud the show for that. It doesn't become some indulgent propagandizing 45 minute hallmark show trying to convince you people with 'special needs' can do what 'normal' people can do, or better. It doesn't pander to people without disabilities so that we can see people on the spectrum succeed in some candy coated way and thus not feel anything at all, only be reaffirmed in our comfort. This is a real show. It has some complexity and Shaun's weaknesses are on display as often, and maybe more, than his exceptional genius moments. In truth, other than the occasional moments where Shaun is able to think spatially (which seems his real gift) in a way the other doctors don't think there are not a lot of moments hammering home why Shaun is so special.

Character
I can not speak to how original any of the characters are.
Shaun, with his high functioning autism, is at least an unfamiliar one.
There are so many characters on film these days that most of them seem to become generic forms of each other. But, what I will say is that the show does as good a job as any of making you feel invested in the characters. Though in general it feels like the males are better fleshed out though than the females. Beau Garrett's character, Jessica Preston, feels- at least in the first season- very much a cut out proto-type of the uberdriven, highly successful woman- born to money and cutting her teeth in a male dominated world: Tall, blond, thin, wearing her pencil skirt in every scene like knights wear their armor- as if we might forget what they, and she, were if they were not adorned as such.
Richard Schiff does a great job as Dr. Glassman somehow playing the same character he always seems to play but with enough depth to be almost a real person. Glassman's empathy, affection, and patience are endearing but his frustration, anger, and exasperated pettiness are what sell him. He feels like a person. A good person. Who still handles things poorly at times, can be prone to selfishness, or at times can not see beyond his own affections.
Neil Melendez, played by Nicholas Gonzalez, is the head of the surgical staff who, in the enjoyable TV faux-reality is specifically good at one type of surgery but does every surgery the plot comes across, who actually captains the plot despite the fact that Shaun is the main character. He plays different roles: lovable hard hearted boss, reserved voice of reason, and sometimes villain. Like the early plots who, or what, he is supposed to be seems to be in flux. Some things about him are aggravatingly unexplained- the neck tattoo- and other parts of him, his pursuit of head of surgery, seem out of sync with his personality.
But he too, like all the characters is fundamentally likable. And while there are perplexing or hard to watch scenes in the show, in that regards the show is very easy to watch- the people are all beautiful, and likable. But done in a way that's far far less obnoxious than Grey's Anatomy (which I enjoy though it is so ridiculous often it's hard to keep a straight face).

Warmth

The part of the show I like most is it decency.
If I had to pick what the show was about I would say its an outside looking in view of someone from outside of society's norms who is being brought into the norm, through education, mentor-ship, and experience but who is not asked (because it's not possible) to surrender those things that placed him outside of the normal in the first place.
All of the characters participate in this. And its endearing to see all the characters attempt to help Shaun, not in some heavy handed savior complex sort of way, but in a simple human way.
Shaun too brings something to the table, he is able- in a Forrest Gump sort of way- to often cut through the bullshit trappings of modern day life and speak to fundamental kindnesses that we often forget. Because of his autism Shaun can not easily empathize but he often cares and the expression of that caring manifests itself different because he does not have the 'Sorry for your loss'/ 'In Sympathy' card expressions of empathy that we all so generically employ.
The scene towards the end of the first season where Glassman tells Shaun that he loves him and Shaun, looking away- eye contact is something he can't really do in any situation,  his voice awkwardly devoid of the inflection we so often expect, replies 'I love you more'  and it carries with it more human emotion than I had felt in a cable TV show in a long time.
There I found myself crying, before of course per the usual social norms of our world- I laughed at myself, wiped away those tears, and called myself ridiculous.

So much on TV is darkness and vitriol. And I have to be honest more days than not I love it. I like how morally complex TV has become. But sometimes its relieving to see good people behave in good and decent ways- especially when it doesn't feel like spoon fed dogmatism or over indulged melodrama.


It won't change your life but it's definitely worth a weekend binge.

Grade: B

A Review in Three Parts: Fantastic Beasts the Crimes of Grindelwald

One always has to tread carefully when doing reviews of films or books or anything that have crazed fan bases. Every time I have ever discussed the quality of any of the Star Wars films I always open with the statement, 'Let's be honest, the Star Wars movies aren't good movies.' I gauge the response to this statement in order to tell whether or not the conversation is really even going to be worth having. The 'Harry Potter' movies aren't good movies either. They aren't meant to be, not in the sense that the Godfather and Casablanca are meant to be. They always pander to their viewers a little and always look to entertain more than they ever look to challenge.
And that's okay. Some days we go to the movie theatre looking for an escape to a magical world, our hearts aren't always up for the emotional challenge of something like 'Three Billboards Outside...'
So the challenge is always to find out on what terms to judge these films, and how to sort through our own expectations to get to what the film was.
Admittedly I have never read the Harry Potter books, though I have enjoyed the films and watched them repeatedly. In this regard I find them very similar to Star Wars for myself.

