Categorised | TV reviews

Review: The State Within

Posted on November 3, 2006 | 6 comments |

The State Within

In the UK: Thursdays, BBC1, 9pm. Repeated Tuesdays, BBC1, 2.10am.
In the US: BBC America. Premieres in 2007.

Here's new: a co-prod (I want to say cod-prod, but won't) between BBC America and BBC1. Whatever next? BBC Scotland and BBC Factual? BBC Knowledge and BBC Sport?

Anyway, here's a show I had high hopes for. Good cast: Jason Isaacs (Brotherhood), Lennie James (Jericho), Sharon Gless (Cagney and Lacey). An interesting premise: a terrorist attack and the UK and US governments' response to it plus a great big conspiracy underneath the surface.

But tarnation. It was mostly pants.

I'll confess the second half was better than the first half. I started off groaning inwardly as every single possible cliché was trotted out, both in the script and the direction. Jerky handheld camerawork designed to make everything feel realistic? No thank you. Briefcases being switched at diners? Puh-lease. Our hero, the British ambassador to America (Isaacs) happens to be right near the terrorist incident and so naturally tries to pull a trapped woman from her car. But wait! It's going to explode (as apparently all US cars and mini-vans will, not just the Pintos) so someone has to drag him away. Except, of course, he's not so squeaky clean and he's going to be blackmailed very soon, probably by the Tmmmimmystanis or whatever made-up Asian country they used. Dear oh dear.

Meanwhile, everyone was trying ever so hard to make it look authentic, but only to people who had never seen the news or watched another TV programme (cf Buckley's 'All TV producers live in Islington' hypothesis). Isaacs hosts a post-disaster meeting where he gives out bleeding obvious orders like setting up a condolences book. “Let's set up a freephone number for information,” he suggests. Really? That's innovative, outside-the-box thinking there, my friend. Why hadn't anybody already devised such a procedure before, I wonder.

You'd have thought he'd have gone slightly native and called it “toll free” at least. But then none of the Americans talked like Americans either. Yes, there was the occasional mention of the Beltway, but is there a single DC insider who would say “They'll be buried in Arlington cemetery” rather than just “in Arlington”? News shows didn't look like US news shows, newspapers didn't really look like US papers. Even the aeroplanes failed to correspond with aeroplanes in the real world, with Air Marshalls of all people telling passengers mid take-off that they need to turn off their laptops. Have they never been on a plane? Do they think we've never been on a plane? And these were just the least of the show's sins against reality that I can give you in a spoiler-free review.

However, things started to settle down a bit after the show stopped trying to be 24 or any other US drama and made a stab at being British again, with only the occasionally embarrassing attempt to inject some action letting the side down. Since this is the first part of a thriller, a whole load of plot threads were dumped in our laps like so much spaghetti from a clumsy waiter. Hopefully, we'll be able to sort them out by the end of the series. They were at least interesting, although I suspect the pay-off is going to be weak.

We also had variable performances from the cast. Isaacs was fine, although he seems out of practice at using something close to his own accent. Neil Pearson (Between the Lines, Drop the Dead Donkey) appeared to have been taking wooden pills, something I've never seen him do before. James was good as were most of the supporting cast. But Sharon Gless appears to have decided to base her Secretary of Defense on Dick Cheney crossed with Pat Robertson, both of them having had their drinks spiked with some kind of amphetamine.

It's overblown, lacking in subtlety, with no aspirations to be anything except a programme that can be sold to overseas networks and look good on a press release. Ho hum.

Related entries

  • November 17, 2006: Third-episode verdict: The State Within
    My third-episode verdict on The State Within.

Read other posts about: , ,

6 Comments

  1. AnnaWaits wrote:
    November 3, 2006 | Reply

    I agree with everything. Especially 'mostly pants' :)

  2. Rullsenberg wrote:
    November 3, 2006 | Reply

    We watched it last night after the kids went to bed whom we were 'babysitting' (bit euphemistic that at 13 and 10).

    It was just about watchable but I just did not feel excited or enthralled at all. I just didn't care. Oh yeah, and that scene where Ben Daniels loses his rag at someone and then... well, I wish I had placed a bet on that happening from the first time you saw him on screen cos it was laughably predictable.

    Otherwise, as ever, a fine and hysterically funny review. I especially loved your remark about Neil Pearson taking "wooden pills". Brilliant.

    Oh yeah, I doubt I will watch again. I'll watch The Wire instead...

  3. Rob Buckley wrote:
    November 3, 2006 | Reply

    "Oh yeah, I doubt I will watch again. I'll watch The Wire instead..."

    A fine choice, Madame. I, however, will be staying on until episode three, ready to deploy the Carusometer. I wouldn't recommend it.

  4. Stu N wrote:
    November 3, 2006 | Reply

    Ah well, looks like I just have a very low quality threshold. I shall sit in the corner with a dunce's cap on, watching Pimp My Ride UK, until I have learned my lesson.

  5. Rob Buckley TypeKey wrote:
    November 3, 2006 | Reply

    I don't think watching Pimp My Ride UK will raise your quality threshold, if it does indeed need raising. Start with The Wire as Ms Rullsenberg has done (not that she needs her quality threshold raising, of course).

  6. Rullsenberg wrote:
    November 5, 2006 | Reply

    Thank you for the comments about my quality threshold, though I would add (against myself) that I am the woman who has both watched and re-watched a second time the risable idiocy that was "Secret Smile". I really have no defence...

Leave a comment

Your comment


Comment preview

Subscribe to comments
You can subscribe to comments using one of the methods below:

Comments feed for this entry

Comments feed for the blog

Allowable comments
You can leave just about any kind of comment you like. You can argue, suggest I am (or anyone else is) wrong, leaving general messages of love – anything. However, you absolutely can't leave messages that are general insults or abusive: your comment will either be edited or deleted and you'll be barred from leaving any further comments. We want to keep it civil here.

Spoilers
If you're going to put something you think is a spoiler into one of your comments, put <spoiler> in front of it and </spoiler> after it; if your spoiler is long, remember to put the tags before and after every paragraph. Your spoiler will then only appear if anyone highlights it with their mouse. Remember: your comments also show up in the sidebar at the side of every page!

HTML and user pics
For details of what HTML you can use and how you can get a picture next to your comments, please read the comment guidelines, first.

Featured Articles

Justified 1x1

Like Walker: Texas Ranger but better, thanks to Elmore Leonard and Timothy Olyphant
Credit Counseling - Arizona Landscaping - Debt Consolidation - Renegade Motorhomes