Connect with us

Arts & Entertainment

‘Dallas’ reboot in fine form

Continuation of classic series deftly balances old and new

Published

on

I finally caught the “Dallas” reboot (Wednesdays at 9 on TNT) last night on DVR — busy week — and though thoroughly prepped for disappointment, was delighted to find a tightly paced, deftly edited take on one of my all-time favorite shows that struck a perfect balance between edgy/hip/new and familiar/nostalgic/endearing.

Which is saying a hell of a lot — classic franchise reboots are notoriously hard to pull off. They always sound good on paper but when a show takes on a life of its own and becomes a cultural touchstone, as the ’78-’91 classic installment did, it’s practically impossible to catch lightening in a bottle twice. Who knows if it will last, but this week’s two-hour pilot did everything it needed to do to relaunch the series in a gripping, promising way. It’s light years better than “J.R. Returns” (1996) and “War of the Ewings” (1998), the two TV movies that continued the storyline and thankfully removed the bitter aftertaste left by the show’s bizarre 1991 finale (“Conundrum”) in which Joel Gray appeared in an “It’s a Wonderful Life” takeoff that ended with a shoddily ill-conceived cliffhanger with supernatural overtones.

The cast of 'Dallas.' (Photo courtesy TNT)

So it’s thrilling to see the old warhorse, which struggled mightily in both quality and ratings its last few seasons, doing well — 6.9 million viewers tuned in to this week’s launch making it the most-watched scripted cable series so far this year and outranking anything the regular networks had in its time slot.

Twin heartthrobs Josh Henderson and Jesse Metcalfe play Ewing offspring John Ross (J.R. and Sue Ellen’s son) and Christopher (Bobby and Pam’s son) all grown up. One can’t help but wonder, of course, what became of Ormi Katz and Joshua Harris, the two actors who played the characters for years as kids on the original show, but their absence is quickly forgotten as Henderson and Metcalfe are so easy on the eyes and good actors too.

John Ross wants to drill for oil on Southfork Ranch against the wishes of Miss Ellie’s will. Christopher is pursuing an alternative energy venture that has had devastating consequences in Asia. He’s about to get married at the ranch to Rebecca (Julie Gonzalo). His old flame Elena (Jordana Brewster) is now dating John Ross. It’s a clever premise reviving a theme from the original series — early in the show, one of JR.’s deals left the family in a precarious spot financially and Miss Ellie had reluctantly agreed to let them drill on the ranch, something she’d never wanted to do. At the 11th hour, they didn’t have to.

The older generation is still kicking, though barely in some cases. Bobby (Patrick Duffy) is battling a cancer diagnosis (he’s married now to a third wife, Ann, played by Brenda Strong) and J.R. is in a nursing home suffering from depression. Sue Ellen (Linda Gray) is also in the cast. Cliff Barnes (Ken Kercheval) will be in future episodes. Ray Krebbs (Steve Kanaly) and Lucy Ewing (Charlene Tilton) are sadly reduced to cameos. Let’s hope if the show is a hit, they’re invited back and fleshed out. Tilton, especially, is a fan favorite from years ago. I never had Lucy’s hair but I did appreciate her taste in men — from gay Kit Mainwaring to her hunky doctor husband Mitch (Leigh McCloskey).

“Dallas” 2012 works for several key reasons — one, it’s been long enough now since the original show ended, that it feels fun, not tired, to revisit these characters. Nobody can say how long has to pass for such things to make sense, but pop culture very much unofficially dictates there has to be significant time — decades — before such ideas can float. “J.R. Returns” and “War of the Ewings,” while fun to watch, felt like everyone was beating a dead horse, and few horses were more dead than “Dallas” in its last couple regular seasons when most of the original cast had either long defected or were reduced to glorified cameos or mentions. The reboot, however, manages to revive the long-dormant excitement the show lacked in its final years by casting charismatic young actors in the key roles — Henderson and Brewster especially stand out — but having enough of the original cast around to keep it all grounded in authenticity. Using the original Texas-based exteriors, where several reunions have taken place over the years, is as key as the presence of Hagman, Duffy and Gray.

