CliqueClack TV
TV SHOWS COLUMNS FEATURES CHATS QUESTIONS

What’s this show called … Dexter?

Each week I review a show that's new to me. Good idea, or punishment (mine or yours)? You be the judge. But either way, if I had to watch it, the least you can do is read what I have to say....

I’ve always found cable series to be a particularly enjoyable breed. Not all of them are for me, but the quality of programming seems to usually be ratcheted up when you’re talking about networks that only air a handful of original series every year.

Which is why I generally give any new shows that come from the premiere cable shops a try. In 2006 that list included a little show called Dexter.

All I remember about it now is that the pilot had something to do with a refrigerated truck … or was that scenes from episode two? Either way, nothing about the series, or the titular character, gripped me, so I moved on. But now I’ve returned to see what I’ve been missing.

From what I’ve heard and read, I know that a lot of people would tell me this is a bad time to be joining the show. With John Lithgow’s arc over, some viewers have said the show’s lost its edge. But I was actually mildly intrigued when I read that season five would guest star Julia Stiles, so jumping in at the beginning of her arc seemed like as good a place as any to start.

I do find it interesting that Dexter (Michael C. Hall) only kills other killers. He won’t abide by the death of innocents (certainly not since his wife’s murder at the hands of the Trinity killer — I don’t know about before). Which kind of makes me wonder, then, how he can be so unemotional. I have a vague recollection from the pilot of James Remar’s Harry Morgan, and the conscience he provides for his son, so I do recall that Harry trained his psychopathic son to only kill bad people. But if Dexter was then reared with that mindset, he would have developed some amount of empathy, at least enough to appreciate what “innocent victim” means.

I got the impression that the voice-over was meant to help establish the cold, unfeeling manner with which Dexter observes the world. Maybe if I was more familiar with him I would appreciate some amount of humor in his mental responses to people’s questions, but as a new viewer it quickly turned me off. The impression I got was, if they still need to use that tool, Dexter must not have been developed very well as a character in four plus seasons.

I also remembered that sister Debra (Jennifer Carpenter) was a cop, which poses a threat to Dexter’s extracurricular activities while providing him with gainful employment as a crime scene consultant. I imagine that she provides a certain amount of grounding and dimension to Dexter, but in the episode I saw I found her to be overly crude and rather one-dimensional herself. I was left wondering if Rita (Julie Benz) did a better job of humanizing Dexter.

Harrison the baby doesn’t do a good job of that either. He seemed like just another prop, something that Dexter maybe had to work into his life, but not a real part of his life. I know that was one of the big questions when the show added the wife and kid — how would a family affect this killer. But Harrison looked like little more than an accoutrement to me.

I was not loving the episode. At least, I didn’t see what had earned it the buzz and awards that I know it receives. And cinematically it looks like an old ’80s-era TV show, like The Incredible Hulk or Quantum Leap. Why would a modern series use an old look?

But then 39 minutes in I got jolted to attention. Lumen (Stiles) made a run for it, and from there Dexter took her to see the bodies Boyd Fowler (Shawn Hatosy) had killed and embalmed in canisters. It was exciting, and seeing Stiles do something was enjoyable.

And then she told Dexter that Fowler wasn’t the only one who’d taken her (at first I thought she meant over the course of her lifetime, which would mean she had some crazy bad luck) and I kind of lost interest again. I thought Stiles was coming on the show in a “humanizing Dexter” role; she might get there eventually, but right now she looks to be someone who’ll drive Dexter to the edge of what he considers within the realm of who he punishes. That might be great for longtime fans, but it wasn’t what I thought she was coming to do. Maybe that side of her will help explain why her fingerprints were in the system when she had no record, something that made no sense to me at the time unless she has a government job or works in financial services.

Anyway, not the point. The point is, I finished the episode with the same opinion I originally had — there’s nothing about the show that I found compelling. And honestly, I think it was because I couldn’t make any connection with Dexter at all. Maybe that’s part of what people enjoy about the series, but for me, it just kept me unable to engage.

51CQxNspr4L. SL160 Dexter At least for Lumen, its not over yet51f2XzDeL3L. SL160 Dexter At least for Lumen, its not over yet

Photo Credit: Showtime

7 Responses to “What’s this show called … Dexter?”

October 25, 2010 at 3:16 PM

This is the most inane, ridiculous, worthless column on a very well-written website. Never, EVER, have I found one of these “What’s this show called…?” pieces to be the least bit interesting or worthwhile. The very notion of television series is to be watch in context, over the course of an season (or at the very least a story arc). To evaluate one from the on-set of a single viewing is ludicrous. There is nothing to be gained from this column for anyone — writer OR reader.

Please stop it and find something better to write about. The “Virgin Diary” series was much more enjoyable and accomplished successfully what this column seems to be attempting to do. It simply required a little more time and work.

October 25, 2010 at 4:13 PM

You made me smile, Rob. Thanks for that :-)

October 25, 2010 at 5:56 PM

While I understand that you feel that way, please explain something to me that I’ve repeatedly asked commenters who share your opinion of this column regarding trying new shows: are you of the opinion that producers have no interest in new viewers? Because there’s no way most newcomers to a show sit down and watch a full season before making a decision on a show. Viewers sit down to watch an episode with three possible outcomes in mind: they love it and sign on for the long haul; they’re unsure and will tune in next week; they dislike it and pass. And judging by TV viewership numbers versus the total TV viewing population, I’d say most people pass if an episode does nothing for them. Why would they do otherwise?

So why is there something wrong with approaching shows new to me from the same perspective of any other viewer lured in for the first time?

October 25, 2010 at 8:24 PM

I could have predicted you wouldn’t like this show as soon as I read that the pilot didn’t draw you in. I was a sucker from the very first episode for everything about this show — just like my mother. My dad, on the other hand, can’t even be in the same room when my mother watches it. I do think you are either on-board with the premise or it turns you off; there’s not a lot of middle ground. I think part of the charm is that Dexter is more human than he thinks he is — he just doesn’t realize what normal is supposed to feel like. And aren’t we all there to some extent (without the serial killer piece of course)? I think Dexter is one of the best characters to ever come along on TV.

October 26, 2010 at 2:54 PM

Dexter didn’t get much of an opportunity to shine in the episode; most of the time he was racing after Lumen. I would imagine that his mind is interesting to observe, but both times I’ve watched I’ve felt that his lack of human connection makes it impossible for humans (viewers) to connect back to him.

October 25, 2010 at 8:53 PM


So why is there something wrong with approaching shows new to me from the same perspective of any other viewer lured in for the first time?

He told you. Because DVDs are available and you are supposed to watch a show from the beginning.

October 26, 2010 at 2:54 PM

Always so helpful. :)

Powered By OneLink