April 23rd, 2008

On Last Night’s “The Riches” [2.06 “Dead Caelm”]

By Matt Margini

Seems that “The Riches” has love on its mind, or at least a momentary jolt of bunny-lust. It’s spring, I guess. These things tend to happen.

Cal gets ensnared by the Irish Traveler version of a blond bombshell–i.e., the same kind of blond bombshell we’re all used to, but with an accent and a rustic nonchalance. Di Di finds herself enchanted by the wiles of the friendly neighborhood security guard, who just happens to be about 15 for whatever reason. And even the androgynous final sibling–oh, if only the show could find something to do with him–appears to have found a random girl who shares his interest in lipstick. Love for all! It’s like Cupid woke up socialist.

I feel compelled, on some level, to justify the outrageous symmetry. Three is a magic number, but three separate romance subplots introduced at the same time for three separate children reeks of unwelcome tidiness–it feels Amish, somehow, as if life would cease to function if people weren’t split into pairs of blissful, chaste monogamy. Of course, there might (probably will) turn out to be nothing blissful or chaste about any of these pair-ups, but it’s the hidden coupling impulse that itches me. The evils of arranged marriage (specifically Di Di’s) were heroically exorcised last season, and the show obviously aims to piss all over the values of the American bourgeoisie, who perpetrate something similar (though not explicitly so) through smug xenophobia. So why all the marriages that feel arranged? Why the sudden influx of convenient partners for the Rich children?

I believe the show’s fermenting a bit, getting dense and syrupy and alcoholic. It’s painting in broad, colorful strokes, dipping deep into the inkwells of caricature and bombastic metaphor. Forget the character implications–i.e., what these budding romances mean for the growth of the Rich-spawn as well as their partners. They’ve been given love so that they each have something to lose; it’s a big tripartite hostage situation waiting to happen. And they’ve been given love in equal number because every character, without exceptions, is required to express in some way the magnificence of the human heart and the comparative worthlessness of the human coin. They just need the leverage to do so.

Nina needs it the most. We see her sit somberly, but still gregariously, outside of the funhouse playland of her husband’s drag-queen birthday party. Jim is taken away from her, by heart attack, just after he basks in the light of her acceptance. In a show about wanderers, Nina is the only character truly set adrift–Margo Martindale’s consistently fantastic performance radiates distance, detachment, resignation. The Riches are bestowed every week with more and more reasons to abandon criminal flightiness and accept something close to comfortable autonomy. Love plays a part in that. Nina, on the other hand, is compelled more and more to simply run away. Love plays a part in that too.

By the way: what happened to Booger?

This entry was posted on Wednesday, April 23rd, 2008 at 12:44 am and is filed under Arts, TV. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.

You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.