New at BOP: Review: Matrix Resurrections Movie Review: Moonfall Movie Reviews: Scream The #1 Movie in America November Forecast The Many Saints of Newark October Forecast New Trivia Question All site updates Share & Save   Tweet Print this column

I've stalled for weeks on writing about True Blood. It's a natural choice for a column such as this, a lone traditional mythology show airing during the summer down season. Yet, I seem to keep finding other shows or topics to go into before tackling the hit HBO vampire drama. The thing is, it's gotten some pretty bad reviews. Not that they're scathing or anything, but by the network's standards, where pretty much any original programming they air gets overwhelming critical love notes and tons of award nominations, True Blood would seem to be their big dud.

Or not. The damned thing is turning into quite the cultural phenomenon, at least by HBO standards. Now in its second season, it gets about four or five million viewers a week. This is roughly a Lost-sized hit for HBO, if you think of Sopranos and Sex and the City as more Seinfeld level. For that matter, it's one of HBO's biggest successes since the heyday of those two flagship programs. So what is it that viewers are seeing that critics aren't?

I can't figure it out. So I stall, and I ponder, and I analyze, and I recognize its failings and I still dig it. I don't know why I dig it, nor do I think it's as mediocre as the critics would have you believe, but it's certainly not a future classic by any means.

It's kind of a Buffy meets Tennessee Williams. At the heart of the show is a love story between a sensitive vampire and a girl with a superpower. It takes place in Louisiana, and revels in languid violence and sexuality. A lot of critics take issue with the extremity of it all, and I'm not talking about just the sex and violence. The acting is broad, and the style is self conscious and exaggerated. And I dig it.

The performances are uneven, perhaps. Certainly one could find little flaw with Anna Paquin's central portrayal of Sookie Stackhouse, but some of her co-stars don't fare so well. Stephen Moyer plays Bill, the show's requisite good vampire, and he could learn a thing or two about how to play such a role from David Boreanaz or even Brad Pitt. While Boreanaz never lets us forget the violent hunger within, even as he pines for Buffy, Bill just comes across as a big whiner. I want him complicated, but he just seems weak. And sniveling. Yet Paquin sells their romance, so I go with it.

A troublesome character would be Nelsan Ellis's Lafayette Reynolds. Let's be honest, he's a walking stereotype. Lafayette is a gay hooker who partakes of the show's drug du jour V, otherwise known as vampire blood. And Ellis plays the role as flaming and as swishing as you might expect. Yet, we see an inner turmoil underneath his antics that gives a soul to what could have easily become a minstrel show of a character, kind of like Sean Hayes' Jack on Will and Grace. And as a result, Lafayette's become the fan favorite character.

The mythology of it all is just fascinating, if you ask me. It takes place in an America in which vampires are known to be real to the populace, and they've found a way to co-exist. Vampires drink an artificial blood substitute called True Blood so they can curb their temptation to snack on human necks. So, an uneasy social alliance has formed between humans and vamps, complete with all of the prejudices you might come to expect. You see, Alan Ball is the show runner and rare is the Ball project that doesn't include themes of social tolerance, or lack thereof, of homosexuality.

Because on True Blood, vampires are no longer closeted. Some people accept that, and many others, particularly those of religious bent, don't. As a symbol of society's struggles with homosexuality, it just doesn't quite work. I doubt many homosexuals are one artificial drink away from slaughtering people. Much like Moyer and Boreanaz, Ball could use a tip or two from Joss Whedon on how to create a supernatural allegory. But I still love it.

I can't explain it. True Blood is florid beyond words to describe, much of the supporting cast is dull, annoying, or interchangeable, and the mythology at its center has allegorical holes you could drive a truck through, but I still watch. And so do five million other people. I do it, but I don't understand it. All I can figure is that at least it's better than Heroes.