Principal, sixth from left, joined the cast for a 2004 non-dramatized reunion.

Sadly, but unsurprisingly, Victoria Principal (whose Pam was the original series’ central character in its early years) is a no show. She hasn’t fully shunned the show that made her famous — she showed up for a classic Vanity Fair photo shoot in the mid-’90s and for the 2004 “Return to Southfork” reunion (which featured cast members in a non-scripted format appearing as themselves), but has eschewed any thoughts of reviving her role. She told Ultimate Dallas (ultimatedallas.com, the amazingly thorough fan site) a few years ago the notion seemed rather absurd this many years later. Even so, she was never as chummy with the rest of the cast (Hagman, Duffy and Gray are close friends in real life and gathered regularly even before the show relaunched).

If Principal seems only vaguely interested — Duffy told TV Guide last week they talked by phone recently and she wished him the best on the new show — she’s still more involved than the late Barbara Bel Geddes (Miss Ellie) was in her final years. Not only did she sit out the last season (having left once before but come back), she was a no-show for both the TV movies, the Vanity Fair photo shoot and the 2004 reunion (she may have been ill for the latter — she died of cancer in 2005). She wasn’t, however, entirely reclusive in her later years — she did memorable commentary for a “Vertigo” restoration (she played Midge in the ’58 Hitchcock classic) in ’96. It’s a shame. She and Howard Keel (whose Clayton Farlow was a staple for 10 seasons), now both dead, would have been great additions to the Vanity Fair gathering. People always remember Jock (the late Jim Davis), but Clayton was on the show far longer.

The key to the new show’s success will be the degree to which it manages to maintain this delicate balancing act of old and new. Focus too much on J.R., Sue Ellen and Bobby and it looks like a Motown revival tour. But conversely, if the younger cast gets all the air time, there’s no anchor to the past. The scenes in which the two generations interacted were the best on Wednesday’s premiere — Hagman, who at age 80 has lost none of the lip-smaking relish he brought to what should have been an Emmy-winning role, plays especially well with Henderson, whose John Ross is presented as a manipulative chip off the old block.

A short scene by the Southfork pool with Henderson and Gray was the debut’s best. As Sue Ellen offered her son her support in the never-ending battle over the land (a recurring theme in the original series), Gray’s delivery crackled with tension. She looks amazing. Her icy glares shoot the same daggers they did all those years on the original series.

There were a few shoddy elements — the soundstages that are supposed to be the Southfork interiors lack both the floorplan and dimensions of those of the old show (which themselves did not match the interiors or layout of the real Southfork ranch where the exteriors have always been filmed) — but where it really counts, the new “Dallas” works. Even the opening credits, featuring a savvy twist on the original montage and a deliciously effective re-orchestration of the show’s majestic theme music, work.

It’s off to as solid a start as could possibly be expected.

Advertisement
FUND LGBTQ JOURNALISM
SIGN UP FOR E-BLAST

Photos

PHOTOS: Hagerstown Pride

Published

on

A scene from the 2026 Hagerstown Pride Festival. (Washington Blade photo by Landon Shackelford)

Hagerstown Hopes held the Hagerstown Pride Festival outside Hub City Brewery on Saturday, May 30.

(Washington Blade photos by Landon Shackelford)

Continue Reading

Books

Books for a pre-Pride celebration

‘LGBTQ Almanac’ explores 500 years of queer culture

Published

on

You’re all geared up.

You’ve got your best parade-walking shoes, your coolest tee, your most-comfortable shorts, and a rainbow flag to carry. You’re set for Pride, but before you go, try one of these great new books about LGBTQ life and history.

After the parade, where will you end up? A place to talk your experience over, to re-hash things for the next parade? Then you may need “The Lesbian Bar Chronicles: The Living History and Hopeful Future of Americas Dyke Dives and Sapphic Spaces” by Rachel Karp (Beacon Press, $29.95).

