“It’s not popular to speak of God. But I do so now and publicly because I feel blessed. I am blessed.” So declares King Silas, head of the fictional kingdom of Gilboa, in the pilot episode of “Kings,” one of this summer’s most compelling and least known television dramas.
“Kings” — a modern re-telling of the Biblical story of Saul and King David — represents an unusually ambitious incursion into the territory of high-powered cultural-religious drama in a medium notorious for elevating the pedestrian and pedantic over the thoughtful or provocative.
So, perhaps it comes as no surprise that “Kings” was canceled earlier this year.
Despite its relatively low profile, “Kings” did not lack in talent. King Silas, the program’s lead, was portrayed by Ian McShane, a Golden Globe-winning English actor and stage performer whose first London appearance was a starring role with Dame Judi Dench.
The brainchild of Michael Green, known for his role in the development of programs like “Heroes,” “Everwood,” and “Smallville,” “Kings” also brought in Francis Lawrence and Erwin Stoff, both of “I Am Legend,” to direct and produce the series that won considerable praise from mainstream media.
Salon, in glowing language, applauded the series as “artful and poetic,” “original and daring and lovely” … suggesting that “it’s impossible not to feel inspired and cheered by the fact that a drama this ambitious and unique could make it onto network television.”
The New York Post lauds “Kings” as a show that “sparkles with imagination,” while the Philadelphia Daily News describes it as “intriguing and, yes, a little crazy.” The Boston Globe calls it “fascinating” and “unique.” Metacritic.com users rated “Kings” an 8.7 out of 10.
The show succeeds in its re-imagining of the classic David vs. Goliath story with refreshing inventiveness.
Opening in a modern-day kingdom under siege by an advancing enemy, young David (Christopher Egan, “Resident Evil: Extinction”), a soldier in the King’s army, sizzles as the earnest and unflinchingly principled counterpart to the King. David soon earns the trust and admiration of Silas after his daring rescue of wounded hostages from enemy territory. His actions, which bring a temporary peace to a nation beleaguered by war, lead to his inclusion in the royal court and set the stage for the drama that unfolds.
Yet, despite a compelling storyline and religiously themed narrative, the show was not a commercial success. What happened?
To its credit, NBC kicked off its marketing blitz for the show during the Super Bowl, one of television’s most watched events. Unfortunately, the campaign was less than gripping, and NBC’s promotional efforts were later met with criticism by Mr. Green.
In a July 16 Newsweek article, the show’s creator revealed: “They were very confused with how to market our show. … When the time came for the marketing, there was a very deliberate, outspoken, loud desire articulated by them that ‘we are not going to say King David.’ They just felt that would be detrimental to the show.”
Only a network executive could see the logic in investing tens of millions into the production of a new series, only to avoid any explicit promotion of its content.
“This holiday season,” begins the “Kings” Super Bowl commercial, “… there’s much to be thankful for … our families … our freedom … our nation … our king.” As if that weren’t peculiar enough, the thirty-second commercial fades out with an image of an orange butterfly – a reference only those who had seen the then-still-to-be-aired show would comprehend.
Imagine a similarly incoherent marketing effort for Survivor. Instead of shots of an island paradise and a preview of the castaway’s struggles, imagine wide-angle shots of American towns and cities. A man’s voice [emerges], “We are a nation rich in friends, in opportunity, and in family. Are we ready for an Idol?” Fade to black.
One can almost guarantee that such a show would have been scuttled before its second episode.
NBC’s refusal to discuss the program’s core theme of the struggle between faith-and-power was probably the chief factor contributing to its less than impressive debut of fourth in its time slot.
Sadly, only 13 episodes were produced — all of which, to its credit, NBC aired — but the network effectively canceled the program after only four episodes, when it moved it from its prime time weeknight slot to the boondocks of Saturday night.
For now, the entire season can still be watched through NBC.com, and the series is scheduled for release as a set through Amazon.com later this year, where its user rating is already five stars.
The eloquence of the characters is certainly equal to the elegance of the program’s vision. It’s depth and ambition in storytelling is evocative of that great recent series, “John Adams,” based on David McCullough’s book of the same name which aired on HBO.
It is surely a shame that the same faith-based audiences that helped spur a film as unlikely as “The Passion of the Christ” to widespread commercial success were ignored entirely in the marketing effort of “Kings.”
If there was anything that, on it’s face, would seem destined for commercial failure, it was an ultra-faithful, raw retelling of the story of Christ – in Aramaic.
“Kings” was cerebral, no doubt, and perhaps for this reason alone was doomed to be stillborn before ever having a chance at staleness. But this was more than a failed attempt at high-minded prime-time drama.
This was the rare program that succeeded at transplanting a religious storyline into a compelling, modern re-telling, buttressed by gripping drama, palace intrigue, poetic dialogue and stage-quality acting that allowed for real character development.
Given the caliber of “Kings” as a commercial venture, and the depth of the subject matter with which it sought to deal, it’s truly something of a miracle that it was ever given the green light by the same executives who believe that the dilapidated state of so-called “reality” television constitutes responsible use of public airwaves.
To some degree, the disappearance of “Kings” — killed before it was given a chance by a marketing team as timid as it was oblivious to the strength of such thoughtful programming —represents just another signpost of the more or less steady descent into the boorish and buffoonish in mainstream network television.
Recent Comments