Skip navigation.

My own self

Loki's sensible nonsense of nonsensical sense

Brotherhood - the full series

, ,

I was going to entitle this post "Brotherhood, season 1-3", but as of yesterday, the show has officially not been renewed for a fourth season. What there is, then, is what you get. But what there is is worth getting. Come one, come all, as I pull my weblog-act together enough to post a review of Showtime's late Brotherhood.

Michael Caffee to his younger brother, after returning home after seven years: You're pissed at me.
Tommy Caffee: How can I be pissed? You're the prodigal son. You know, if Ma could, she'd kill every fatted calf in New England.
Michael: Ooh, you're wicked pissed.



As this quote shows, Brotherhood tells the tale of how a prodigal son returns to his family after seven years, and how he and his younger brother deal with their newfound co-existence in a fictional district of Rhode Island. Michael, a member of some standing in the local Irish Mob, and Tommy, a promising and popular politician in the State House of Representatives. The shows deals with how Tommy is torn between his career, wife and children and his love for his brother; a huge political liability to say the least. Simultaneously, it portrays Michael's re-integration into a criminal environment he had to flee seven years prior. They each have their issues, and they each have their values, and maybe most importantly, they both dearly love their little district. Michael sets out to use his shaky standing in the local mob to perform crimes he thinks will improve the neighborhood for the elderly and the children, while Tommy spends his days at the Rhode Island House of Representatives fighting hard to keep his district from being mowed over by the richer and more influential ones. The contrast between each characters intentions and morality and their actions and decisions are marvellously portrayed, and the show's by far strongest point.

The first show that springs to mind when one first checks out Brotherhood is indubitably The Sopranos, and this is likely not coincidental. But where the previous attempts I've seen from Showtime at making shows that pick up the torch from the critically acclaimed, dark and complex HBO-hits usually fall somewhat short, Brotherhood remains standing. No, it's no Sopranos, but it is darned good nonetheless. If you take out the psychological angle of The Sopranos, stir in the political aspects of the later seasons of The Wire, and adds a focus of two prominent main characters instead of just one or an entire ensemble, you'll get something that resembles Brotherhood pretty closely. Not quite measuring up to neither the potency of Sopranos nor the brilliance of Wire, Brotherhood is nevertheless a show that captures the same general feel of reality and quality hand in hand. Considering its inevitable comparisons to The Sopranos, Brotherhood makes the remarkable feat of not simply withering away in shame. This is a solid, well-made show that deserves a chance based on its own merits.

Brotherhood, importantly, have several interesting characters. Both the brothers are highly engaging, beautifully portrayed by Jason Isaacs and Jason Clarke, but many supporting characters shine as well. In particular I should mention Kevin Chapman's slick mob boss, Ethan Embry's morally ravaged detective, and Stivi Paskoski's drug-addict mob enforcer with a heart of gold. But the jewels here are many, and I only stop at three names to keep the review from becoming a gush-fest of characters and actors.

I mentioned The Wire, and thematically, Brotherhood is a close fit. Where the former looked at city corruption through the different layers of the city itself, Brotherhood looks at what it does to families, and in particular the family of the main characters. In my opinion, it does a grand job at it.

Also a mention here should go to the interesting use of episode titles. The first season's episodes are entirely named after passages in religious texts, particularly the Bible. It is thus up to the viewer to go and actually look them up - or at least read it where it has been copied down on the handy Wikipedia episode list. The second follows up by similarly referencing Bob Dylan lyrics. And in the third season, the episode titles are, to a one, Shakespeare-quotes. To me, this was highly interesting, and so I found I should make a note of it in this review.

The third and final season ends on a lovely note, with an ending that both tied up the main plots and left the viewer wanting more. As such, while I deeply resent the lack of a renewal for this show, it is an ending better than what most shows get.

