My own self

Everyone's looking to play an angle.

On the sage counsel of the entity I think of as Rkuang, I sat down a couple of weeks ago or so and checked out Damages. My motivation? Threefold.

One, everything I could find of information on it seemed appealing. Ruthless lawyers, complex intrigue, an utter lack of moral absolutes... Sounds good, no?

Two, Glenn Close.

Three, Ted Danson.

So, check it out I did, and with an immediacy that'd put Lucky Luke's right hand to shame, I was hooked. The show virtually seethed with complexity. If I were watching this on a week-to-week basis, I have no idea how I would have kept it all straight. Watching it all in a week and a half made that easy, but... I'm worried how I'll fare with season 3.

So how is it complex, you might ask? Well, each season has an on-going main story that the episodes spend most of the time on. This story uses cut-scenes very cleverly to repeatedly make you think one thing is happening, when truthfully the scene turns out to have meant something else entirely. Sure, you see a lot of these twists coming - at least I did - but there is just so delightfully many of them, there is no way you can see them all. On top of this comes a "x months in the future" frame-story, filmed in dystopian colour-schemes, which shows you out of context fragments of what will happen to the characters down the line. These little glimpses affect the way you watch the main plot deeply - and the next little glimpse of a future scene will almost always turn what you were thinking topsy turvy.

Add to this the fact that most of the characters on the show are scheming bastards, and you've got a mixture that can't but engage.

As for the actual stories and characters, it is all very good. Without giving much away, I think my initial gut-comparison on Twitter still describes this rather well - Damages is somewhere floating in the creative middle-point between Profit and State of Play. (My review of the former - I sadly haven't gotten around to writing one for the latter, but it is an excellent BBC miniseries, go see!)

Rarely do you find a better cast - more or less every actor impressed - but the one who in the end impressed me the most was in fact neither Danson nor Close, though they were of course both stellar, it was Zeljko Ivanek. (One of the main baddies of 24's legendary first season, one of the few good things about Heroes' third season, and also a fantastic guest star actor having been on popular shows such as Lost, Ally McBeal, House MD, True Blood, and a million others) Never having seen him in this close to a protagonistic role (gun to my head I'd call him the show's third in line for the title, at worst fourth), I was deeply impressed. Fantastic character, fantastic actor, fantastic arc. But really, he doesn't stand out that much - because these guys are all good.

Even the "innocent" lamb for the slaughter played by Rose Byrne impressed. Instead of being the stereotypical nice person the viewer is supposed to identify with, she rather played the role of showing what happens to an intelligent but decent person if she's thrown into a cutthroat environment such as this show's. One very excellent way to watch the show is as a tale of the gradual but inevitable corruption of this character, and it is exquisite. To give a final example of how good the actors on this show are? Well, by the end of the second season, we've seen two regulars from The Wire and two from Deadwood pop up as either regulars or recurring character. And that's not even mentioning the movie-actors they bring in.

The show's main strength, of course, is Glenn Close's Patty Hewes, the other protagonist next to Byrne's. An ends-always-justifies-the-means kind of woman with a towering intellect and just enough morals not to be a psychopath, she's the hub around which the show circles. Suffice to say, unless you're going to hire Ian McShane, you can't really find a better focal point for any show.

In conclusion, a few words on the show's progression - the second season is slightly less intense than the first, and the conclusions, though nicely wrapped up, feel less deliciously entwined and interconnected. This is understandable for a whole host of reasons, not the least of which is the mere fact of being a second season after such an incredible start as this show had. While still very good, very entertaining, and still spilling over with great actors, you're hereby warned, season 2 is not quite as ingenious as the first. But compared to most other shows it is still like asking the archangel Michael to engage in a fistfight with Donald Duck. (Except in this case, Michael would likely in truth be Sammael disguised as the Devil pretending to be Gabriel in a convincing Michael-costume. Or something. Donald's so screwed.)

It's not my favourite show of all time, and since I've seen some damned good TV in my day, it won't reach the top five list, either. But I can honestly say I feel bad about that, that's how good Damages is. It should be on a top five list somewhere, because that's how hooked I am. But it is definitely in top 10. I'm not sure who it'd be pushing out, but good riddance. Being beaten out by Close, Danson and Ivanek is a badge of honour in my book.

"If you were a man, I'd kick the living dogshit out of you."
"If you were a man, I'd be worried."

Highly recommended.