True Love for True Blood
Before it sprawled, HBO’s True Blood was one of the most confident, funny and genuinely strange dramas on television, and its first seasons deserve better than to be remembered only for how the series ended.
When people talk about True Blood now, the conversation often drifts to its later years, when storylines multiplied and many viewers felt the show had lost its shape. That reputation is not unfair. But it has a way of burying what made the series such a jolt when it premiered in 2008, and the case for those early seasons is worth making plainly.
What it got right
A premise with teeth. Created by Alan Ball and adapted from Charlaine Harris’s Sookie Stackhouse novels, the show imagined a world in which vampires have come out of hiding thanks to a synthetic blood drink and now want legal rights. That one idea let the series poke at prejudice, politics, religion and fear of outsiders without ever pausing to lecture. The allegory was loose enough to mean several things at once, which is why it worked.
A place you could smell. Bon Temps, Louisiana, was humid, gossipy and slightly dangerous. The roadside bar where Sookie waits tables, the cramped houses, the woods at night: the setting had more personality than most network towns ever manage. The celebrated opening titles set the tone before a word of dialogue.
An ensemble that kept stealing the show. Anna Paquin anchored the series as Sookie, the telepathic waitress caught between worlds, with Stephen Moyer as the courtly vampire Bill and Alexander Skarsgård as the cool, unreadable Eric. But the supporting cast was the real treasure. Nelsan Ellis’s Lafayette, by turns hilarious and wounded, became a fan favourite almost immediately, and Rutina Wesley’s Tara and Ryan Kwanten’s hapless Jason gave the show its heart and its comedy.
Camp as a strategy
The early seasons also understood that a show about vampires in the bayou should be allowed to be ridiculous. The first season paired a small-town murder mystery with romance and satire. The second, built around a hedonistic supernatural visitor and a crusading anti-vampire church, pushed the excess further and mostly got away with it. The third introduced an ancient vampire king whose theatrical menace remains one of the series’ high points.
What held it together was tone. True Blood could swing from slapstick to real cruelty to sincere tenderness in a single episode, and in those years it nearly always knew which one it was doing. That control is what slipped later, as the cast and the mythology both grew past what the episodes could carry.
So the fair verdict is a split one. The series as a whole is uneven. Its opening stretch, though, is a vivid, unapologetic piece of pulp television, made with more wit and craft than its pulpy reputation suggests. If you skipped it, or gave up partway, the early seasons are well worth the return trip.
Twilight, from page to screen · Game of Thrones, season one · More television