Cannes Film Festival 2013

Review: HBO's 'In Treatment' returns for season three

Gabriel Byrne's joined by a great new cast, but has the psychiatry drama outlived its usefulness?

<p>Gabriel Byrne in "In Treatment." </p>

Gabriel Byrne in "In Treatment." 

Credit: HBO/Paul Schiraldi

There have been episodes of the HBO therapy drama "In Treatment" where either Dr. Paul Weston (Gabriel Byrne) or one of his patients comes into a session not ready to do the work. Either Paul's distracted from the latest mess in his very messy life, or the patient doesn't want to talk about what's really bothering them, or both. But more often than not, Paul is able to push through the barriers and take the conversation someplace interesting before their time is up.

That's kind of how I feel about "In Treatment" season three, which debuts Monday and Tuesday at 9 and 9:30 p.m. on HBO. After liking the first season and loving the second, I dove into the third and felt like something was off. Maybe it was the slight change in format, from five episodes a week (Paul with four patients, then Paul with his own shrink) down to four (three patients plus Paul in therapy). Maybe it was the rhythms of new showrunners Dan Futterman and Anya Epstein, who took over for Warren Leight, who himself took over for Rodrigo Garcia. (Both the amount and nature of these episodes understandably proves exhausting.) Or maybe it was that Futterman and Epstein were traveling without a road map, since this is the first season where the stories and characters weren't adapted from the Israeli series "Be'Tipul."

Whatever the reason, something wasn't quite right about the new episodes. Byrne was still there, still fantastic as Paul, still making the art of listening seem like the most exciting form of acting there is. And the production team (including head director Paris Barclay) had surrounded him with possibly the best cast yet: acclaimed Indian actor Irrfan Khan as Sunil, a depressed Bengali widower chafing at life in the home of his Americanized son and blonde daughter-in-law; three-time Oscar nominee Debra Winger, in her meatiest role since she emerged from semi-retirement a couple of years ago, as Frances, an aging movie star struggling to remember her lines as her Broadway play nears its debut; relative unknown Dane DeHaan as Jesse, a self-destructive gay teen battling with his adoptive parents; and the versatile and always-impressive Amy Ryan as Adele, who takes the place of Dianne Wiest's Gina as the psychiatrist to whom Paul unburdens himself at the end of each long week.

So great cast, same elegantly simple format (each episode is essentially a one-act play), many of the same directors/writers/producers, and same cable channel willing to subsidize a nichier-than-niche concept. The show is not for everyone, but it was definitely for me. So all should be perfect, right?

Yet as I went through the opening installments of season three, "In Treatment" began to feel like work in a way it hadn't in the past.

In fairness, "In Treatment" has never been an easy show to watch. This isn't made for casual viewing. As much is revealed by what the patients don't want to say to Paul, or by how he reacts to them, as in the dialogue itself. It engages a part of my brain that a lot of other shows don't, and the viewing gets tougher when there are a lot of other challenging shows at the same time.

The first season came along at the tail end of the TV writers strike of '07-'08, and for a while there wasn't anything remotely as complex to challenge for my attention. Season two aired in a slightly busier period ("Lost" season five and "Breaking Bad" season two overlapped it), but still nothing quite as crowded for quality TV as this fall. I was watching the screeners for the first three weeks of season three while I was also dealing with the final episodes of "Mad Men" and "Rubicon," new episodes of "Boardwalk Empire," "Sons of Anarchy," "Terriers," "Friday Night Lights" and AMC's zombie epic "The Walking Dead," to name just a few. As a non-professional TV watcher, you may not watch most, or any, of those other shows, but by the time I got into "In Treatment," my brain was definitely trying to tell me "Enough already! Can't we put on 'Man V. Food' instead?"

Beyond that, though, was the sense that even though the patients, their problems and even Paul's own therapist have changed, the concept begins to feel repetitive after a few seasons. Frances' problems are her own, but there's some commonality between her give-and-take with Paul and the relationships he had with previous patients like season one's Amy (Embeth Davidtz) and season two's Mia (Hope Davis). Similarly, Paul becomes more protective when he's in sessions with Jesse than with his adult patients, just as he was in the past with suicidal gymnast Sophie (Mia Wasikowska) or cancer victim April (Alison Pill). And though the issues that send Paul to see Adele - sleeplessness, fear of a bad medical diagnosis and his estrangement from Gina - aren't the same that he talked about with Gina in seasons past, his inescapable feelings of misery remain the same.

