Tweet
Tulsa King is the new TV show starring Shylveshter Shtallone.
It's good. Not great but good. However what annoys me is the pandering that the showrunners appear to have done. Just as Tony Soprano, Vic Mackie, Tony Montana, Walter White and James St Patrick had to come to a sticky end because "crime must pay" - even though the audience has been rooting for these characters throughout - we have a character where the showrunners don't trust the audience to know their own minds.
SPOILERS BELOW
We meet Dwight Manfredi - mob captain - as he is being released from prison after serving 25 years for murder. In the first few episodes we see his violent streak in all its glory - except it's all done in the name of 'good'. He beats up a car salesman but only because he was racist to Dwight's chauffeur. He then killed a man by stomping on his head but only because he had sexually abused Dwight's daughter. He kills a rival gang leader but only because the gang leader insisted on causing trouble and multiple assassination attempts. And in the latest episode (9) we discover that the murder he committed was an act of mercy to stop a man being burned alive.
This is what winds me up. If I'm willing to take a look at a show about a mob boss then it's pretty certain I expect him to be a very naughty boy. And if I continue watching after 6 episodes of believing he murdered someone in cold blood then it's safe to say I don't need it to be morally justified. They used to pull this shtick years ago, such as Cameron Poe going to jail for murder in self defence (Con Air) or Dalton being given no choice but to rip a man's throat out (Roadhouse) but what's different about Dwight Manfredi is that unlike Cameron and Dalton, we know from the start that he is a very, very bad man and that he has just finished a 25 year stretch for murder.
We don't think he's a good guy from the start and have to finagle a way for him to commit a crime whilst still being a good guy. We know from the first minute that he's a villain, lacking the moral compass that keeps the rest of us in line, and so to reveal late in the series that his killing was done out of good intentions is both needless and patronising. We're adults. We don't need nannying, we're not going to run screaming from an anti-hero, and we don't need a protag who is morally just.
It's good. Not great but good. However what annoys me is the pandering that the showrunners appear to have done. Just as Tony Soprano, Vic Mackie, Tony Montana, Walter White and James St Patrick had to come to a sticky end because "crime must pay" - even though the audience has been rooting for these characters throughout - we have a character where the showrunners don't trust the audience to know their own minds.
SPOILERS BELOW
We meet Dwight Manfredi - mob captain - as he is being released from prison after serving 25 years for murder. In the first few episodes we see his violent streak in all its glory - except it's all done in the name of 'good'. He beats up a car salesman but only because he was racist to Dwight's chauffeur. He then killed a man by stomping on his head but only because he had sexually abused Dwight's daughter. He kills a rival gang leader but only because the gang leader insisted on causing trouble and multiple assassination attempts. And in the latest episode (9) we discover that the murder he committed was an act of mercy to stop a man being burned alive.
This is what winds me up. If I'm willing to take a look at a show about a mob boss then it's pretty certain I expect him to be a very naughty boy. And if I continue watching after 6 episodes of believing he murdered someone in cold blood then it's safe to say I don't need it to be morally justified. They used to pull this shtick years ago, such as Cameron Poe going to jail for murder in self defence (Con Air) or Dalton being given no choice but to rip a man's throat out (Roadhouse) but what's different about Dwight Manfredi is that unlike Cameron and Dalton, we know from the start that he is a very, very bad man and that he has just finished a 25 year stretch for murder.
We don't think he's a good guy from the start and have to finagle a way for him to commit a crime whilst still being a good guy. We know from the first minute that he's a villain, lacking the moral compass that keeps the rest of us in line, and so to reveal late in the series that his killing was done out of good intentions is both needless and patronising. We're adults. We don't need nannying, we're not going to run screaming from an anti-hero, and we don't need a protag who is morally just.
Comment