Damages

But  bad parenting was a running theme all season, with Ellen’s sister smoking meth despite having a young baby at home, Marilyn Tobin allowing her son to kill his own daughter, Tom Shayes blowing the family fortune, Patty trying to pay off her son’s older lover, then having her sent to jail for sex with a minor, and poor Leonard Winstone’s real father blackmailing him to get his hands on a little Tobin cash. If a morality tale can be likened to an ethical fender bender, then “Damages” represents a 15-car pile-up straight out of “CHiPs.”

On Monday night, after a season of wondering who killed Tom Shayes (Joe Tobin, in the bathroom, by drowning him in toilet water in a fit of rage) and who crashed into Patty’s car (her son Michael, also in a fit of rage) and who else would end up dead (Marilyn Tobin, by suicide) and who would land in jail (Arthur Frobisher, Wes Krulik, Joe Tobin, Michael’s girlfriend Jill), the finale was so packed full of last-minute twists and turns that the show’s writers could hardly smash them all into the 90-minute episode. The writer’s accomplished everything they set out to accomplish. But is it worth it?

That’s a good question. “Damages” is that odd show that offers intriguing dialogue and smart, weighty scenes, but the final pay-off, even though it’s thrilling and unpredictable, still feels a little empty. Once all the cars go smash on “CHiPs,” you have to stop and ask yourself, was it really worth wrecking all those perfectly good Buick Regals? Do we necessarily buy that Marilyn Tobin would, on the one hand, stand back and let her son kill his own daughter but then, on the other hand, try to take the fall for Tessa Marchetti’s death? Do we really believe that Joe Tobin, a man who was consumed by big moral questions at the start of the season, would get drunk and drown Tom Shayes in a toilet bowl?

Even those twists can be forgiven, though, since they’re part of the fun on a splashy, suspend-your-disbelief thrill ride like “Damages.” The major disappointment at the end of season three was the retreat to easy Evil Career Lady/Bad Mommy stereotypes in the 11th hour. Last season we found out that Patty had a stillborn baby. Revealing that the death was her choice certainly fit neatly into the premise, and dovetailed with the many strained relationships on the show that reflected the constant need to rebalance personal life against the pressures of career success.

Somehow, though, on a show with two unconventional female leads who never fit into the typical sexed-up notion of femme fatale or devouring witch, who battled each other with strange passive aggressive slights instead of jumping into the nearest pool and ripping each other’s blouses off, it was sad to see everything get boiled down to a homemade abortion. “Is it worth it?” Ellen asks, but we can see the answer in Patty’s grim look, and in the flashback to her weeping all over her dead baby’s grave. After weeks of restrained one-upmanship and seething and careful chess moves, after three seasons of demonstrating that Patty is emotionally withdrawn and retreats into work not because she craves success more than anything else, but because she can’t handle the discomfort and unpredictability and lack of control presented by intimate relationships, after months of presenting this riveting character as one that defies outdated archetypes, it all boils down to this: A dead baby, and a bad Mommy.

Is it worth it? 

Perhaps it’s this historical depiction of females as unable to confront each other without jumping into the nearest swimming pool and ripping each other’s blouses off that makes the growing love/hate chess match between Ellen and Patty on FX’s “Damages” so compelling. Having indoctrinated Ellen (Rose Byrne) into the cutthroat world of high-priced lawyers by baptizing her in her fiancé’s blood, Patty (Glenn Close) still refuses to acknowledge any animosity between the two of them. Instead, she gives Ellen expensive gifts, sends Ellen’s “replacement,” Alex (Tara Summers), to Ellen for advice, or calls Ellen at 4 a.m. to invite her over for dinner, purposefully telling her the wrong night so that she’ll show up and find Alex and Patty working closely together over a bottle of red wine.

At first, Ellen is straightforward. She tells Patty, “If you want to talk to me, don’t play games. Just pick up the phone and call.” She believes that working for the assistant district attorney is her true calling and will deliver her from the evil of Patty’s ways. But as the Bernie-Madoff-alike Tobin case unfolds, Ellen realizes that Patty gets results in ways that her naive and politically motivated overlords never will. She’s also romanced by Patty’s odd mix of flattery and ulterior motives; she’s transfixed by this woman’s manipulations, her deviance, all hidden by her “Who me? Don’t be silly!” mask, which Close brings to life with some deliciously malignant undertones.

