Mel on Mile High and Damages

Can a show that has not a single likable character be good television? That's the question I've been asking myself since I finished the entire British series Mile High (39 episodes) and the first four episodes of the new Glenn Close legal drama, Damages. In both shows every character--from star to dayplayer--remains unlikable. Certainly, I prefer my drama to have characters that are troubled or morally flawed. But there's a difference between those types of characters and those where you say, "I'd never be friends with this lot. Not a one of them."

Mile High is a British series about...wait for it...flight attendants and pilots. The descriptions and many of the reviews would have you believe its Ab Fab in the sky, or something close to that. In actuality, the madcap adventures of the eight or so regular flight attendants and two pilots have dire consequences. Each character is judgmental and morally righteous, except when it comes to himself or herself.

Only four characters make it from the first episode to the last. At the end of Series 1, about half the cast is replaced with no explanation. At the end of Series 2, Part 1 there's another huge turnover, also with no closure. And the "shocking" finale--which is actually quite interesting in design--only gives us a satisfying end for two of the major characters.

The big problem with Mile High is that it takes a certain glee in how pathetic its major characters are. Will is almost every gay cliche thrown into a mix. He's a bitter, self-centered, manipulative, vindictive, sexually compulsive partyboy. Janis is a pathetic loaner who is a total bitch to cover her loneliness. Le Hann destroys every relationship she's involved in, because she is always suspecting and distrusting her partners. The show relies on tons of cliches, but never with irony or camp.

The thing is, the show held my attention for most of 39 episodes, even as I was actively hating it. Maybe it was because I constantly held out hope that someone would do something decent for honorable reasons. Maybe it was for the liberal display of naughty bits that British television does so well.

Damages also populates with a roster of unlikeable characters. Here, though, the promotional materials explain that they're complex characters. Therefore, it's okay that each is basically morally flawed (which, by the way, I generally like in a character), lying, cheating, mean, manipulative and potentially violent. Or at least willing to have others do violence on their behalf.

Damages is well written and the production values are top notch. The casting is superb, and Glennie's performance is complex and riveting. I continue to watch, but at the end of every episode I have to wonder what I see in the show.

In the end, I remain ambivalent about both shows. I'm glad to see them, but troubled and largely disengaged from them.