Bloodlust

 

Original Airdate: October 12th, 2006

The general consensus across the net on this episode seems to be that, though it was good, something about it just didn’t work, and I agree.

To be fair—and to prove there are two sides to every story—be it known that TV guide’s blog gave the episode a pretty glowing review, many fans from this site have said how much they loved it, and others have expressed their like of where things on the show are going in general.

Yet for the rest of us, the off feeling remains.

In most of the forums I’ve ventured into fans haven’t really been able to say why it didn’t work—just that it didn’t.

“It didn’t feel cohesive.”

“It didn’t feel in character.”

“It didn’t…something.”

So, while Bloodlust had some good moments, I’m going to take a stab at explaining why many of us were not feeling the usual giddy love.

One.

Gordon.

This one may be my own lone perspective, but Gordon was kind of….annoying. He didn’t feel dangerous, he felt annoying. I just didn’t buy the comparisons between him and Dean and I sure didn’t buy the comparisons between him and John. It wasn’t that the acting was bad. It wasn’t. And I suspect my feelings about Gordon have more to do with the general way the story was presented, than lack of ability on the actor’s part.

Side note: Wouldn’t it have been great if Gordon had felt dangerous? That whole fight scene between him and Dean near the end would have felt much more intense if I’d actually ever thought Gordon was a threat to Dean. As it was, I’m surprised they let him last as long as he did in the fight. And while I buy Dean as dangerous, buy Dean as conflicted, even buy the role reversal between Dean and Sam—Dean latching onto Gordon as a father figure felt too contrived (a word which you’ll hear me say more than once in this review).

Two.

The plot.

Now, obviously, all plots are contrived, but they shouldn’t feel that way and this one did.

It’s as if the writers tried to force the character moments—shoving them into the story instead of building the story around them or letting them come out where they naturally would have. Even Dean and Sam’s arguments didn’t feel as well timed or as real as they usually do, and this speaks to the overall episode. Everything was rushed. The story tried to accomplish too much in too little time—which may also be why I didn’t buy the supposed bond between Dean and Gordon.

And the plot tried to…say things, which leads to…

Three.

The moral play.

Also, too contrived. Also forced. It tried so hard to convince me it was deep that I didn’t believe it. The points being made were so obviously and repeatedly spelled out, I felt like a four-year-old. It felt cliché, putting Sam and Dean into the carefully—and ironically—black and white roles of the “good” discerning brother and the “bad” too-gung-ho brother.

Sam reached his sympathetic conclusions about the vampires far too quickly and by the time Dean reached the same ones we already knew where he was going. Add to this that Dean is not the only brother to display black and white thinking. Sam’s been there too. Not to mention that Sam can switch his thinking awfully fast when it’s convenient for him. Which leads to point number…

Four.

Characters.

After bating it out of the park in the first two episodes, Bloodlust just didn’t maintain the character momentum. Whereas IMTOD and ELAC felt natural, Bloodlust was contrived (I know, I know, I’m harping. I can’t help it.)—so much so it almost made the boys feel out of character. In ELAC we had a Sam who was feeling duty bound and all for hunting. In Bloodlust it would have been nice to see a little of this continue. We could have seen a Sam still struggling with the idea that maybe Dad would have killed these vampires, maybe Dad wouldn’t trust them so quickly.

In fact, it would have been nice to have Sam do anything in this episode besides brood a little. Worse, Sam’s brooding almost came across as disgust with, rather than worry for, his brother’s mental state—which bothered me because I never want the brothers to be disgusted with each other. I’m not saying it did come across that way, just that it could have.

As for Dean’s character, in ELAC we had a Dean that was so reticent he was telling everyone (Sam, Ellen, and so forth) to back off and leave him alone by his mere facial expressions. That reticence nicely fit with everything the show has told us about Dean so far. Him opening up so blatantly to Gordon, did not. Once again, I didn’t buy it—especially since I couldn’t even see Dean opening up to John like this. And if Gordon was supposed to be the sudden John stand-in then…

Side annoyance: The writers really didn’t seem to trust Jensen as an actor here. Consider—in scary monster movies it’s often what you don’t see that is scarier than what you do see. In the case of Bloodlust I’m going to claim that sometimes what isn’t said is more poignant than what is. Jensen Ackles could have easily portrayed the same story line without having to alter his character to say such blatantly cheesy things as, “I can’t talk about this with Sammy, gotta keep my game face on.” We viewers already know Dean feels he can’t talk to Sam—all the secrets from dear old Dad in the first episode and the pounding of the Impala’s trunk in the second made that perfectly clear. Having him say this line…cheapened it for me.

So I reiterate, Jensen could have had that conversation with Gordon and portrayed the need to open up to someone, or connect with someone, without spelling out for us not-so-bright viewers just exactly what they want us to know he’s feeling. Writers, trust the actor here. Boy’s got skills. And trust us as fans to be at least slightly capable of picking up on subtext.

In the end we were presented with sadly one-dimensional renderings of the characters we’ve come to know and love. Bloodlust painted their roles as too simplistic, made their brotherhood less about mutual need and more about Sam being the show’s moral compass. And in order to do this, all of Sam’s questionable choices and reasons for hunting (revenge, obsession, anger, the sudden need to please his dead-dad) were carefully brushed under the rug while Dean’s were ineffectually highlighted, and neither character was done justice.

The show has always portrayed a yin and yang dynamic with Sam and Dean, but never before has it drawn the lines between them in such a black and white fashion—ironic, for a story that was trying to tell us all about the grey areas in life.

Conclusion.

There may have been other reasons this episode ultimately didn’t work. In the end I suppose all I can say is there was an “ugh” feeling to it I may never put my finger on. Semi-sound concept. Good acting. Poor execution.

Mostly, I just hope the “ugh” feeling doesn’t happen again.

Now briefly on to…

Redeeming values.

One.

The last scene with the brothers was great even if it was contrived (come on, I had to use the word at least once more). Both our boys played their parts in this wonderfully.

Two.

The Impala.

Three.

The Impala. The Impala. The Impala. (And wasn’t Back in Black just the perfect song?)

Four.

Looking forward to next week. Because even if this episode wasn’t the greatest, they still have me wanting more.

Added: Oct 15th 2006

Reviewer: Soda