Now, this is all honest. Though each season of "In Treatment" covers a short period (nine weeks the first season, seven weeks ever since) in which Paul is able to get at the root cause of his patients' problems, even if he isn't able to solve them all, actual therapy can take much longer to achieve a positive outcome, if one ever comes at all. Of course Paul wouldn't suddenly be happy go lucky. And since the patients are really there to reflect the problems in Paul's life - Jesse, for instance, ties into divorced dad Paul's feelings of estrangement from his kids - of course they would have some similarities to previous ones.

Still, it took me a while to overcome the "been there, analyzed that" feelings I had in the opening episodes, as Paul and his patients began the familiar dance, wherein they talk about only what they're comfortable talking about while Paul, like a good detective, tries to solve the mystery of what's really bothering them. For the first two weeks, it was only the closing episodes with Adele - where Paul is on less than solid ground, dealing with a complete stranger he can't figure out and/or manipulate - that felt truly engaging.

Then I got to the third week, and began to embrace the show's rhythms again. By this point, the set-up is over. We know, and Paul knows, the basic problems of each patient (including Paul himself), and now it becomes a question of whether they're willing to accept the truth of what he's telling them, and whether there's anything more hiding beneath the surface. Once in the flow, I began to appreciate the nuances of the various duets: the way Paul learns to let Sunil take his time and fish around in his pockets for candy or tobacco or his journal as a stall tactic, or how Paul lets Jesse push his buttons only so far. And I began to really admire the performances, particularly by Ryan, who as the in-control Adele has to reveal even less of herself to Paul than Paul reveals himself to his own patients.

I'll wait until the second half of the season to decide whether I want to continue with this particular therapy. Season one also had an uneven beginning and then routinely knocked me for a loop in its closing weeks; the nature of therapy, and this show, means there has to be a lot of exposition before we can get to the good stuff. But I'm also open to the possibility that I've gotten as much out of this relationship with Paul Weston as I'm likely to get, and that after this round it may be healthier if we go our separate ways.

Alan Sepinwall may be reached at sepinwall@hitfix.com

---

I've always struggled with how best to cover this show on the blog. In season one (when episodes aired Monday-Friday), I mostly did open threads. In season two (when three episodes aired Sunday and the other two Monday), I waited until all five had aired and posted a more detailed breakdown of all five. Given some of my ambivalent feelings about the season so far, I may go for a compromise this time: I'll wait till Tuesday night, but the reviews may be a fair amount shorter. We'll see how things go in terms of my schedule and enthusiasm.

Get Instant Alerts - Latest Posts from What's Alan Watching
By subscribing to this e-alert, you agree to HitFix Terms of Service, Privacy Policy and to occasionally receive promotional emails from HitFix.

Follow Alan Sepinwall and Whats Alan Watching on

RSS Facebook Twitter
 
Alan-sepinwall-sm
Alan Sepinwall
Sr. Editor, What's Alan Watching
Alan Sepinwall has been reviewing television since the mid-'90s, first for Tony Soprano's hometown paper, The Star-Ledger, and now for HitFix. His new book, "The Revolution Was Televised," about the last 15 years of TV drama, is for sale at Amazon. He can be reached at sepinwall@hitfix.com

Comments

  • Option 1

    Comment instantly as a guest Guest
  • Option 2

    Connect
  • Option 3

    Login or create a HitFix account Login Signup
  • Default-avatar

    Alex Mullane

    This sounds like a very fair assessment Alan.

    I love the show, because there is nothing else like it, and I appreciate the rich writing and acting on display.

    But I can imagine there's only so many ways they can make every new season different without completely breaking the format of the show (and I'd be fine if, for a hypothetical season 4, they did take things outside Paul's office, and turn it more into a "normal" drama).

    I will definitely be watching this new season, but I was wary it might feel a bit familiar even before reading your post, and now I am extra wary.

    Still, if it's even half as compelling as season 2 I'll have no problem.

    October 24, 2010 at 8:47AM EST Reply to Comment


  • Alan, how do you think the show would play to someone (myself) who has only seen a few episodes of season 1? Would it feel a bit more fresh since I've not grown complacent to whatever patterns and patient-to-doctor push-and-pull that the sessions involve?

    I loved Gabriel Byrnes' work in the few episodes that I've seen, and I'm interested in watching anything involving Amy Ryan.

    October 24, 2010 at 9:09AM EST Reply to Comment
    • Midnight_run_mca255950_talkback_profile

      sepinwall Hard to say, Ryan. On the one hand, you might not be as tired of the concept, but on the other, all the material about Paul builds on what we've seen before.

