What Are Gemmill and Military Thinking?
Now that season 12 is beginning, I have some ambivalent feelings about how Gemmill and Military see the series and its characters. As a fan of the series since the first season, I genuinely feel confused about some of the comments from both and the subtle (or not so subtle) shift in focus since Gemmill assumed the role of showrunner. I had some concerns before he took over, but, in general, the storylines and character personalities maintained their innate characteristics and integrity even as they were further developed. Following season 10 and now season 11, I'm very curious--and a little apprehensive--about the direction Gemmill and Military seem to be going with some of the characters, especially Callen, and the series in general. Season 10 had a few good episodes, but season 11 was, in my opinion, the most mediocre of all. Obviously, my comments relate to the positions Gemmill and Military hold as showrunner and executive producer/writer of NCIS:LA and not to them personally.
I recently watched an "extra" segment from the S11 DVD set in which Gemmill and Military share some of their feelings about the 250th episode, "Mother," and how the events in this episode affected the NCIS:LA characters--particularly Callen--and, to be honest, I found it confusing. The way Gemmill talked about this episode gave me the distinct feeling that both Gemmill and Military chose to ignore events and conversations in a much earlier episode of the series so that this episode would sound more important and groundbreaking than it actually was. I also wondered if Gemmill realized that how he described the (supposed) effect on Callen could be viewed as almost hostile and certainly callous. His view of Hetty was interesting and similar to my own, and while I found Military's comment about "morality" valid in relation to stories and characters in general, I found them rather hypocritical when applied to some of the episodes of NCIS:LA, including ones he himself has written.
Gemmill suggested that the "revelation" that Hetty had other "children" besides Callen in "Mother" was extraordinarily important. To any viewer who's watched the series for more than 7 years, this, of course, wasn't a "revelation," at all. In point of fact, Hetty and Callen spoke about this all the way back in season 4. The wonderful, dramatic, powerful scene in that season's epsiode between Hetty and Callen (much more powerful than the supposedly revelatory scene in "Mother") occurred in "Ravens and Swans." In that particular episode, we're introduced to Grace, an NCIS agent who no one in OSP knows or can identify with the exception of Hetty. In trying to determine her identity, Callen asks Beale to conduct a background investigation of her, and it is through this investigation, that Callen discovers that Grace's background is very similar to his own, as well as at least two other agents, Sullivan and Hunter. (The fact that the entire team worked with both Hunter and Grace seems something that the writers of "Mother," as well as Gemmill and Military should be familiar with. And they should have remembered--especially Military since he wrote it--that Sam learned of Callen's "special" relationship with Hetty at the end of "Rage" in season 6.)
In "Ravens and Swans," Callen forces Hetty to acknowledge that there were other children like him that she "raised," and when he presses her about how many, she finally confirms that there were "a lot." At the end of this same episode, Hetty and Callen have one of their intimate conversations (much like the one in "Mother"). Hetty provides more details and compares her actions to those of the U.S.S.R. when it "raised" children and trained them in covert techniques in order to infiltrate foreign countries to serve as spies. The first revelation that occurred 7 seasons ago makes the "revelation" in the final scene of "Mother" of absolutely no importance. (As an actor, no one would expect ECO, the co-writer of "Mother" to remember what happened 7 seasons ago, but as a writer, it is his responsibility to be aware of events that have happened in past episodes so that his episode aligns with--and doesn't duplicate or contradict--events that have already occurred. This is even more important when the event is something as noteworthy as this particular revelation that changed the relationship between Callen and Hetty because it made Callen--and the viewers--aware of Hetty's willingness to use and manipulate even children for a purpose.) Gemmill's comment that Callen's "discovery" of this is akin to finding out that he was "adopted and that your parents had nine other kids just like you" is ridiculous on at least two fronts. First, Callen knew about the "other kids" long before this episode (unless his memory had been magically erased) and given his history within the foster care system, he probably wouldn't be surprised by anything relating to his past at this point, and second, and most importantly, there is no other kid "just like" Callen. Where did Gemmill get the idea that all of Hetty's "kids" are alike? Is he saying that Callen is just like Lauren or Sullivan or Grace or Akhos? That somehow being "raised" by Hetty robs a person of his or her individuality? He also suggests that Callen has gone off to rescue Hetty because he thinks of her as his "mom," but that isn't an assumption borne out by anything Callen's done in the past. Callen may think of Hetty as his "mom" (although he's never referred to her as such in any of his conversations with anyone or in anything he's done), but he rescued her because he cares about the people he works with (the same reason he went to rescue Kensi and Sam and promised Mosley he'd get her son back). Certainly, Callen has a sense of affection for Hetty, but she is also his co-worker (his description of her in "Mother" while waiting in the cemetery with Sam) and his boss.