Characters:
I don't like Newt Scamander. I didn't like him very much in the first film. And while I can understand, and even applaud Mrs. Rowling's penchant for unlikely heroes, there was something just too jarring about the way he spoke and the incessant lack of eye contact in the first film for me to like him. They have toned down those two traits in this newer manifestation and his character is better for it. I should like Newt, I like very much the way he is handled. In literature I enjoy when elements of a character are revealed from a third party, I find it interesting and perhaps more sincere when outside characters make comments on a character. In this regard I should like Newt. But there is something to him that is so flat, he is not fleshed out. What do I know of him? Only that he is socially awkward.
Oh, and he likes Tina. Oh, and he likes his brother's fiancee. Who also might like him.
Hey now, this is interesting. I like where this is going! It's complex, dark, morally ambiguous. But all we get in the film is sideways glances at the issue. Fantasy works best when it is not fantastic, when it resonates with experiences with our real world. Conflicted, multiple affections is a very real thing. But rather than even giving it 5 mins of contemplation, its alluded to and then left dangling. Unaddressed and unexplored.
Again, so I have Newt and again I don't like him. Or maybe, I dislike him because other than his social awkwardness I don't know anything about him. He's just going around at Dumbledore's request.
If there's a highlight in the film it is Jude Law as Dumbledore. You can see in him the spectre of the Dumbledore we will later know and love, and yet with every smile and spoken word we see a man that makes us feel confidently that, as Kingsley once said, 'Dumbledore has style'. Here is a wizard in his prime- famous, knowing, confident, and charming.
His antithesis Johnny Depp is the only other intriguing character. Though he fails to really impress as well as Law. Here again I blame the script as Law and Depp are actors of similar quality. Despite Grindelwald's inclusion in a lion's share of the scenes we are left with the lingering concern... what the hell is he about? Another wizard who wants to rule the world? Is this the only conflict available in the Harry Potter world? What does he want that he does not already have? It ends up feeling either completely unexplained or trite.
The rest of the characters are a hodge-podge of placeholders. Even dynamic, endearing characters from the first film- I'm looking at you Jacob and Queenie- are recast here as flat images of themselves. That Queenie wants to marry Jacob is believable, that she might leave America to do so is too, but there's not build up to her switching sides. Oh, I guess I'll join this reknowned evil wizard... cause, well despite that he's completely for subjugating the non-wizarding world.... he'll let me marry Jacob? The reasoning is silly - which isn't inherently wrong, humans are unreasonable all the time but without some depiction of the whys then reason is the only assumptive tool we have and so it all falls short.
Oooh Nagini! I like it! An Easter Egg that's a real chracter... Nope. She feels included as a diversity check box, and while I'm all for diversity- if you're going to give her a character how about giving her some lines? What did the script say for her? Stand beside Credence. Look confused. But beautiful. Exotically Beautiful. But not exotically confused. The confusion should be familiar. Imagine yourself watching this movie. That level of confused.
Leta Lestrange seems similarly misused. Her character seems interesting, a good dose of dark and conflicted and she delivers the movies only truly memorable line 'Oh, Newt you've never met a monster you couldn't love'. But other that being gloomy and her dark glances at Newt, or Newt's brother, or both of them she feels completely unused.
In general, the female characters in this film feel like place holders or idle distractions- they barely do more than the CGI beasts themselves. My instinct is to jump to the conclusion that it is time to hand the reigns over to a woman so that we might get some more dynamic female characters but the truth is that all the characters are so flat that gender shortcomings are likely not to blame.
Movies like this live and die not by their dialogue or their plots even but by characters. And in a film where more than we want to know whats going to happen (hell, we know the outcome of the plot for all intents and purposes) what we want to do is love the characters and in this regard the film is an utter failure.

Plot
I imagine these plots are hard to write. You know where you have started and you know where you will end up and these films just end up being the stuff that happens inbetween. So... it should be fun and open and allow us to explore this magical world we have grown so fond of...
But there still needs to be a plot. And this movie is literally two scenes. I mean there are lots of scenes. Lots. But the plot only has two scenes.
Grindelwald escapes. Gindelwald has a meeting where people take sides.
Underneath that plot is a secondary plot that has something to do with that plot- who is Credence?
It is revealed. And once I thought about it I realized why it was important. And the reveal wasn't a wowing one, more that it made me stop and ponder my very limited genealogical understandings of this world. But emotionally it fell flat. Or didn't even do that. I missed the part in either of the films where I was supposed to care about who Credence was. Everyone is talking about it. But I never became invested in it.
I got to the end of the movie and I was completely unable to answer what CRIMES Grindelwald had even committed, and as that is the title I figure that's important. And as I was unable to say assuredly what they were, god forbid venture a guess at why he would have done them, I figure that's important too when stating the film's shortcomings.
All of the original Harry Potter movies, other than the Deathly Hollows pair- always made me laugh, had moments that I found resoundingly endearing -I'm looking at your Luna in your unexplained amazing Lion hat- that kept me emotionally invested even when I knew, even as a non-book-reader, where the plot was going. This movie has none of that and without it the boorishness of the plot real sticks with you.

The Wanting
I think there are a lot interesting parallels between Star Wars and Harry Potter. And perhaps I am more fond of Star Wars because I grew up with it (though from a technical point of view I think I believe the Harry Potter movies are better) but every time I see a Star Wars movie- even the flawed and unnecessary Han Solo stand alone flick- I find myself wanting more. The Star Wars universe always seems to have room in it for more stories, and each time I see a film I want to see another one. Especially as they venture into more adult driven movies, give me more Rogue One styled movies!
This movie left me completely uninterested in what happens next. I'm a character person, it's probably that.
Though it might also be that these movies occur almost entirely in the real world. It lacks the mystery, the charm, the mythology of the original movies. At this point I think I would rather hear some random story about someone from Hufflepuff than find out the conclusion of this series where it is obvious that Dumbledore triumphs and seemingly obvious that Newt and Tina end up together, which I imagine is a riveting, rewarding relationship... Tina shows affection, Newt stares at feet, Newt leaves and has a sincere moment with a six legged water antelope who is misunderstood due to the fact that it viciously eats it's own babies, its called a Saturn Stag (how does this species go on? All the babies erupt from the corpse once the parent dies).
If I heard that they weren't making any more of these movies I think I might, with some regret, be willing to concede that the original movies are enough.

Grade:
C-