This subdued standoff was the highlight of Monday night’s episode, which left us guessing about what the hell Patty is up to, what Ellen is trying to pull, and whose side anyone is on in the end. What’s brilliant about “Damages,” though, is that the exact alignment of these women, what their aims with the Tobin case are, or whether they love or despise each other underneath it all, hardly matters. They’re locked in some twisted battle or dance or duel or sophisticated game of one-upmanship, and they’re both being fed by it. The best moment of “You Haven’t Replaced Me”? When Ellen, in bed with her new do-gooder boyfriend who’s obviously a pawn and not a real partner, puts down the phone after Patty’s rude, aggressive 4 a.m. call, and smiles. She matters to Patty — either as a pawn herself, or as an ally, or as a foe. Somehow, this gives Ellen a charge. Whoever wins or gets the last word or falls the hardest for the other’s charms/trip wires, one thing is for certain: In Ellen, we’re seeing a young Patty, drawn in by the lures of intimidation, power and victory at any cost.

I also have a major beef with Lindsey Vonn, who insisted on making a huge spectacle of how fast she was going down that steep hill on her skis without falling once. How ridiculously insensitive was that to the woman who had a terrible wipeout on that exact same hill just minutes later?

But that wasn’t enough for Vonn. Next, she had the audacity to shout happily and take off her helmet and unleash this torrent of long, blond hair, and reveal her beautiful face, which seemed to sneer directly at the rest of us at home, presumably for not being a sexy elite athlete like she is. This is exactly the sort of thing that fosters a climate of intolerance for sedentary people with bad hair.

And what’s with Johnny Weir, all plucky and delightful and clever? Did you see how he just relished rubbing our gracelessness and lack of flair in our faces the other night during the free skate program? How dare he make us feel like the lumpy, useless heterosexuals that we are? What kind of message does this send to young people who can’t ice skate and aren’t attractive and don’t have an original thought in their heads?

I hereby officially call on the IOC and NBC and the Olympic athletes themselves to refuse to perform sports or engage in interviews that in any way promote or endorse the kind of strength and determination and courage that could end up making talentless, clumsy kids and awkward, unlikable scaredy-cats and chubby old people feel bad about themselves. We need to send a very clear message that we are not going to tolerate the glorification of hard work and excellent coordination and charisma and intelligence, because such glorification inevitably incites low self-esteem and frustration among the lazy, the soft, and the deeply mediocre.

Damaged goods

If only my call to arms could end there, but alas, the world is positively filthy with hateful misconceptions and insulting messages, and someone needs to stand up to the bullies out there, mostly by sending out press releases and holding press conferences and staging lavish promotional events.

Naturally FX’s “Damages” (10 p.m. Mondays) has been treading on thin ice for quite some time now, with its irresponsible depiction of the most vaunted corridors of legal power. The drama, which is really heating up lately and never fails to draw me in with its twists and turns, nonetheless does the working public a huge disservice by implying that those of us who aren’t beautiful, powerful, menacing lawyers might as well just sit around eating mini ravioli out of a can and feeling sorry for ourselves for the rest of our lives, because we’ll never live such glamorous lives – or amount to anything, really. Maybe we were going to do that anyway …  but still.

The show’s flagrant disregard for the very real challenges faced by people in crappy outdated clothes with mundane, tedious jobs, people who don’t have the luxury of throwing their weight around every time something doesn’t go their way, really sets my teeth on edge. No, not all of us can threaten or harass or murder people whenever we feel like it. Go ahead and rub it in our faces, why don’t you?

If the rest of us could just make a phone call to a discreet, high-priced thug who could quickly and efficiently bust in the kneecaps of that really irritating co-worker who always steals the best doughnuts on Doughnut Fridays, do you really think we’d feel half as powerless and defeated as we do? Do you really think that, if we could just pick up the phone and say “Code red” or “Do it” or “Project smash-knee is in effect,” we would slouch and mumble like this?

How dare they taunt us with the flash forwards to Tom Shayes’ (Tate Donovan) body in the dumpster and Patty’s (Glenn Close) panicked, regretful phone calls to some unseen shadowy right-hand man, hinting at the kind of terrible power that will never be ours! As usual, white-collar criminals and the people who write about them for television don’t give a second thought to how cruel and unjust it is that the rest of us can only dream of using brute force to bend our enemies to our will.

Furthermore, this depiction of regular, everyday people as “fearful” of lawyers or “confused” about the law or “paralyzed by terror” over how much they’re being charged every second they’re in a lawyer’s company is simply offensive in its accuracy. Likewise, Ellen (Rose Byrne) and Patty’s recent talk over tumblers of fine liquor once again suggests that rich lawyer types can blithely sup at the finest restaurants in town or traipse off to day spas or lounge about sipping on pricey cognac. That’s just irresponsible, and undermines those of us who spend most of our time in our dirty sweats, boiling water for mac and cheese.