      From a comprehension point of view, it's easy to jump in, since the patients are new and his relationship with Amy Ryan is brand new. He has to explain his relationship with the Dianne Wiest character to Ryan, for instance. I just don't know if it will be more or less emotionally satisfying if you haven't seen all that he went through in seasons one and two.

      Because Amy Ryan's character is new to him, he has to expos

      October 24, 2010 at 9:55AM EST
    • Default-avatar

      christy I think I'm going to jump in! I saw a little preview thing and I just find the various characters intriguing in a way I never did with the previous seasons. It's like they were chosen just for me.

      October 24, 2010 at 10:49AM EST
    • I already wiki'd the show and Paul's character history a while back so I know the broad strokes. I think I'll give this season a shot, and hopefully it won't be too confusing.

      October 24, 2010 at 10:55PM EST
  • Default-avatar

    JanieJones

    I had wondered without the Be Tipul template, how the show would play this season.

    I do have a particular fondness for the show due to its stellar acting, writing and direction.
    It's obvious that Byrne takes his craft very seriously and as a viewer, it's greatly appreciated.

    The show is not light-hearted. It also is a show that won't have a huge appeal to a broad audience.

    I'm still looking forward to the third season.

    I appreciate your analysis.

    October 24, 2010 at 10:48AM EST Reply to Comment


  • I laughed a little, since I do actually watch all but one of those shows, though of course I can't watch as many of them at the same time without the screeners that you get. Maybe I do watch too much TV!

    October 24, 2010 at 11:55AM EST Reply to Comment
    • Default-avatar

      Susan Right there with you, Brian!

      October 24, 2010 at 12:13PM EST
  • Default-avatar

    A.P.

    I'll give it a try, but I didn't watch the entirety of the second season. Unlike Alan, I loved the first season and really disliked the second.
    However, my love for the first season still stands to an amount where I'll return for a new season. But I just wonder how many of the subplots from the second season I'll be missing... But I do love the unveiling / interpretation of human nature this show offers, and how it develops so smoothly over the weeks.

    I'll definitely check it out.

    October 24, 2010 at 4:33PM EST Reply to Comment
  • Default-avatar

    rosengje

    Is there any sense of him continuing to treat patients from last season? As you mentioned, I loved that last seasons there was an acknowledgment that it would be impossible for Paul to solve his patients in only seven weeks. I would therefore be interested to hear some of the earlier characters at least alluded to, gives the idea of there being a world outside of the series.

    October 25, 2010 at 12:10AM EST Reply to Comment
  • Madmen_icon_talkback_profile

    LJA

    I'm in.

    October 25, 2010 at 2:11AM EST Reply to Comment


  • This may be my inexperience with your column - I've usually only read your write-ups *after* I've watched an episode of a show - usually Mad Men. I've usually liked them a lot. I was a long time TWoP reader but the negativity finally drove me away.

    I don't like getting a point of view from someone who has already watched three weeks of the show before the premiere episode has even occurred, for me. I wasn't expecting that. I really don't like knowing what is coming, on this show in particular. In any case, I'll know better next time, if there is one. Meanwhile, I'm going to decide to look forward to this season as if I'd never read anything. This is my first time watching the show as it airs, on HBO. Previously, I'd watched on DVD or the reruns. I suspect I'll be happier than you this season. I could watch Gabriel Byrne watching paint dry and probably be pretty happy :-)

    October 25, 2010 at 11:27AM EST Reply to Comment
    • Midnight_run_mca255950_talkback_profile

      sepinwall Trish, I watch as many episodes of a show as they send me so I can have a better sense of whether the season is any good before I write the review. And in that review above, I've revealed exactly nothing that doesn't come in the first week's worth of episodes, and only basic set-up material at that. Anything less, and I might as well not be writing anything in advance at all - and perhaps you'd best not be reading things in advance if it troubles you.

      The morning-after episode reviews are not going to betray knowledge of future weeks, either. If you go back and read my season two reviews of In Treatment on the old blog, they were written with me usually being at least two or three weeks ahead of where the audience was, but I never pointed a neon arrow at something small from week 2 that I knew was going to pay off in week 5. I reacted to what was in these episodes, as I had experienced them as I watched.

      October 25, 2010 at 12:36PM EST
    • And Trish, a good rule of thumb around here: The episode by episode write-ups won't say "Review:" in the title like this one.

      October 25, 2010 at 2:06PM EST


  • Once more into the breach with this question, but do you know why they would wait until a couple weeks after this season starts to release the DVDs from Season 2? It's bad enough when it comes out the same week or just before, but this is just silly. It's not like they haven't had more than a year to get them ready. Now I'll have to tape this for a while so I can catch up.