Gemmill also mentions that it's their job (as showrunner and writers) to throw their characters into a "bit of a spin." I would suggest that they haven't let Callen stop spinning since season 9, and by this time he must be nauseous. It's not that viewers don't want to see characters face challenges. It's just that when a major character faces a challenge, it would be nice if a) the character maintained his/her personality and character traits while doing so and b) viewers had an opportunity to see the character deal with/handle/resolve the challenge, including its aftermath or effect. For instance, half a season was devoted to Kensi's rehabilitation. Several episodes provided Deeks time to recover from his torture. Sam was given an entire episode dealing with the death of his wife, including some very powerful scenes between the two of them and a powerful scene where he grieves his loss. And Callen, who's searched for his father almost his entire life? We don't even get a final conversation between them (as we did with Sam and Michelle) even though there is still so much we don't know and so much to say after 30+ years. In fact, we don't even see Callen by his father's bedside in the hospital. Instead, we get a conversation between Nikita and Hetty, and they talk about Darius. How is a conversation about a minor character of greater importance than the final goodbye between a main character and his father? Good grief, more time has been devoted to Nell dealing with the illness of her mother--a character we've never even met. That Gemmill cannot seem to balance the screen time between the characters when ALL the characters are dealing with the stress of personal issues is a weakness of the series and reflects either his personal favoritism for some characters or a lack of creative control over his own show.
Now, about the language Gemmill used. It may have been unintentional, but to talk about Callen's "discovery" that he was not the only child "raised" by Hetty (something he's known for 7 seasons) as a "smack down" shows a rather disturbing lack of empathy for one of the major characters in the series. It's rare that the term "smack down" is used in an affectionate or friendly way; it most often is used to indicate taking down or thoroughly defeating someone, either through humiliation or in a physical contest; or as the Urban Dictionary defines it, "a beatdown of epic proportions." This may not be what was meant, but the choice of words is interesting. Would Gemmill use this term to describe the emotional trauma Sam felt when Michelle died or the angst Deeks experienced when Kensi was injured? Maybe, but the use of this term makes me wonder if Callen has simply become the character the writers and producers "smack down" rather than develop because these past few seasons, he seems to have become a literal punching bag. Since season 7, Callen has faced one "smack down" after another. Gemmill's use of this term is also somewhat dismissive about the challenges and losses of any character, in this case, Callen. Kensi and Deeks have certainly faced their share of challenges, but they have also been given ample scenes to work through these challenges together. Callen hasn't been provided the same opportunity, and to be honest, after the dramatic finale of season 8, Sam wasn't given any opportunity to grieve for his wife. When compared to other shows of similar type and length, the writers for NCIS:LA these past few seasons have often wasted valuable screen time for pointless scenes instead of using that time to reveal the emotions of a character.
Also, the suggestion that the "smack down" in "Mother"--discovering that he wasn't the only child "raised" by Hetty and that there were others like him--showed Callen that he isn't as "special" as maybe he thinks he is, makes me wonder if Gemmill and Military understand Callen at all. Callen was interesting and "special" from the very first episode and always has been, and it's doubtful that Callen ever viewed himself as "special." He is extremely unimpressed with himself which is one reason he's liked by so many. This is just one of the characteristics that actually make him special (and there are far more). None of his personal attributes have anything to do with Hetty or her influence; he is the most "self-made" of all the team members because he had to be. In fact, his history with Hetty--which could be fascinating--has been poorly developed and very contradictory. That Gemmill seems to suggest that this relationship is what makes Callen "special" shows a superficial understanding of, and a lack of appreciation for, the character's complexity. It may also explain why Callen has been so underutilized in recent episodes and why his character is often the one "replaced" by guest stars. When was the last time Callen worked with a guest star as his partner while Sam was sidelined?