I’ve loved this season of “Damages” so far in spite of my constant outrage over it, mind you, but I really found the discovery of meth and a pipe in Ellen’s sister’s bag pointlessly soapy and sensationalistic, even for this show – and that’s not to mention what an insult that scene was to the many, many meth addicts out there who don’t currently have young infants in their care, believe it or not. It’s not like a little baby is endangered every single time someone decides to smoke a little drugs, and to insinuate as much sends a message not just that drug addicts are bad, irresponsible people — which most drug addicts would agree with — but that they’re the sorts of bad, irresponsible people who would refuse to call their rich lawyer sisters and say, “I’m getting high while raising my baby alone. Maybe you should get off your skinny ass, take care of this kid and send me to rehab instead of waiting for tragedy to strike, which it so often does on this soapy, sensationalistic show.” That, sir, is going just a step too far.

I also have a bone to pick about the portrayal of Louis Tobin (Len Cariou). Who would ever believe that a wealthy financier with all of the advantages in life that Tobin enjoyed could be evil and crafty enough to set up a Ponzi scheme, pull the wool over everyone’s eyes, and get away with it for decades? Furthermore, implying that investors are uninformed, money-grubbing sheep who would follow patently ridiculous returns to their own financial ruin is insulting and unfair. People just aren’t that greedy or that ignorant!

What’s more, suggesting that this nation’s regulatory institutions would ever fail to prevent such an elaborate and wholesale assault on the investing public’s trust from occurring is deeply deceptive to the American people. The smart and thorough human beings who work hard for our country’s fine government institutions are far more careful and unselfish than to neglect to investigate the kind of crime that could ruin so many people’s lives!

Podcast away

Luckily, there are some wonderful television writers and entertainers out there who are finding tasteful ways to rally around those with less talent and less brains in their heads than the average bear.

For example, remember that guy in college who never shut up about his big, crazy theories? Remember how he would always pull you into the most rambling, preposterous debates imaginable, because his lack of basic logic paired with his belief in the most absurd and patently impossible things created a gigantic conversational black hole from which there was no easy escape, particularly while stoned?

Well, there’s no need to fret any longer about how that guy probably ended up on food stamps or in some homeless shelter somewhere, babbling endlessly about how Belize has the atom bomb or old pillows are made primarily of dead skin or daycare workers in Minnesota were caught feeding crack-laced brownies to infants. Thanks to Ricky Gervais and Stephen Merchant, co-creators of “The Office” and “Extras,” that guy and those of his ilk are finally being celebrated for the demented idiot savants that they are.

You see, that guy, whose name in this case is Karl Pilkington, was assigned to be Merchant and Gervais’ producer at XFM. Once they got to know Pilkington, though, they realized that they had to share him with the world, so they molded their entire podcast around him in 2005 for the Guardian. Now that podcast has been animated and transformed into HBO’s “The Ricky Gervais Show” (9 p.m. Fridays).

Yes, it’s called “The Ricky Gervais Show,” but the real star is that guy, Karl Pilkington. Billed as “a series of pointless conversations,” the show mostly features the animated faces of Gervais, Merchant and Pilkington talking into microphones. Occasionally, as the three hosts discuss monkeys flying to the moon or history or Pilkington’s strange stories, those things are animated, too.

“And you’re thinking, well, why are we doing a podcast?” asks Gervais during the first episode. “It’s because I’d like to be in a room with Karl Pilkington. You know how people go and help chimps? Karl Pilkington is an ongoing experiment for me, because I’ve seen him sort of blossom from an idiot to an imbecile.”

The madness always begins with a classic That Guy statement from Pilkington. For example: “We’re in that era where we’ve invented most of the stuff we need, and now we’re just messing about.”

What about airplanes, says Gervais. “Yeah, but, is that a good thing, planes and that?” Pilkington replies. “Do you need a plane, really?” Planes only allow you to fly to places that you need an injection just to visit, he explains. What’s the use of that? He wants to know. If we’re going to invent something, he says, we should invent a way that people could live to the age of 78, die, and when they die, there’s a little baby inside to take their place. Um, right.

In another episode, Gervais brings up Benjamin Franklin, and the fact that he coined the phrase “Waste not, want not.” Pilkington doesn’t know who Franklin is, and when Gervais tells him and explains the meaning of that phrase, Pilkington replies, “So, he was a bit of a hoarder, then.”

