Why do you think Mandel messed up Dan so badly? All the other characters make some sense.
Honestly, the more I think about it, the more I think Mandel just fundamentally misconstrued what made Dan an interesting character to watch.
Because for the first four years Danās presentation isā¦sneaky. The audience is apt to take him at his word in the first episode - that he is every bit as brilliant as he thinks he is, and likely to become Mikeās (and Amyās) boss in the near future - for the chief reason that unlike every other man in the show, he looks like our cultureās vision of success. (This isnāt just about Reid Scottās looks either - itās at least as much to do with presentation - Dan is the only man in the show to have properly tailored suits, and suits that flatter him - dress Dan like Jonah and weād have a very different view of the character).
What made Dan interesting - especially in season three - is that he was actually kind of a deconstruction. Because sure, he looked like a strong-jawed, confident, fast-talking, tall drink of waterā¦but he was fundamentally a fuck-up.
He seemed like someone who should be successful, and so people (in and out of the show) tended to assume that he was, and listened to him as though he was intelligent - despite the fact that every single one of his schemes invariably blew up in his face (particularly in season 1, when, not coincidentally, heās at his most arrogant and self-focused).
Thatās not to say he wasnāt smart - because he absolutely was - but he was too erratic and too self-obsessed to make a success of things. It was only when he got over himself a little, and started willingly allowing Amy to lead him, that he became even remotely consistent.
Similarly, Dan might have presented himself as a ruthless womaniser, but going by the first four seasons, itās fairly clear that he was besotted by Amy from very early on. His emotional attachment to her is sufficiently intense that her dating Ed is a significant factor in his considering leaving Selina in season 2. Now, he may not have known that he was in love with Amy, but I think that was kind of the point - that he was so enamoured with a particular image of himself, that it kept him from seeing his true feelings (which were more than obvious to everyone around him).
Thatās why Iannucciās Dan was always most interesting - and entertaining - to watch when he was losing. All of the early Veep characters are archetypal, and Dan was a deconstruction of a very particular type of man who get involves in politics - hence the showās constant focus on his inherent limitations, as well as his unconscious self-sabotage. The point of Dan the character was to show how that kind of man was fundamentally inadequate for the task at hand - and, to a much lesser extent, show that the natural route out of those inadequacies (down which he would only be dragged kicking and screaming) was collaboration with other people, especially women (this doesnāt only mean a romantic connection with Amy by any means, thatās just the most prominent example).
Whereas, I feel that Mandel saw Dan almost as a fantasy figure. Like, wouldnāt it be great to say the things he says, and do the things he does, and still be rewarded with Anna Chlumskyās eternally loving gaze and endless money and success?
As a result, the presentation of the character becomes completely unbalanced the longer Mandel writes him. Being a satirical show, the audience naturally feels that Danās actions ought to serve a purpose within the satire. The problem is that because the way heās presented is so celebratory (even in that awful scene where he introduces Amy to his āgirlfriendā the way itās presented has an undertone of āisnāt it awesome how terrible he is?ā that is incredibly jarring) itās hard to read it as a critique of anything (depict that scene from Laylaās perspective, showing her horrified realisation of just who she was dating, and it would have worked - instead of having her brainlessly react to his behaviour as though it was remotely normal - but that would require a woman reacting to Dan in a way that made him seem unattractive, and the show was unwilling to do that).
You end up feeling not that Dan is a critique of entitled privileged white guys, but that the writers wish they had the freedom given to entitled privileged white guys, because it is a fucking delightful way to live.
Thatās not to say Dan doesnāt fail, because he does - he gets fired four times in three seasons - itās that the show refuses to depict his failures as failures. Thereās no weight to them - Dan bounces from job to job, and woman to woman, apparently without caring much one way or another. He changes career direction three times between the end of season 5 and the finale, and we get very little rationale for how or why heās made those changes - it doesnāt seem to matter to him, so why should it matter to the show or the audience?
Iāve pointed out several times that it would be very easy - and far more fitting with what had come before - to present his storyline in season 7 as his final act of self-sabotage, that through his narcissism and selfishness he destroys the only relationship he values and his precious career, and ends up with no option except relocating and starting over. Present season 7 as his final descent into something pathetic, and I think it would feel far more in tune with the way Dan had been depicted by Iannucci.
But the writers were so enamoured with Dan āwinningā that even though the structure of that story is present in season 7, they were almost entirely incapable of delivering. The few hints of depth we get are entirely non-textual, coming largely from Reid Scottās performance (which I do think slipped a little in season 7 - but given the scripts he had to work with, I really canāt blame him).
Moreover, what I donāt think the writers ever realised is that their version of Dan is boring. Because he always wins - even when he loses - and because his actions never have consequences that last longer than thirty seconds, it becomes impossible to invest in his story. Whatās the point when the audience already knows how it will turn out? In that sense, Iām really not surprised the writers gave him almost nothing to do in the finale - theyād written themselves into a corner, because it was almost impossible to construct a story for Dan within their self-created limitations that would have a dramatic impact. For instance, a natural endpoint would be to have a scene that illustrated Amy being finally done with him - the problem is that because season 7 Dan doesnāt care about Amy, or any woman, or apparently retain knowledge of his sexual partners after theyāve left his field of visionā¦it drains any scene with him and a woman of anything even approaching meaning.
Bear in mind, fantasy figures arenāt inherently bad - James Bond is a fantasy figure, Peggy Carter is a fantasy figure, and Iād argue even Elizabeth Bennet is one (albeit a very nuanced and carefully constructed one - itās just that transforming Dan from a character who illustrated the fantasyās inadequacies into a straightforward celebration of them was always going to reduce him to incoherence. I donāt care what Mandel claims - I donāt see any way season 4 Dan can become season 7 Dan absent a catastrophic head injury. The guy who ran out of his own party because Amy got upset at a mean comment cannot develop into a man who laughs in her face while telling her heās going to fuck a teenager with the name she wants to give their child.
Season 7 Dan is Roy Moore in a slightly more appealing package - Iannucciās Dan was visibly and vocally disgusted by sexual predators. The two men canāt exist in the same body.
pixelskylines
romaincrisis