Now, why did I find Military's comments about "morality" valid, in general, but hypocritical in relation to NCIS:LA? Because his views aren't realized or don't apply to the characters, even in his own scripts. Take "The Patton Project," a Military-penned script. Deeks voices his opposition about participating in the hunt for members of the Patton Project by stating that they (the team members) aren't "judge, jury and executioner." Maybe they shouldn't be, but that didn't stop Deeks from being all three when he killed his LAPD partner, Boyle. In this same episode, Sam states unequivocally that NCIS agents do not torture people. Sam did, or perhaps it was just that his torture of Khalid was "justified." In "Code of Conduct," Roundtree says that truth is all that matters, and Sam agrees, but Sam is involved with a woman who is far less than truthful than one would like, especially Sam based on his stated views. It's not that these characters couldn't make these statements; it's that the writers (including Military) don't recognize the hypocrisy of what the characters say when compared to these same characters' actions. When characters recognize the conflict between what they say and their actions--actions that are made out of necessity or in a moment of personal weakness--that is what gives characters depth and makes them human. Humans make mistakes, and humans with a conscience recognize their mistakes and feel remorse, unease, guilt because of their mistakes. That is one of the major differences between a character like Gibbs and a character like Deeks. Gibbs had much more justification for killing to avenge the deaths of his wife and daughter, and yet what he did haunts him; Deeks had very little justification for what he did, and yet what he did doesn't bother him at all. In fact, I don't remember a single time when Deeks expresses regret or remorse or guilt or even questions whether or not his killing of Boyle was justified, and not just killing him, but lying about it, covering it up, and implicating another person.
Near the end of this segment, there are some revealing comments about Hetty. The suggestion that everyone might just be a pawn in whatever game Hetty is playing is a far cry from an operations manager who has genuine love and concern for those under her care. Hetty is certainly a complex character, and I would argue that this observation about Hetty is similar to comments in my earlier post, "Hetty Lange and the Myth of the 'Good Mother'."
I can't recall any successful network series where those in charge--and that seems to be both Gemmill and Military for NCIS:LA--simply forget or ignore events from earlier episodes, events that have established the backgrounds, back stories, personalities and character traits of the main characters. I understand the desire to "make the series their own" now that they're in charge, but that shouldn't mean erasing or ignoring years of well-written episodes or the personalities of established characters. When a producer assumes the showrunner position of an established show or reimagines a classic--such as the exceptional series, Sherlock--the essence of the main characters established in the prior years or the original work remains. Shane Brennan created the characters of NCIS:LA, and these characters were developed for more than 7 years, or 150+ episodes before Gemmill took the reins. Gemmill and Military should continue to develop and add their own imprint to the series and the original characters, but neither action necessitates contradicting or ignoring what's already been established. There's an old adage: "If it ain't broke, don't fix it."
A FEW MORE THOUGHTS:
I recently watched an "extra" segment from the S11 DVD set in which Gemmill and Military share some of their feelings about the 250th episode, "Mother," and how the events in this episode affected the NCIS:LA characters--particularly Callen--and, to be honest, I found it confusing. The way Gemmill talked about this episode gave me the distinct feeling that both Gemmill and Military chose to ignore events and conversations in a much earlier episode of the series so that this episode would sound more important and groundbreaking than it actually was. I also wondered if Gemmill realized that how he described the (supposed) effect on Callen could be viewed as almost hostile and certainly callous. His view of Hetty was interesting and similar to my own, and while I found Military's comment about "morality" valid in relation to stories and characters in general, I found them rather hypocritical when applied to some of the episodes of NCIS:LA, including ones he himself has written.
Gemmill suggested that the "revelation" that Hetty had other "children" besides Callen in "Mother" was extraordinarily important. To any viewer who's watched the series for more than 7 years, this, of course, wasn't a "revelation," at all. In point of fact, Hetty and Callen spoke about this all the way back in season 4. The wonderful, dramatic, powerful scene in that season's epsiode between Hetty and Callen (much more powerful than the supposedly revelatory scene in "Mother") occurred in "Ravens and Swans." In that particular episode, we're introduced to Grace, an NCIS agent who no one in OSP knows or can identify with the exception of Hetty. In trying to determine her identity, Callen asks Beale to conduct a background investigation of her, and it is through this investigation, that Callen discovers that Grace's background is very similar to his own, as well as at least two other agents, Sullivan and Hunter. (The fact that the entire team worked with both Hunter and Grace seems something that the writers of "Mother," as well as Gemmill and Military should be familiar with. And they should have remembered--especially Military since he wrote it--that Sam learned of Callen's "special" relationship with Hetty at the end of "Rage" in season 6.)