While countless sensitive readers will probably leap to the conclusion that this is yet another British comedy with a hopelessly abusive slant and a disastrously unkind central goal of shaming Pilkington over his lack of intelligence, think again, friends. Pilkington rather enjoys the hullabaloo and also, he’s as dismissive of what other people think of him as he is of facts and science and history. You cannot hurt this man with words, because he doesn’t believe anything you say. In other words, Karl Pilkington is a hero to confused but outspoken amateur theorists — and all dumb people, for that matter — everywhere!

Take the conversation in which Merchant and Gervais discover that Pilkington believes that humans and dinosaurs were “knocking about” at the same time:

Merchant: You know that “The Flintstones” is only partly based on fact? Dinosaurs and man did not coexist. Dinosaurs had long gone before man arrived. Extinct, kaput. What, you don’t believe us?

Pilkington: Why couldn’t that have happened? But why weren’t there dinosaurs back then just like we have dogs now?

Gervais: He’s watching “The Flintstones.”

Pilkington: I just think that there must’ve been a crossover point.

Gervais: Exactly. Why didn’t Hitler meet Nero? There’s must’ve been … they must’ve met somewhere!

In addition to giving ignorant weirdos a long-delayed chance to bask in the spotlight, Merchant and Gervais send a clear message to the heretofore scorned bullies and well-educated antagonizers of the world: Let your bully flag fly at last! “The Ricky Gervais Show” demonstrates that feeling superior doesn’t have to be quite so isolating, or induce quite so much self-hatred. Remember: You are not alone in your knee-jerk snobbery and loathing for the common man. You can even make a career out of it!

Conclusiastical remarks

Hopefully, some of the high-profile athletes in Vancouver will do a similar service to the old, the squishy and the dimwitted by adjusting their current campaign of shame against the unexceptional. Until they learn to play down their physical fitness and warmth and charm, though, they’re going to do enormous damage to the morale of millions of regular, ugly, unfunny, stupid Americans. It needs to stop. Today, we draw a line in the snow and say: No more!

“It’s not a mask, what you see is what you get,” Patty says lightly.

Julian isn’t convinced, but we still don’t understand what he wants from her. What is he trying to pull, anyway? Why is he acting like he has her number?

And so, two minutes into a new season of “Damages” (premieres 10 p.m. Monday, Jan. 25, on FX), things are already getting creepy, and we can’t look away. And that’s before we find out about Patty’s current case, prosecuting Louis Tobin, a Bernie Madoff-type financier who pulled off the biggest Ponzi scheme in history, that’s before we see that Ellen (Rose Byrne) has left Hewes & Associates to work for the city prosecutor’s office, that’s before we witness a mysterious accident, meet a strange homeless man with secrets, and discover a dead body in a dumpster. Somehow, the writers of “Damages” take a crude little whodunit and weave it into a masterpiece of suspense and provocation. Somehow, by simply presenting a volley of edgy, brief scenes and odd little clues, they pull us in: Who is this Julian? What does he have on Patty? Why is Patty messing with Ellen? Where is Tobin’s money stashed?

Is my wiring really so easily jumped? The mind reels. Why in the world do I care?

It would be easy enough to reduce “Damages” to the status of a pulpy page-turner. After all, it’s all plot, right? Start with a story that we’re already invested in (Bernie Madoff) but that’s still shrouded in mystery even now that Madoff is doing time, throw in some high stakes for everyone involved, toss in a mystery man and a murder, and we’re sold.

“Damages” could be far worse and still have an audience, as evidenced by the glut of lackluster whodunits on the air. Despite appearances, though, this show transcends the base level of twisty procedurals with one thing: Patty Hewes. Like Tony Soprano, Vic Mackey or Al Swearengen, Patty Hewes is that formidable villainess that makes the whole crazy mess sing. “Oh sure, she hisses at people. How compelling,” you’re thinking, and who would blame you? The world tends to encounter the nasty, powerful female character as a stroke of genius even when her evil is limited to a few cutting words and a willingness to slash someone across the face with her pointy red nails.

But Patty Hewes is different. She’s a self-serving manipulator, sure, but she’s guided by some odd mix of vanity, pride, vengeance, a commitment to appearances, a genuine desire to seek justice for the underdog, and the vaguest outlines of a conscience. Even after two seasons, during which Hewes has proven that she’s willing to screw over almost anyone to win her cases and have her way, we’re still not completely sure what the woman is and isn’t capable of. She is haunted by her crimes, there’s no doubt about that. It’s hard not to be a little bit daunted when your husband ditches you and your own son tells you, “People either leave you, or they die. Those are the only two endings possible.”

