Recently the "New York Times" published a review of "Six Feet Under" that was so snide and dismissive that it came across as a vendetta. The writer disdained the concept, the writing, and -- most galling of all -- the entire cast.
What twaddle. "Six Feet Under" has tons of weaknesses. The direction's unsteady and the camerawork most of the time either too static or too damned artsy. And often the writing is obvious and annoying, in that hit-us-over-the-head-with-exposition-until-we-scream fashion that's so popular these days. But just as often the writing soars, and there's hardly an episode that doesn't move me to tears in a way that's entirely legitimate and gratifying. Most of all -- and here's where I think the "Times" critic is nuts -- I love the actors. Rachel Griffiths and Peter Krause are just about perfect, and Michael C. Hall (possibly *the* quintessential NY theatre guy) is surprising and appealing as the complex and not always admirable David.
Perfect show? No. But a good and worthy one.
What twaddle. "Six Feet Under" has tons of weaknesses. The direction's unsteady and the camerawork most of the time either too static or too damned artsy. And often the writing is obvious and annoying, in that hit-us-over-the-head-with-exposition-until-we-scream fashion that's so popular these days. But just as often the writing soars, and there's hardly an episode that doesn't move me to tears in a way that's entirely legitimate and gratifying. Most of all -- and here's where I think the "Times" critic is nuts -- I love the actors. Rachel Griffiths and Peter Krause are just about perfect, and Michael C. Hall (possibly *the* quintessential NY theatre guy) is surprising and appealing as the complex and not always admirable David.
Perfect show? No. But a good and worthy one.