Lesbian bars, says Karp, are more than just places to drink. They’re also places to find community, and to organize. For many, she says, they are “sanctuaries,” as they have been for at least a century, and this book introduces you to some of the people who run the establishments, the things they do to support their patrons, and the 100-year-plus bravery that it took to own, run, and enter a lesbian bar.

If you had to name a gay icon, there are probably quite a few who come to mind. So read “Without Prejudice: My Life as a Gay Judge” by Harvey Brownstone (ECW Press, $21.95) and add another name to your list.

This memoir, written by Canada’s first openly gay judge, takes readers from Brownstone’s childhood to his life as a lawyer, then to his work within the justice system in Ontario, and beyond, to his current career. This is a surprising, informative book that gives you an idea what gay life is like, north of our uppermost borders, then and now.

Pride is a celebration, an event, but it also demands a peek backwards, and in “The LGBTQ Almanac: 500 Years of Queer Culture in American History” by Deborah G. Felder (Visible Ink Press, $39.95), you’ll get a wide look at the pioneers, allies, policy, and gay life over the course of the last five centuries. Want to know more about religion in the gay community? It’s in here, along with celebrities, presidents, science, business, and more. This is the kind of book that settles bets. It’s one you want to have in any room of your home because it’s comprehensive and perfectly browse-able for all of its 600-plus pages.

And finally, here’s a book to read and think about: “No Fats No Fems: A Guide to Queer Empathy and Unpacking Prejudice” by Max Hovey (HarperOne, $19.99). How do you eliminate hateful, hurtful words, aimed at gay people – by gay people? What kind of stereotypes do we carry, unintentionally? This book takes those things out into the daylight by talking honestly and thoughtfully about them, as well as other issues. It’s a book to have when doubts creep in, when you need a new way of thinking or a different direction, or when you just want something different to read.

And if these great books aren’t enough, head to your favorite bookstore or library and ask for books that you can read before Pride or after. And happy Pride!

Continue Reading

Movies

‘The Stranger’ queers an existentialist classic

‘Gay male gaze’ anchors film’s visual aesthetic

Published

on

Benjamin Voisin and Rebecca Marder in ‘The Stranger.’ (Photo courtesy Gaumont Music Box Films)

When Albert Camus published “L’etranger” (“The Stranger”) in 1942, he was living in Nazi-occupied France, so it’s no surprise that it became one of the most celebrated “existential” novels of all time. A fascist regime is great for inspiring thoughts of an indifferent and meaningless universe.

It wasn’t his first experience with authoritarianism. Born to a working-class white European family in then-French Algeria, he grew up observing the harsh treatment of the native North Africans by the colonists who governed them. It was this personal history, amplified by the spread of European fascism, that found its voice in “The Stranger.” Short, terse, and shrouded in a cloak of ennui, it was his first novel – novella, really – but its impact was seismic.

Naturally, its influence has run through the world of cinema, and, it has been translated to the screen three times — most recently by French filmmaker François Ozon, whose screen version won acclaim at last year’s Venice Film Festival, and is now available for on-demand streaming in the U.S.

Ozon’s vision is captured in gleaming black-and-white, blending the luster of modern-day faux-vintage fashion photography with the nostalgic flavor of classic era “arthouse” and European cinema, and it maintains a largely faithful connection to Camus’s novel, at least in terms of plot. It’s the story of Meursault (Benjamin Voisin), a French settler living in the capital city of Algiers, who receives word that his mother has died. He takes time off from work, traveling to the nursing home – where he had sent her three years before – in order to attend her funeral, but remains seemingly emotionless throughout, prompting members of the staff and other residents to mark his apparent lack of customary grief.

When he returns to Algiers, he encounters Marie (Rebecca Marder), a former co-worker, and after spending the day together, the two become romantically involved. Their relationship continues over the next few weeks, while they also associate with Meursault’s neighbor Raymond (Pierre Lottin) – a suspected pimp who, after beating his Arab mistress, is being followed and harassed by her brother (Abderrahmane Dehkani) and his friends. After a skirmish with the Arabs, Meursault encounters the brother alone during a walk on the beach, and shoots the young man dead with a pistol given to him for protection by Raymond. On trial for murder, he offers no defense and expresses no remorse. He is convicted and sentenced to death, facing it all with emotional detachment, and seeming to find liberation in the recognition that none of it matters, anyway.