What’s interesting about Patty is that she keeps thriving in spite of everything — or is she just appearing to thrive? Glenn Close shows us so much of Patty’s emotions, but she also keeps a tight lid on Patty’s deepest desires. When Patty is offered a chance to bring love back into her life, will she take it? We can’t tell. She’s utterly unpredictable, and that brings  a palpable charge to every scene she’s in. She moves through the world as this confrontational, straight-talking lawyer, but in truth she’s unable to speak honestly or directly to anyone in her life, sending Ellen odd gifts (As a sign of allegiance? Remorse? Because she wants a favor?), making warm, friendly statements that can also sound like veiled threats.

But when Julian refers to her “mask,” Patty really does seem to believe that with her, “what you see is what you get.”

Of course, the most dangerous people in the world are the ones who have mastered the art of self-deception. And if there’s one thing Patty Hewes is better at than fooling others, it’s fooling herself. Even if Patty seems benign at the outset of Season 3, even if that seething, enraged dragon lady is nowhere to be found, in Patty’s own words, “She’ll be back. Trust me.“ 

The show’s sophomore season (premieres at 10 p.m. Wednesday, Jan. 7) once again adds up to a delicious maze of interrelated schemes, cross-purposes and ulterior motives. This is “24″ with lawyers, a densely plotted roller-coaster ride of betrayals, yet somehow these master schemes feel far more compelling than the most elaborate terrorist plot to cross Jack Bauer’s path in years.

Strangely enough, though, after hissing and seething her way through the show’s first season, Patty Hewes feels like the least treacherous character in the picture this time around. Maybe that’s because Ellen Parsons (Rose Byrne) has learned a thing or two from Patty in their short time together as colleagues, and she’s staunchly determined to take her mentor down once and for all ­– which is not to mention her revenge fantasies involving Arthur Frobisher, the man who had her fiancé murdered.

Maybe Patty appears a little more sympathetic and fragile this season because she’s grappling with whether or not to take on the case of an old acquaintance, Daniel Purcell (William Hurt), for whom she obviously has lingering feelings. And maybe her eeevil nature is so well-established now that viewers need to start believing she can act in vaguely ethical ways again, just long enough for her next shrewd, duplicitous move to shock us all over again.

Whatever the motivation for this shift in dynamics, it works: Ellen’s victimization by Patty and Frobisher has transformed her into someone who no longer second-guesses herself, whereas Patty’s guilt over the death of Ray Fiske (Zeljko Ivanek) has turned her into someone who does think twice occasionally. With this transfixing role reversal, “Damages” is off to an electrifying start.

That’s no small order, either, given the labyrinthine, over-the-top plot of the first season. The show’s writers were faced with a tough dilemma: Cast off the Frobisher case and its aftermath to avoid retreading old ground, and risk alienating loyal viewers who might be less interested in a brand-new case on Patty’s desk, or revisit Frobisher and risk lingering too long over a story that’s at least partially resolved. The writers ended up making the transition perfectly, weaving some of the threads from the Frobisher era into the second season and keeping Ellen traumatized and borderline obsessed with vengeance, while dangling tantalizing clues of what lies ahead for Patty Hewes and Associates. In fact, it only takes two episodes to demonstrate that this season is going to be another wild ride, maybe even one that’s a little more nuanced and unpredictable than the first.

Yes, the unsettling flash forwards of the first season are back. Yes, Ted Danson is back, along with Timothy Olyphant (“Deadwood”), Marcia Gay Harden and indie darling Tom Noonan. If watching serious actors play off each other’s strengths excites you even more than dueling lawyers, just wait for the scene in the third episode, in which Noonan, who plays a New York City detective, meets with Hurt’s Purcell. Noonan is the master of this flavor of smug, slippery smarts, and Hurt has cornered the market on the frantic victim with something to hide. Watching these two pros interact on-screen is just the sort of high-caliber treat we need to cleanse the bad taste of a lackluster fall TV season from our palates.

Best of all, though, the writing and story lines are confident and clever and twisted in ways that suggest that “Damages” co-creators Todd Kessler, Glenn Kessler and Daniel Zelman have already thought through the entire second season, and they know where this story is headed — namely, straight to hell.

But what else would you expect on a show where no one can be trusted, no one is safe, and everyone is damaged?