|
|
Gusto, this has to be the word for it—gusto, the unmatched gusto—of the series as such, of the leads' performances, of the brisk pace
. Nothing like it—ever
. And it has finesse, genuine finesse, it takes one to know one. Also the subdued blues. And Glenn Gordon Caron's brio; and by this sole man's insight we became the screwball's contemporaries-- Moonlighting's writing style.
What other TV show could have this much to offer? Willis, the comedy, the sex—comedy, the screwball, 'Maddie', the leads' chemistry, the charming atmosphere, the so lively and endearing fun, the countless one—liners, the inspiration—theirs, and to us; yesterday I have seen 6 episodes—almost the whole 1st season. Willis never did anything as good. And MOONLIGHTING is tens of hours of Willis in his best shape ever
. We had screwball in the '80s—and not as a withered pastiche—but as a robust, original show, sharply written and awesomely played. The show's history demonstrates that this level was attained by work, professionalism, craft-work, etc.. The quality, and such quality, is the result of craftsmanship and professionalism, not of happy slapdash and improvisations; the series' history is therefore a lesson in how to achieve results.
In a sense, this TV show has always been with me, as I have watched it at 13 yrs, then at 16 yrs, then at 24 yrs, and again now at 31 yrs; so in a sense we have been fellow—travelers, or travel—fellows. At 29—30 yrs I longed intensely for it. I have been a schoolboy, a high—school guy, a medical student, then a physician while seeing this TV series; each time, it was Willis, the comedy, 'Maddie', the unique atmosphere, the style, the charm, the fun, the jokes, the pace, the music no less, the scripts and one—liners, the urbane jazzy feel—it rocked then, it rocks now. When I was 24 yrs I used to write much about it and to me it stood as the foremost comedy; it meant, to me, THE comedy, or what a comedy means and is and looks like. After seeing this series, everything else seemed crap. At that age I began to cherish again Willis' roles. I have written once a top 10 of TV shows; Willis' masterpiece was no. 3, and perhaps it should of been no. 1 (--were it not for another two series--). What about the age this writer is at, now? Well, nowadays I'm particularly fond of Cybill's performance; her indulgent and tolerant smile when faced to 'Dave's _immaturities; also, her courage and presence of spirit and initiative, the fact that she succeeds where he fails.
MOONLIGHTING is the epitome of the '80s cool (--and the characters talk a bit, now and then, about living in the '80s, etc.--)—and the '80s as passed into timelessness in an uniquely inspiring comedy. This TV series, and many of Rourke's early roles, define, for me, the '80s.
On the other hand—this series was a screwball, and therefore worked best when and as a screwball—and therefore should have stayed a screwball. The screwball ought not become romance—or, worse, idyll. Yet they turned the straight screwball into a straight soap—opera, a straight romance. This was a grievous error, a mistake. Curtis Armstrong's character was and should have stayed a supporting one. The show also declined because the two stars deserted it.
I loved this TV show more than it is usually allowable. When I have seen it first, I was 13 yrs old.I knew nothing about Willis—specifically, about his movie career.(I guess I had no notion of a favorite actor—I simply liked the TV series
.) In short, Moonlighting was likable for a kid;later,it proved to be as likable for a grown—up.For me, Moonlighting was better without Curtis Armstrong and without the enlarged part of Agnes DiPesto—who needed so much an Agnes DiPesto on her own,anyway?One has to be fair enough to admit that Willis was so good—such a Leyda bottle—that almost any other actor put next to Willis would of seemed to spoil the show;yet Curtis Armstrong was particularly, peculiarly unpleasant and he was undermining the concept of this series as well.So,I may say I liked less the numerous Curtis Armstrong episodes.
Moonlighting meant,and was nonstop gags. It also had a sparklingly sexy blonde.Yet anyone else on that blessed set was absolutely eclipse by Willis' dynamism and hydraulic force and explosive drive. The series had undulations, modulations, an unequaled charm.
I do not know any role better than Willis' in a TV series.His performance is a jewel of inventiveness, instinct and charm.If you want to see a comic role perfectly acted, with seemingly endless resources, watch Willis playing his David.
Moonlighting had the greatest chance—that of an unrivaled male lead,Willis—another hallmark of the '80s (together with Rourke,Nolte,Gibson,etc.). Willis proved to be an unbelievably good comedy actor. Brando was as good;and,in a certain way,maybe Newman (I remember reading that Willis likes Newman's roles).It is too unfortunate that Willis' movie career did not exploit the way opened by Moonlighting—no other roles were written for Willis so that he may continue this so original and amazing line of comedy.
Yet in front of some mistaken ideas,a thing must be said—Willis is completely a '80s guy,not a sophisticated Grant/Flynn/Gable (
Tracy/Cooper/Bogart/Stewart) in disguise.His persona must not be seen as an updating of Grant's heroes.Willis is charming, yet not sophisticated, nor irresistible.
I hope someday I will put up some detailed reviews of liked episodes.
A TV series should be like a Samuel Johnson of the cinema—as one who creates well,and who creates much, reconciling these two often divorced but equally needed qualities. It should offer many times—and in many ways—what others offer only once. (This is why we like Dickens, Balzac, Dumas, Hugo, Shakespeare, Proust, Mme. Sand, Chesterton, Scott, Doyle, Wells, LN Tolstoy—what they have to offer, they offer plentifully).
score 10/10
Cristi_Ciopron 17 May 2008
Reprint: https://www.imdb.com/review/rw1875322/ |
|
11-11-2020 22:58:09
