Just a brief change from normal policy to discuss a CSI episode that’s only just aired in the US. Now, a whole load of UK fans have got to be worried about William Petersen’s taking a sabbatical. Who knows if he’ll want to be back next year, for example? Is his short-term replacement good enough to carry the show?
It’s Liev Schreiber. Hell yes.
But does his particular style of acting change the show?
As I’ve opined before, CSI has always been the best of the three CSI shows. CSI: NY is dull and CSI: Miami wears its stupidity with pride. CSI is smart: it has good dialogue, good characterisation, there are shades of grey with the cops not always doing their best job and forensics not always saving the day.
Keppler forever will be my new CSI motto.
It’s always been the darkest of the shows, too, despite CSI: NY‘s early attempt at doing Se7en again. Yet although he’s nerdy and loves insects, Grissom’s never been a dark character.
Keppler, his replacement, is dark. He dresses like an undertaker. He tries to do psychological profiles of serial killers. He’s worked on mass graves. He hails from the urban north east darkness of Baltimore and Philadelphia.
Although there are comedic moments in Keppler’s introductory episode, he sucks the fun out of them with his grimness. Even Ned Beatty as an amusing dentist can’t quite overcome this cloud of doom.
I love him already. Keppler forever will be my new CSI motto.
If there’s any way we can have him and Grissom on the same show (maybe dumping one of the less useful regulars), that would be just fabby.
I’m not sure, however, just how keen everyone else will be on him. Is he going to be the new love of everyone’s CSI life? Will he stop the defections to the tiresome Grey’s Anatomy? Or is he going to put the shivers up everyone’s spines? Let me know what you think once you’ve seen the ep. Or now, if you prefer.