In "Ravens and Swans," Callen forces Hetty to acknowledge that there were other children like him that she "raised," and when he presses her about how many, she finally confirms that there were "a lot." At the end of this same episode, Hetty and Callen have one of their intimate conversations (much like the one in "Mother"). Hetty provides more details and compares her actions to those of the U.S.S.R. when it "raised" children and trained them in covert techniques in order to infiltrate foreign countries to serve as spies. The first revelation that occurred 7 seasons ago makes the "revelation" in the final scene of "Mother" of absolutely no importance. (As an actor, no one would expect ECO, the co-writer of "Mother" to remember what happened 7 seasons ago, but as a writer, it is his responsibility to be aware of events that have happened in past episodes so that his episode aligns with--and doesn't duplicate or contradict--events that have already occurred. This is even more important when the event is something as noteworthy as this particular revelation that changed the relationship between Callen and Hetty because it made Callen--and the viewers--aware of Hetty's willingness to use and manipulate even children for a purpose.) Gemmill's comment that Callen's "discovery" of this is akin to finding out that he was "adopted and that your parents had nine other kids just like you" is ridiculous on at least two fronts. First, Callen knew about the "other kids" long before this episode (unless his memory had been magically erased) and given his history within the foster care system, he probably wouldn't be surprised by anything relating to his past at this point, and second, and most importantly, there is no other kid "just like" Callen. Where did Gemmill get the idea that all of Hetty's "kids" are alike? Is he saying that Callen is just like Lauren or Sullivan or Grace or Akhos? That somehow being "raised" by Hetty robs a person of his or her individuality? He also suggests that Callen has gone off to rescue Hetty because he thinks of her as his "mom," but that isn't an assumption borne out by anything Callen's done in the past. Callen may think of Hetty as his "mom" (although he's never referred to her as such in any of his conversations with anyone or in anything he's done), but he rescued her because he cares about the people he works with (the same reason he went to rescue Kensi and Sam and promised Mosley he'd get her son back). Certainly, Callen has a sense of affection for Hetty, but she is also his co-worker (his description of her in "Mother" while waiting in the cemetery with Sam) and his boss.
Gemmill also mentions that it's their job (as showrunner and writers) to throw their characters into a "bit of a spin." I would suggest that they haven't let Callen stop spinning since season 9, and by this time he must be nauseous. It's not that viewers don't want to see characters face challenges. It's just that when a major character faces a challenge, it would be nice if a) the character maintained his/her personality and character traits while doing so and b) viewers had an opportunity to see the character deal with/handle/resolve the challenge, including its aftermath or effect. For instance, half a season was devoted to Kensi's rehabilitation. Several episodes provided Deeks time to recover from his torture. Sam was given an entire episode dealing with the death of his wife, including some very powerful scenes between the two of them and a powerful scene where he grieves his loss. And Callen, who's searched for his father almost his entire life? We don't even get a final conversation between them (as we did with Sam and Michelle) even though there is still so much we don't know and so much to say after 30+ years. In fact, we don't even see Callen by his father's bedside in the hospital. Instead, we get a conversation between Nikita and Hetty, and they talk about Darius. How is a conversation about a minor character of greater importance than the final goodbye between a main character and his father? Good grief, more time has been devoted to Nell dealing with the illness of her mother--a character we've never even met. That Gemmill cannot seem to balance the screen time between the characters when ALL the characters are dealing with the stress of personal issues is a weakness of the series and reflects either his personal favoritism for some characters or a lack of creative control over his own show.
Now, about the language Gemmill used. It may have been unintentional, but to talk about Callen's "discovery" that he was not the only child "raised" by Hetty (something he's known for 7 seasons) as a "smack down" shows a rather disturbing lack of empathy for one of the major characters in the series. It's rare that the term "smack down" is used in an affectionate or friendly way; it most often is used to indicate taking down or thoroughly defeating someone, either through humiliation or in a physical contest; or as the Urban Dictionary defines it, "a beatdown of epic proportions." This may not be what was meant, but the choice of words is interesting. Would Gemmill use this term to describe the emotional trauma Sam felt when Michelle died or the angst Deeks experienced when Kensi was injured? Maybe, but the use of this term makes me wonder if Callen has simply become the character the writers and producers "smack down" rather than develop because these past few seasons, he seems to have become a literal punching bag. Since season 7, Callen has faced one "smack down" after another. Gemmill's use of this term is also somewhat dismissive about the challenges and losses of any character, in this case, Callen. Kensi and Deeks have certainly faced their share of challenges, but they have also been given ample scenes to work through these challenges together. Callen hasn't been provided the same opportunity, and to be honest, after the dramatic finale of season 8, Sam wasn't given any opportunity to grieve for his wife. When compared to other shows of similar type and length, the writers for NCIS:LA these past few seasons have often wasted valuable screen time for pointless scenes instead of using that time to reveal the emotions of a character.
