Why does Magic City not succeed where Mad Men does? I'm sure it is a question that Starz execs ask themselves every day while cursing AMC's name. They are both period pieces featuring good actors, star Jeffrey Dean Morgan is an always good and very frequently underrated actor and Danny Huston is pretty fantastic as
Anthony Bourdain the gangster Ben Diamond, that let us look into a better dressed and more booze-soaked era. Family drama often caused by an overbearing patriarch feature in both. As Mad Men is essentially an office drama, Magic City has much lusher settings. One could see that Starz was making a play for a similar audience, much in the way that Spartacus and Game of Thrones were shooting for similar audiences. So what went wrong? There are a couple of easy answers. Starz does not have Matthew Weiner and, in a similar vein, probably does not have as good of a writing staff. And it shows a little bit. Further, Starz does not have nearly as many subscribers as, say, HBO and thus has no hope of matching the possible eyes that could be on the screen. Starz doesn't have AMC's cache. That all makes sense. It is interesting, though, that the show is not getting any critical love. The writing is not bad by any means. Many of the settings are gorgeous. The acting can be quite good and, in particular, I think Danny Huston is fantastic in the show. He always seems on the edge of violence, smarmy and shark like, without really nearing a "jumping the shark" moment. The show throws in the obligatory historical references, a possible Jackie O visit, etc., but to no avail.
Don't get me wrong. I love Mad Men and Magic City is no Mad Men, but it is a show worth checking out at least. And maybe with some more critical love, more people would.
Image: Vanity Fair
No comments:
Post a Comment