MovieChat Forums > Evil (2019) Discussion > The problem with "Evil"

The problem with "Evil"

posted 4 years ago by AlanClarke (73)
5 replies | jump to latest

is that it's nowhere near dark enough for a show called "Evil". The team are all goody-two-shoes, the church is a benevolent institution, the demons scare a few people and then disappear never to bother anyone again. And how long can you keep up the "maybe magic, maybe mundane" trope for? It gets awfully predictable and unbelievable after a while.

Compare it with BBC's "Apparitions" for instance. A series I didn't particularly like either but at least it was gruesome, featured terrifying demons every episode which terrorised our priest hero by killing all of his friends, making him literally unable to pray, and forcing him to perform a black mass. The church is portrayed as a nest of corrupt vipers in league with the Devil himself (through email no less) all for their own personal gain.

Or, how about the excellent "Afterlife" with Leslie Sharp and Andrew Lincoln in which the characters own flaws kept them from working together and in which the ghosts were rarely defeated but often understood and their own stories were crushingly sad and relatable?

[–] BourbonKing (5705) 3 years ago

I'm only into episode 4, but I'm annoyed with the modern trope of having an underlying subplot that will reveal itself by the season's end (David's "vision" slowly unraveling). Kristen's traveling husband backstory is another slow-burn plot point that you know will come in handy by the end of the season.

I agree with your assessment of the premise though, and since it seems you saw all episodes it kinda confirms my suspicions. I'll still finish watching this season anyways but it hasn't lived up to the hype from the trailers.

[–] AlanClarke (73) 3 years ago

You're right about the underlying subplots although the absent husband doesn't really pay off in any grand way and the visions remain to be unravelled in the following seasons. But certain other subplots do come into play.

[–] Iffy762 (1331) 3 years ago

I quite liked it. I felt like the basic idea was that evil isn't necessarily going to LOOK evil, and that maybe the whole idea of supernatural evil forces is just an excuse to justify or rationalize the evil we ourselves choose to do. For example the episode with the little boy who might be a sociopath (or possessed). At the end, is it the little boy who was evil, or his parents?

Also Mike Colter is super hot.

[–] R_Kane (15828) 3 years ago

I addressed most of your issues in my topic, Episode 1.4: About As Vile As Network TV Is Able To Get.

[–] AlanClarke (73) 3 years ago

Not quite. You're talking about it not being a "splashy show" which is not quite the same as what I'm talking about. Hannah Arendt's quote about the banality of evil was made in reference to Eichmann and the Nazis who killed millions, starved, tortured, experimented on people. They were banal but they were gory and their crimes sure made for some memorable visuals though not quite the kind you'd necessarily want to memorize.

The great "evil" portrayed in "Evil", on the other hand, is not just banal - it's tame. It's also unimaginative and laughably easy to beat. It doesn't genuinely torture anyone nowhere near to the extent the Nazis or even the fictional entities portrayed in the shows I mentioned in my OP did. Furthermore, this "evil" is portrayed as an entity entirely separate from humans who are good and decent unless possessed by "evil" which is pure nonsense. Evil is inherent in humans, to suggest otherwise is naive.

But your title does go to the gist of the problem with this show. It's as vile as a network can get. Sadly, it's not vile enough to be truthful, honest, affecting, or thought-provoking. They've served us the same black-and-white Hollywood goody-two-shoes nonsense they usually do in which there's good and there's evil and the good always beats the evil and there are no grey zones. For a show supposed to be about "evil", it is awfully sanitized and pleasant to watch. So - no, I would not agree with you that it packs any kind of an emotional gut-punch - it's too cleaned up and naively optimistic to do so. Nor do I agree it has any kind of heart or soul. It's too formulaic to be affecting or interesting.

The parents subplot is the closest "Evil" has come to being a good show but had someone like Stephen Volk done this story in "Afterlife" he would have turned out a far more horrifying, emotional, and brutally honest portrayal of evil than "Evil" managed to. And he would have probably done it without any gore, splash, or memorable visuals.