Also, the suggestion that the "smack down" in "Mother"--discovering that he wasn't the only child "raised" by Hetty and that there were others like him--showed Callen that he isn't as "special" as maybe he thinks he is, makes me wonder if Gemmill and Military understand Callen at all. Callen was interesting and "special" from the very first episode and always has been, and it's doubtful that Callen ever viewed himself as "special." He is extremely unimpressed with himself which is one reason he's liked by so many. This is just one of the characteristics that actually make him special (and there are far more). None of his personal attributes have anything to do with Hetty or her influence; he is the most "self-made" of all the team members because he had to be. In fact, his history with Hetty--which could be fascinating--has been poorly developed and very contradictory. That Gemmill seems to suggest that this relationship is what makes Callen "special" shows a superficial understanding of, and a lack of appreciation for, the character's complexity. It may also explain why Callen has been so underutilized in recent episodes and why his character is often the one "replaced" by guest stars. When was the last time Callen worked with a guest star as his partner while Sam was sidelined?
Now, why did I find Military's comments about "morality" valid, in general, but hypocritical in relation to NCIS:LA? Because his views aren't realized or don't apply to the characters, even in his own scripts. Take "The Patton Project," a Military-penned script. Deeks voices his opposition about participating in the hunt for members of the Patton Project by stating that they (the team members) aren't "judge, jury and executioner." Maybe they shouldn't be, but that didn't stop Deeks from being all three when he killed his LAPD partner, Boyle. In this same episode, Sam states unequivocally that NCIS agents do not torture people. Sam did, or perhaps it was just that his torture of Khalid was "justified." In "Code of Conduct," Roundtree says that truth is all that matters, and Sam agrees, but Sam is involved with a woman who is far less than truthful than one would like, especially Sam based on his stated views. It's not that these characters couldn't make these statements; it's that the writers (including Military) don't recognize the hypocrisy of what the characters say when compared to these same characters' actions. When characters recognize the conflict between what they say and their actions--actions that are made out of necessity or in a moment of personal weakness--that is what gives characters depth and makes them human. Humans make mistakes, and humans with a conscience recognize their mistakes and feel remorse, unease, guilt because of their mistakes. That is one of the major differences between a character like Gibbs and a character like Deeks. Gibbs had much more justification for killing to avenge the deaths of his wife and daughter, and yet what he did haunts him; Deeks had very little justification for what he did, and yet what he did doesn't bother him at all. In fact, I don't remember a single time when Deeks expresses regret or remorse or guilt or even questions whether or not his killing of Boyle was justified, and not just killing him, but lying about it, covering it up, and implicating another person.
Near the end of this segment, there are some revealing comments about Hetty. The suggestion that everyone might just be a pawn in whatever game Hetty is playing is a far cry from an operations manager who has genuine love and concern for those under her care. Hetty is certainly a complex character, and I would argue that this observation about Hetty is similar to comments in my earlier post, "Hetty Lange and the Myth of the 'Good Mother'."
I can't recall any successful network series where those in charge--and that seems to be both Gemmill and Military for NCIS:LA--simply forget or ignore events from earlier episodes, events that have established the backgrounds, back stories, personalities and character traits of the main characters. I understand the desire to "make the series their own" now that they're in charge, but that shouldn't mean erasing or ignoring years of well-written episodes or the personalities of established characters. When a producer assumes the showrunner position of an established show or reimagines a classic--such as the exceptional series, Sherlock--the essence of the main characters established in the prior years or the original work remains. Shane Brennan created the characters of NCIS:LA, and these characters were developed for more than 7 years, or 150+ episodes before Gemmill took the reins. Gemmill and Military should continue to develop and add their own imprint to the series and the original characters, but neither action necessitates contradicting or ignoring what's already been established. There's an old adage: "If it ain't broke, don't fix it."
A FEW MORE THOUGHTS:
- Whatever Gemmill and Military have planned for season 12, here's hoping they pay more attention to the small details and what we've already seen in former episodes so that there aren't elements that stand out for the wrong reasons: Callen's name on his mailbox, Sam dealing with the "loyalty" issue about investigating SEALS was done in Military's "Vengeance" (season 3), Callen even knowing what Tinder is and not using tools, Katherine-an insurance agent- knowing everything about OSP, and more.
Comments
Post a Comment