If you will only watch one new TV-show this year, you can find those that are better, and I would be happy to recommend something else for you. But if, like me, you will try out two, three or maybe even four or five new TV-shows as the summer and autumn slides by, I seriously recommend you consider picking up the Brotherhood-DVDs. Because if this review made it sound like you'd like them, you probably will.

Dexter, season 1Fringe, season 1

Comments

TheTerje 7. July 2009, 20:44

Hmm, my collective's looking for something to wrest us away from the steel grip of our evil, time-demanding house god (i.e. The West Wing; seen it four or five times since September). And Brotherhood sounds like a good candidate. I'll make a note of it, next to The Wire, that lawyer show you ranted on and on and on and on about a few months ago ( :wink: ) and, eh, Xena and Hercules. (I'm gonna start reading Latin this fall, and my sister and one other of my flatmates are starting the teacher programme, so we probably need both some mindless and some brilliant shows...)

Loki Aesir 7. July 2009, 21:04

The lawyer-show, assuming you mean Boston Legal, is quite great indeed, but on the whole not The Wire-league, just so that's said.

You'd probably enjoy The Wire a tad more than Brotherhood, by the way, if you need to pick.

TheTerje 7. July 2009, 21:32

Well, I loved the first season of The Wire to tiny little pieces, and will buy the next couple of seasons when I get some pay and study loan, while I don't intend to buy The Brotherhood at all (unless I turn out to adore it), so money probably won't be an issue in that respect. Time, on the other hand, could prove scarse, as is its wont; but when I really apply myself to my studies I'm rarely in shape for much beyond collapsing on a couch with a tv show anyway, so I remain hopeful.

Loki Aesir 8. July 2009, 02:41

I don't recall if you've seen The Sopranos, but as I say in this review, Brotherhood falls somewhere between it and The Wire in subject matter and structure both.

By the way - current, awesome and already canceled (it gets to finish its first season though) show you'd enjoy to pieces: KINGS, with Ian McShane as the King Saul-inspired King Silas. Or as I like to call it "the show that would make ANYONE a monarchist". Just thirteen episodes once it's done a couple of weeks from now. I'm sooo getting it on DVD.

Amrasananas 8. July 2009, 17:14

OR, PERHAPS, "KINGS"?

Amrasananas 8. July 2009, 17:15

I really like "Kings".

Loki Aesir 8. July 2009, 17:18

...whut? I go "You'd enjoy KINGS", you follow up with "Or, perhaps, "KINGS"?" That's not much with the sense. But I heartily agree, of course.

TheTerje 13. July 2009, 12:45

Okay, so this Kings thing might be something one might consider buying on DVD without having seen it first, I take it?

Loki Aesir 13. July 2009, 15:01

Absolutely. I wrote a review of the pilot here this spring, tentatively super-positive, and I could rewrite it word for word now only removing all the tentative bits. Three episodes left to see (two left to air, I'm one behind right now), and it's just as awesome.

Amrasananas 13. July 2009, 21:43

I'm not saying it's as good as Firefly was (it isn't), but fuck me if I can mention another show this good that got cancelled so quick. I think Kings got the axe three episodes in, due their extravagant budget and, of course, low ratings.

I'm certainly buying KINGS on Blu-ray, and I really don't do that any more. For any show.

Loki Aesir 14. July 2009, 01:19

Stupid Blu-ray. God, I hate technological advancements for no good reason.

Loki Aesir 14. July 2009, 01:24

And no, it's no Firefly - Firefly's strengths were characters, dialogue and premise, in that order, whereas Kings' much more rely on premise, characters and dialogue, in such order. Thus difficult to compare, and I could see other people disagreeing, but Firefly's a strong favourite of the two in my book too.

As for quickly canceled - I REALLY loved "Easy Money" last autumn, and it got axed so quickly it didn't ever air more than four episodes. It was no "Kings", okay, but it never got to go on long enough to become anything, either.

But that said, "Kings" is bloody awesome. I'm talking Ron Moore, Bruno Heller and Aaron Sorkin would not be embarrassed to have made this-awesome.

