In my previous post about the Netflix series Designated Survivor, I noted that it was "a pretty good TV series". A "mixture of The West Wing - daily travails of a President and his team; Homeland - a Congressman comes back from the dead as an unexpected survivor whom a female agent suspects of being a traitor - and 24, with its throbbing dramatic soundtrack."
I don't recall how many episodes I had watched at that stage but pretty sure it was early in season 1, which ultimately had 22 episodes. So did season 2; finally season 3 had just 10. Frankly I think it had simply run out of steam by then so was cancelled, apparently because of issues with actors' contracts, although how that can happen mid way through a season I don't know.
I've now ploughed my way through them all. Season 1 was perfectly reasonable, in that it had a purposeful and credible narrative where the Housing Secretary in the US government becomes President because he is the designated survivor when a terrorist attack destroys the Capitol and everyone in it during the State of the Union. Last man standing. The new President has to build a government and the season is that story, as well as that of the FBI agent tasked with unearthing the terrorists. There is a congressman who mysteriously survives the attack, despite attending the speech; is he genuine? See Brody in Homeland.
Season 1 is complete in itself; all the narratives are brought to some kind of satisfactory conclusion. It could easily have stood on its own. But no, TV production companies have to get their money's worth, so season 2 followed. But needed a reason to exist and to my mind never came up with one. It reverted to The West Wing, for want of any better idea. The daily travails of a President and his senior staff. The problem is that it's impossible to compete with The West Wing, in my view, because that show established a very high bar for realism, writing, characterisations and acting.
In The West Wing, the President's senior staffers are substantial characters who know what they are doing. They are strongly written and acted and form a capable ensemble. In Designated Survivor, they are weak. Is this because they are weak actors or because the characters are weak? Or both? Who knows? What I do know is that the ensemble is disjointed and unfocussed. I suppose you could argue that this is the essence of the underlying theme of a President thrown into the job and necessarily floundering along the way, with his team no better. But that is no basis for a strong TV series - or at least for the second season.
And that brings me to the President himself. Martin Sheen's Josiah Bartlet in The West Wing was calm, dignified and experienced. In contrast Kiefer Sutherland's Tom Kirkman is indecisive, inexperienced and, overwhelmed by this job to which he is unsuited, prone to sudden rages, verging on manic-depressive. The showrunners might say that it's interesting to see how this works on a personal level and how the character develops. No it's not; it's a TV show, not a work of art.
And so to season 3, which at least had a plausible narrative of the President standing for re-election (this term is used throughout, even though he was never elected in the first place). There are new staffers and some from season 2 (including Zoe McLellan's White House Counsel, whom I thought the best of a moderate bunch) didn't return. I wonder what is behind this unusually high turnover of actors. Anyway, after ten episodes the show ends.
I've missed out some significant plot details of all three seasons so as not to provide spoilers.
One of my main tests of a TV series is: can I empathise with any of the characters? Sadly, this show falls short on that, with the exception of Maggie Q's FBI (later CIA) agent Hannah Wells. Obviously this taints my views on the whole series, so is very personal and shouldn't put anyone off. Particularly those of you whose empathies are likely to be different to mine. By the way, part of my connection with the Hannah Wells character is that she isn't Homeland's Carrie Mathison, whose craziness in the end made me shout at the TV in the way that I do during football matches.
It's not uncommon for me to give up on TV series before the end; I even gave up on Homeland because it seemed to me to lose its purpose - once Brody died - much as this series did after season 1. I think my son in Australia, and my daughter in law, said that they gave up half way through season 2. I get that. However, despite my clear reservations, I watched it through to the end. Now it's quite possible this was a result of lockdown fatigue but I did want to see how it ended. If you want something to occupy the long evenings, I wouldn't discourage you from watching Designated Survivor. If you do, tell me what you think!
