As a back story to the American Civil War, much has been told about events in New York City during the 1860's. The city was booming economically, and immigration, particularly but not exclusively from Ireland, was changing its character in ways not always to the benefit of its old Dutch and Yankee establishment. Anti-war riots and corrupt politics reflected that change, and this relatively new TV series attempts to make use of these elements in promoting a story line that lies somewhere between fact and fiction.
Dramatic exaggeration is normal in a play based on historical material. The greater the mundane is made lively, the greater the audience participates in reliving the past. Even Shakespeare stretched the truth and shaped events to his narrative. But this is not Shakespeare, and Copper has at this point in its second season provided almost nothing by way of believable character delineation. It is populated principally by a gaggle of misfits, stereotypes, and sociopaths.
As to plot, there is precious little. It meanders from one scene of human depravity to another, sparing no inch of bared flesh and no act of vicious physical abuse. One mutes the sound at times so as not to hear its vulgar dialogue, following the depictions fully enough in silence.
Why then do I rate it higher than average? Because it is so indefatigably true to the setting, and its technique is well-crafted. Few period pieces capture a place and time so well. Its darkness is physically compelling, though insufficient to overcome the weakness of its narrative.
Contrary to Copper, it is true that the spring of 1865 on the East Coast was brilliant, marking the end of the war and slavery and a return to summer. Veterans were returning home and business was brisk. Walt Whitman and Ralph Waldo Emerson and Mark Twain and Oliver Wendell Holmes were about to define a new era in American culture.
Dramatic exaggeration is normal in a play based on historical material. The greater the mundane is made lively, the greater the audience participates in reliving the past. Even Shakespeare stretched the truth and shaped events to his narrative. But this is not Shakespeare, and Copper has at this point in its second season provided almost nothing by way of believable character delineation. It is populated principally by a gaggle of misfits, stereotypes, and sociopaths.
As to plot, there is precious little. It meanders from one scene of human depravity to another, sparing no inch of bared flesh and no act of vicious physical abuse. One mutes the sound at times so as not to hear its vulgar dialogue, following the depictions fully enough in silence.
Why then do I rate it higher than average? Because it is so indefatigably true to the setting, and its technique is well-crafted. Few period pieces capture a place and time so well. Its darkness is physically compelling, though insufficient to overcome the weakness of its narrative.
Contrary to Copper, it is true that the spring of 1865 on the East Coast was brilliant, marking the end of the war and slavery and a return to summer. Veterans were returning home and business was brisk. Walt Whitman and Ralph Waldo Emerson and Mark Twain and Oliver Wendell Holmes were about to define a new era in American culture.