Last night was the premiere of Fox’s new TV show “Fringe” by J.J. Abrams—the creator of Lost,” “Alias,” and “Felicity.” “Fringe” is worth watching, but the pilot has some clunkiness that the show needs to shed if it wants to take off.“Fringe” is meant to be a kind of 21st century “X-Files” about a beautiful government agent named Olivia who solves life-and-death mysteries with the help of a bad boy genius named Peter. The duo is played by Joshua Jackson (of “Dawson’s Creek” fame) and newcomer Anna Torv, who is a Cate Blanchett look-alike.
It’s probably unfair to spend too much time comparing “Fringe” to “X-Files” because they have different points of view. For years “X-Files” asked the question “What is out there? Is all this creepy stuff real?” But “Fringe” seems to acknowledge the paranormal and points to boundary-breaking new science to ask instead “what hath man wrought?” But the differences between the two shows go deeper. The strength of “X-Files” was never in all the mumbo jumbo—it was the relationship between two partners. You didn’t watch each week just to figure out the mystery—you wanted to see how these crazy scenarios made Mulder and Scully interact. Though “Fringe” is just beginning, it needs to focus on fleshing out its characters.
Just like any of J.J.’s shows, the first moments of “Fringe” leapt out of the gate at a full gallop with great production values and a tangible, intense atmosphere. And though the 90-minute show was entertaining and certainly watchable, it suffered from a clear weakness in its writing. First, the pacing seemed off. There were bursts of action out of nowhere that lasted just seconds followed by whole sections of exposition sandwiched between commercial breaks. All that explaining of the story could be a real problem too--J.J. has promised the network that “Fringe” won’t be mired in an overarching mythology that will confuse viewers—like “Lost” and “Alias.” But for all of the emphasis on accessibility, “Fringe” sure got off to a convoluted start.
The show also fails to deliver when it comes to the believability quotient. I’m certainly willing to suspend disbelief and fall into the world of science fiction, but I have to be lured in and enthralled. “Fringe” didn’t do that. It just threw crazy thing after crazy thing at me, sometimes with no rhyme or reason. And it was hard to believe much of the dialogue and some of the close interaction between the characters when you remember that these people have known each other less than a week.
All this said, I’m still going to watch “Fringe.” It had some moments of zany brilliance and some real edge-of-your-seat stuff that I’m sure will keep popping up. It’s my hope that things will only get better--that the pilot had a lot of explaining to do so that we could get going on this long journey into the paranormal. I love J.J.’s other work, especially when he’s very hands-on with a project. I’m keeping my fingers crossed that he sticks with “Fringe” for the long haul and lets the show unfold in a way that’s organic to the characters and plot and makes sense to viewers.
This blog entry can also be found at Gay.com.