Amrasananas 14. July 2009, 19:22

Blu-ray isn't stupid. It's about as big an evolution of the format as the DVD from VHS was. DVDs had better picture & sounds, they were interactive and they could store longer movies. Blu-ray discs have all the same advanteges & you can store more than one movie on a single disc (the extended LotR version would be 1 disc instead of 3, which is handier), and the upgrade of sounds and picture is about the same as the VHS-to-DVD switch was.

But you need better equipment to get your full money's worth, and if you don't have it, there isn't much point to it, no.

Loki Aesir 14. July 2009, 19:45

But... why would I need better picture and sound? I can see what's going on, I can hear what people are saying, and there is nothing about the pictures or the sound that annoy me by being unclear or muddled. Making something that's already as good as I have any need for better is the same as someone coming over to clean my house for me twice a day. The second time, there is no real need for them, regardless of whether or not there's been some slight amount of build-up of dust since the morning.

As for the storing more, I suppose that's handy, but it's not worth the immense bother of a shift in format. You can't compare it to VHS-DVD, as DVDs are _quicker_ to use, due to the ability to go from chapter to chapter and have scene-selection rather than fast forwarding. You can't re-invent scene selection, and it's just about the only thing that made the shift from VHS to DVD worth the immense trouble it was. Blu-ray offer me as a user absolutely nothing the DVDs can't already do, it just does the same things more and shinier.

Amrasananas 15. July 2009, 09:31

The thing is though, that Blu-Ray is steadily becoming as cheap as DVDs are, or at least not far off. So the question really becomes, what's the better product? And the answer is pretty obvious, given that all Blu-Ray players also play DVDs and given that people aren't likely to downgrade their equipment in the future, and they'll probably want to get the most bang for their buck.

Loki Aesir 15. July 2009, 11:11

The better product is the one that the customer the most want. What I want is that whenever the next format comes in ten to fifteen years, my movies will still be compatible with what will be the new players then. Blu-Ray has a chance at that, DVDs don't really. But I already own tons of DVDs, so that's already a lost battle. Thus, Blu-Ray can't offer me anything new.

TheTerje 18. July 2009, 23:31

Why they launched either the Blu-Ray or the HD thing (I think that was the name of this generation's Betamax, anyway) for the mainstream market at all is beyond me.

Or, it's not, really. Of course they could have satisfied themselves with offering it to businesses that need the extra storage and stuff like that, but that wouldn't have allowed them to cash in on their no doubt expensive invention, at least not to the extent that they can now. So instead of doing the utilitarianistically (whoa, there! :D ) speaking effective thing, they followed the mechanics of capitalism, which once again must take the blame for burdening us with an inefficient and strictly speaking superfluous and thus wasteful "improvement".

Sigh. I know this mechanism also generates a hell of a lot of good stuff, and I've pretty much overcome my communist phase now, but stuff like this still kinda makes me long a bit for a command economy. Even if that'd mean we'd still be stuck with harddisk-less computers and 8" floppy disks, if that.

Amrasananas 19. July 2009, 00:35

Jon Favreau said recently that this whole Blu-Ray/DVD/HD-DVD debate was pointless, given that Apple are a couple of years away from releasing their new TV tech that will leave everyone scrambling in their dust.

And he may very well be right. Apple has pretty much cornered every inch of the "cool" corner of the tech market, so why no TV & films? It's really just a matter of time.

The thing that bothers me the most about Blu-Ray isn't that it's a bit pointless (yes, I admit that, even though I'd rather have them then keep buying the DVDs), it's that they're BLUE. Yes, I get the schtick and everything, but like a bad joke, it gets old really fast.

How to use Quote function:

  1. Select some text
  2. Click on the Quote link

Write a comment

Comment
(BBcode and HTML is turned off for anonymous user comments.)

If you can't read the words, press the small reload icon.


Smilies