Though it’s a tale that includes romance, murder, and courtroom drama, it feels like a story in which nothing really happens – which is, of course, the perfect effect to emphasize the point of Camus’s philosophical viewpoint; but while that might satisfy the kind of viewers drawn to a film of a Camus novel, Ozon’s movie probably won’t hold much appeal for audiences seeking action, suspense, feel-good sentiment, or easy answers to the moral dilemmas that come hand-in-hand with being alive. Camus was interested in the opposite effect, a confrontation with existence which leaves no room for comfortable denials, and Ozon’s inflection on the original’s themes makes no effort to soften the blow. 

What it does, however, is introduce – without having to adjust the narrative provided by Camus – an element of queerness that lends the whole story a new layer of subtext through what can only be described as the “gay male gaze” that anchors the film’s visual aesthetic.

It’s in the way the camera – aimed by Ozon and cinematographer Manu Dacosse – remains fixated on its star, the exquisitely beautiful Voisin, lingering on his face, his frame, or his body in swim trunks. There’s a sensuality in the way the director shows us female beauty, too, but it’s never framed as the “object” of desire; and in the narrative’s key scene – the killing by the sea – there’s an inescapable element of repressed homoeroticism, born perhaps by associations with the mid-20th-century queer aesthetic of writers like Jean Genet or artists like George Quaintance, or pretentiously artsy commercials for high-end men’s cologne, or just from real-life memories of cruising on the beach. On the surface, Meursault gives no sign of queerness; but the emphasis that Ozon brings to the story – almost purely through visual suggestion – lends the character, already an outsider to the world of “normal” human experience in the first place, an even deeper sense of “otherness.”

As to that, Voisin’s performance is effective for reasons beyond his model-esque physical perfection; there’s a vast inner life happening under that pretty face, and the actor conveys it with a “less-is-more” approach that aligns perfectly with the character’s dissociation from conventional humanity. He’s compelling enough to engage us, and intelligent enough in his expression of Camus’ ideas to help us grasp them even as he makes us feel them – and frankly, that’s saying a lot.

The rest of the cast is effective, as well, though most of them serve primarily as a foil to reflect Voisin and his character. Marder brings a relatably savvy-yet-romantic presence as Marie, and Lottin gives Raymond a kind of louche charisma that evokes a brand of appealing-but-toxic masculinity. Swann Arlaud also stands out as the prison priest who attempts to convert Meursault on the eve of his execution, bearing the full brunt of Camus’ existentialist arguments in a scene that somehow taps into transgressive homoerotic fantasies even as its characters discuss impending death.

Camus, for his part, did not see himself as an existentialist; instead, he embraced and promoted a viewpoint in which human life is defined by its relationship with what he called “The Absurd” – the gap between reality and our assumed expectations about it, where our circumstances and behavior become obviously ridiculous – and believed that, in a meaningless universe, we are free to find our own meaning. An essay he published around the same time (“The Myth of Sisyphus”) posited that finding happiness in the struggle was perhaps the most logical response to facing an unfeeling world, and the Absurdist movement he helped to define used humor – albeit often the dark and sardonic variety – as a means to expose the madness of trying to impose sense on a nonsensical world. In the end, his writings reveal him as a deeply humanistic thinker, whose acceptance of objective reality served only to deepen his dedication to the ideal of a better mankind.

Whether or not any of that comes across in Ozon’s artful film, which emphasizes the immediacy of experience – the beach, the sea, the sun, the visceral responses we get from sex or violence – over the intellectual arguments that Camus would elucidate throughout his life, probably depends on one’s own grasp of Existentialist thinking and its offshoots. In any case, while Ozon’s “The Stranger” might fall short in the challenge to convey its philosophical arguments, it more than succeeds as a stylish piece of international art cinema, and it just might – hopefully – inspire audiences to go on a deeper dive into the mind of Albert Camus.

And even if it doesn’t, it’s still pretty to look at.

Continue Reading

Popular