    October 25, 2010 at 12:19PM EST Reply to Comment
    • Midnight_run_mca255950_talkback_profile

      sepinwall I got an answer to the general phenomenon (if not this particularly annoying example of it) after Mo Ryan and I discussed it on the podcast a while back: the home video divisions of these companies don't have big marketing budgets, so they try to piggyback on the marketing for the launch of the new season to release the set from the previous season.

      I don't know, though, why exactly HBO home video would want to wait a few weeks into this season to do it, as opposed to releasing it, say, last Tuesday,

      October 25, 2010 at 12:38PM EST
    • I figured it was something like that, though from a practical viewing standpoint I still don't think it makes sense. I'm sure they have numbers that disagree with me. Thanks for the info.

      October 25, 2010 at 2:08PM EST
  • Default-avatar

    Sue Marsten

    I just saw the first two episodes and was as engaged as ever. Is it the same as previous seasons? Sure, Paul and the patient sit in his office and talk. But the patients are different and as a result, Paul's interactions with them are different too. And I can see already that Paul has changed as well. I'm in for the season.

    Besides, as someone else commented, watching Gabriel Byrne watch paint dry would be enough to keep me hooked. He's an amazing actor.

    October 25, 2010 at 10:52PM EST Reply to Comment
    • Madmen_icon_talkback_profile

      LJA I agree with Sue. I especially enjoyed the Sunil episode. I thought it was fantastic. And I wanted to punch his passive-aggressive daughter-in-law in the throat.

      October 26, 2010 at 2:26AM EST
  • Default-avatar

    Sue

    I really loved Season 1 and really liked Season 2 (which I saw in backwards order, but it didn't really matter). Last night's Sunil episode was great. I felt that Frances was annoying. When I thought that Debra Winger was playing an annoying character and that may very well be the point of her needing therapy, I realized that it was very fine acting. I am eager to see tonight's two episodes.

    And as a defense for your comments and reviews-- I am totally amazed at your care and concern for not revealing anything in the future. I spent the summer with all five years of "The Wire." You were spot on with everything you wrote and I got so much more out of watching this amazing series. After each episode I read your notes and I was really grateful. So, no, you never spoil anything that we may not already have seen. Thanks for all of it!

    October 26, 2010 at 7:56AM EST Reply to Comment
  • Default-avatar

    adwoman

    I agree with Trish that I'd rather not have a review of episodes you've seen but I haven't. This is a show that requires patience (ah, and patients) but it needs to grow on you as each story unfolds. It has a slow and steady rhythm which is exactly why it stands out for me against all the other hectic programming. It requires the viewer to watch Paul's eyes taking it all in, reflecting his opinion without a saying a word. Perhaps, Alan, you're watching too much TV and you've grown impatient with this format. As for me, I welcome a story that draws you in with feeling, not fanfare.

    October 26, 2010 at 7:48PM EST Reply to Comment
    • Midnight_run_mca255950_talkback_profile

      sepinwall Adwoman, you and Trish seem to misunderstand what exactly a traditional review is. If you'd rather not see anything about things the reviewer has seen and you haven't, then you'd need to stop reading Roger Ebert before going out to the movies, etc. As I said in my response to Trish, I need to see as much of the show as possible to inform my pre-season review, but the stuff I write for after it airs (including what's being posted in a couple of hours tonight) will be based entirely on what I thought as I watched each particular week.

      October 26, 2010 at 8:02PM EST
  • Default-avatar

    wanda

    I know..I think not having the Israili writers anymore just totally changed the whole show and not for the better either. Sunil was good but the other 3 stories I didnt care that much about. I dont think Mr Byrne was into it as much either. He's always excellent but his heart didn;t seem as into it as season one and two. And Gina should have stayed this therapist. And it should have stayed five shows and the same season length as the first two seasons. Leave it to American writers to ruin it. To me Gabriel Byrne in his scarf at the end walking away in NYC (he wears scarves all the time in real life too) was him saying good bye to the show.

    December 8, 2010 at 4:07PM EST Reply to Comment
  • Default-avatar

    B J

    New Girl probably won't last. I do like Zooey though. Would like for In Treatment to return. Gabriel is so intense not to mention rather handsome.

    September 24, 2011 at 9:43PM EST Reply to Comment

Get Instant Alerts on What's Alan Watching

Latest Posts
More Posts
Recent Activity on Facebook
Most Popular on Facebook
Top Stories From Around the Web