American Crime

If one adheres to the belief that art reveals some critical aspect of being human, then American Crime is one of the best pieces of art I've ever seen in a network television series. The title may mislead viewers into expectations of a high-octane cop procedural; those anticipating such will be disappointed. Just like Breaking Bad (without the violence) American Crime operates on a much deeper, psychologically-taut, gut-wrenching level. It burrows into the souls of its characters, depicting each as they react to and evolve from a single murder committed in Modesto, California.

Described without spoilers, the series begins after the fact, immediately introducing us to eight main characters touched directly by the crime and who are bluntly stereotyped by race, religion, familial position, lifestyle or psychological make-up. They react according to type but as facts of the murder emerge, the burden of carrying these conventions under such inconceivable circumstances forces each character to evolve from type or submerge more deeply and desperately within it.

To say that American Crime reveals how messy life really is would be trite, a whopping understatement. These are extremely diverse characters, linked by a singular event and inflicted with raw, immense pain. They are extraordinarily fleshed out by the likes of Felicity Huffman, Timothy Hutton, Penelope Ann Miller, Benito Martinez and the always underrated but extremely gifted W. Earl Brown (Dan Dority from Deadwood, for a television reference).

Creator John Ridley wisely chose to develop the series anthologically; like True Detective, the characters draw viewers into a world most never see and while the journey is richly satisfying, it is also so wholly unsettling that one can't imagine it continuing through 12 episodes, season after season.

American Crime focuses on the people surrounding a criminal case and the difficulties that they go through rather than the actual crime or criminal investigation itself. While I understand the merits of this and appreciate it the point they're trying to make, the fact of the matter is that I want to know the outcome. I want to know what happened. The acting is great and the series is well written (probably too good for network television though) but it's a let down getting to the end of the season having no idea what actually happened. The series doesn't need to focus on the investigation or be a police procedural to give the viewer a but more payoff at the end. We can struggle with the families of crime victims and ultimately learn the truth/see how things turn out without losing the main message of the show.

It's said we're in a golden age of TV drama, and here's more evidence. One astonishing fact about this series is that it was made by ABC, one of the supposedly fossilized networks, rather than by one of the newer niche cable channels. And now it's available on Netflix (at least here in Canada) so you don't have to dodge commercials.

There are two seasons, the first of eleven episodes, the second of ten, and both track the consequences of a crime that has already happened. The first series, set in Modesto, California, concerns what is apparently a murder-rape by lowlifes of a golden all-American young couple. The second series, set in Indianapolis, deals with an unsavory sexual incident at a party held by the basketball team of a private school. The lives of staff and students at this entitled institution for the wealthy are contrasted with their counterparts at a typical local high school.

The simple, unsensational title is a clue to what this series is trying to do. It aims to be nothing less than an anatomy of contemporary American society. It persuades us that these crimes and their repercussions reveal a great deal about national attitudes to race, education, money, sex, violence, guns, drugs, policing, journalism, social media, the justice and penal systems—you name it. And as with The Wire, a series which had similar ambitions, one comes to understand and sympathize with these characters and their predicaments, even if one doesn't like them. Here is America today in microcosm, and it's not a pretty picture. But Americans are not as exceptional as they sometimes imagine. As this series suggests, the characters' problems are human problems, and you certainly don't have to be American to identify with them.

What is quite unusual is that several of the main parts in the two series are played by the same actors, as in repertory theater. This may be a gimmick, but it works, as the standard of the acting is very high and the effect is to draw attention to the Shakespearean theme of appearance vs reality. The performances of Felicity Huffman, who plays both lead female characters, both unlikable in different ways, are astoundingly good. It helps, of course, that the rest of the cast, the dialogue, camera-work, editing, even the score are of the highest quality.

American Crime is grim and as far from light entertainment as you can imagine. But its final effect is not depressing. Lies are relentlessly exposed for the damage they do. Deeper and more difficult truths, the only kind it's safe to build trust on, start to emerge. And those are perhaps the most important messages that come from this outstanding series.

I watch a lot of foreign movies and TV series because I find most domestic products to be formulistic, highly predictable, shallow or simplistic (many fine exceptions exist - as examples True Detectives, Breaking Bad, Justified etc.). This holds particularly true for anything offered by the big 4 networks. As an example watch both versions of the series " Secrets and Lies" and you will clearly see the difference between an off shore and a domestic take on the same story. For me there is no comparison, the original Aussi version is much more to my liking.

Now to "Crime Story"; it takes a couple of episodes to develop but like a fine wine after it breathes a bit the content becomes richer and more accessible. I really appreciate the casting, character development is strong and the pace is just right for me. All the actors are superb, pretty much every cast member gives an honest and compelling performance. The camera work is artful, not artsy but artful, adding to the experience. It is a drama and as such there is very little to feel good about here but the story so far is strong, well told and deals with serious issues. I eagerly look forward to each new episode. My typical viewing habit is to record episodes of shows I follow and then watch 2 or more at a time. Skipping through commercials, especially for dramas, allows the story to flow and for emotional or dramatic moments to make their point and to leave a mark. If you are a reality TV watcher or do not value well staged dramas move on - there is nothing for you here. However if you enjoy a script which is well written and deals with big relevant issues, stellar acting and something different from the majority of the cookie cutter series out there I'd say give this one a try. I was very surprised when I read through the other reviews here for this fine series and found the amount of negativity that they contained. My guess is that, like myself, the audience for a show of this caliber pretty much dismiss network offerings and will never find it. Regular network viewers need the familiar and don't know how to appreciate the slower more deliberate pace of the story , the depth of the questions raised, or the skill with which this series has been crafted - this is too bad because I find the time invested to be well worth it.

I have watched the entire first season, and about half the secind season. I find the show a slow paced, but often honest protrayal of America today. I can understand how many people may not enjoy this show since in their opinion " it's not entertaining". I highly disagree, but different strokes for ddifferent folks.

There are many people that put down the show, because of an artistic choice by the director, to cast the same actors every season, in different roles. Some, in seeing the same actors seem to think, that the characters changed off screen in between seasons. The Muslim woman, having somehow acquired a Business degree, and dropped her religion to become a high powered executive, was given as one example. The drug addict thief, becoming a high school principal. The fact that they have different names seems to have not been noticed, and somehow this failing of the reviewer is used to Point to a supposed weakness of the show.

They also say they have never seen this before. American Horror Story does the exact thing brilliantly. Repertory Companies also do this on stage, where a company of actors will have several plays under their belt, and one night might put on ONE. and the next a totally different one. It is new on Television, but the practice goes back to the days of Shakespeare, and Marlowe.

This is like watching a production of Comedy of Errors one week, then seeing a production of Hamlet the next, then complaining that the show lacked cohesion, because... the guy that played one set of twins on week one, is now playing some guy named Laertes the next... " where is the cohesion??"

It seems to me that simply paying attention to character names, and plot, would show some people that... it's a different story, with different characters. The fault is in the viewers not understanding what is easy to understand, ..Not the Director's for lacking cohesion.

I guess this is what we get from viewers too used to Hollywood Pablum? When you have viewers so used to having Every Little detail explained to them... they cannot seem to use their minds when a show refuses to connect all the dots.

TL;DR: Superb Show, average network viewer not up to snuff to appreciate it.