It's no secret that the US remake of Life on Mars has had a difficult birth, what with an abortive first pilot resulting in significant recasting, the replacement of the writer/producer and changing the locale from LA to New York.
But now that it's actually aired (in the States), but also available on the naughty internet if you care to look, have they actually got it right?
I would say that the answer to this is 'Probably'.
There are, of course, lots of arguments over whether the show should have been remade or not. There is, after all, nothing wrong with the original and if we're quite happy not to demand British versions of Mad Men or The Wire, why can't the Americans just be happy with the original versions of our shows?
Now, normally I'm on board with this argument and tend to think that the view that Americans won't watch a show just because it doesn't have American accents in it is either condescending or just downright depressing if it is true.
But with Life on Mars, I have to say that I think there always was a strong case for an American version. The US experience of the 70s is markedly different to the British one. It was perhaps the last decade where the two countries were culturally divergent and that from the 80s onwards we became much more entwined in our culture (as well as our politics). An American version could (and should) be able to bring enough new and unique stuff to the table for it to qualify as a different show in its own right.
This is what made the first pilot such a disaster. It was essentially a retread of the first episode of the British version merely transplanted to LA. And watching from an outsider's perspective, moving from LA of 2008 to the LA of 1973 didn't really provide the cultural jolt that is the whole point of the series because both worlds seem as equally otherworldly and strange anyway.
And that's why moving the series to New York was such a good idea. We're very familiar with New York of the 70s through countless movies, from Serpico to the French Connection and TV shows like Kojak to Hill Street Blues. To me it seems a no-brainer to set it here. If the original Life on Mars was designed as a homage to The Sweeney, then surely an American version must be intending to pay tribute to the American shows of the time.
If Life on Mars US gets anything right it's the design. The show looks amazing and New York of the 70s is brilliantly realised. When Sam wakes up, it really is "like a different planet" but one that is still strangely familiar to us.
The pilot still treads extremely close to the original, although less so than the first LA pilot did. There are many scenes that are shot for shot the same as the British version. But it's where the script has had the courage to diverge from the source material that it becomes interesting. Early on in the show, when Sam wakes up in a 1970s wasteland one of the first things he sees is the newly constructed Twin Towers. It's a great scene and and it gives the remake an emotional kick of its own and hopefully paves the way for it break away slightly from its source material in later episodes.
The other scene which shows a little bit of hope for this is where Sam seems to seriously consider killing the ten-year-old Colin Raimes in the hope that it will jolt him back to the future. One couldn't imagine John Simm's Sam Tyler ever doing this and perhaps we're going to see a darker Sam in the US version as the show progresses.
Jason O'Meara does, I think, an OK job as Sam. I really didn't like him in the first pilot but his performance seems changed, more nuanced and less beefcakey in this version. And as mentioned above, if the show does take him to darker more interesting places then he might still drag himself out of the considerable shadow of John Simm's definitive take on the character.
But the show lives or stands, of course, on Gene Hunt. And, sad to say, Colm Meaney just didn't cut it in the first US pilot. On paper, Harvey Keitel is great casting. He's the ultimate New York tough guy - from Mean Streets through to Reservoir Dogs. And while he's a strangely understated and background character in this pilot, he still shines in places. But he's a lot smaller and stockier than O'Meara who seems to tower over him. This is an underrated part of the dynamic of the show. Gene Hunt is a colossus - dominating Sam not just psychologically but physically. Philip Glenister intruded into every scene he was in. Keitel's Hunt all too often fades into the background. But what Keitel brings to the party is a more subtle, quiet menace. And this is perhaps what's needed. He's not channeling Jack Regan so much as he should be channeling Popeye Doyle and the like. He's not as overpowering as Glenister's Hunt but he might prove to be just as memorable and perhaps a slightly darker version as the show progresses.
Personally, I think they missed a trick by not making Gene Hunt black - in a nod to the blaxploitation aspect of 1970s America. How great would it have been to have seen Richard Roundtree or Fred Townsend as Hunt? In fact, dream casting would even have been Samuel L Jackson in the role.
On a totally unrelated note, can I just say how great it was to see Clarke Peters in a minor role as a modern day cop, effortlessly channeling Lester Freamon from The Wire. (Now, aren't there a couple of great Hunt candidates to be found in that show? Idris Elba would have been a great, as would John Doman as a more traditional Hunt.)
So, now that it's finally here, the US version of LoM is still riding too much on the coat-tails of the original. I think there's some signs that it's going to break free of that and take the show in directions that are unique to itself. It's also shown signs of willing to go to slightly darker places than the original. It if continues to do so, then it could become another piece of essential viewing from across the pond. It might be premature to say it but already it seems to be showing the potential to outshine the lamentable Ashes to Ashes.
Read More......
