Director Barry Levinson has largely transitioned from theatrical films to television projects, often biopics profiling figures of recent infamy. After films about Jack Kevorkian, Bernie Madoff, and Joe Paterno, it's no surprise that he's one of the producers and directors on "Dopesick," an eight episode miniseries about the opioid crisis. Created and largely written by the dependable Danny Strong, the series follows Richard Sackler (Michael Stuhlbarg), through the development and marketing of the painkiller OxyContin, and the opioid epidemic that followed in its wake. "Dopesick" presents an excellent look behind the scenes at Sackler's twisted motivations and reckless disregard for public safety.
However, Sackler's story is only one of many being told in "Dopesick," covering multiple individuals at different points in time over a quarter century. There are two different investigations into Purdue that we get to see unfold, one spearheaded by DEA Agent Bridget Meyer (Rosario Dawson) in 1999, and another by federal prosecutors Rick Mountcastle (Peter Sarsgaard) and Randy Ramseyer (John Hoogenakker) a few years later, finally getting to court in 2005. There's also Dr. Samuel Fennix (Michael Keaton) in 1996, the primary medical practitioner in a small Appalachian mining town. After being mislead by a drug rep, Billy Cutler (Will Poulter), he starts prescribing OxyContin to his patients, including a closeted young lesbian miner, Betsy Mallum (Kaitlyn Dever), who lives with her parents (Ray McKinnon, Mare Winningham).
So, I count six major storylines here, giving us a macroscopic, "The Wire" -esque look into the creation of OxyContin, the progression of the prescription drug epidemic, and heroic efforts to bring the responsible parties to justice. We have the POVs of addicts, doctors, investigators, prosecutors, and Perdue Pharmaceuticals employees and leadership. You could probably lose an episode or two, but "Dopesick" never feels overlong, and never seems to run out of terrible things to tell us about the Sacklers and their handling of OxyContin. The storytelling is often very on-the-nose about its big dramatic reveals and ironic twists, but that goes with the territory. Frankly, it's been a long while since I've seen a legal drama or police procedural with this much ambition and the talent to match. Everything about this production is top drawer, especially the all-star cast led by Keaton and Stuhlbarg.
On the other hand, we've rarely had a horrific public health disaster that could so clearly be traced back to the bad actions of a single company. The most effective and infuriating parts of "Dopesick" come early, when Sackler and his employees are discussing how to skirt around pharmaceuticals regulations, and deploying their underhanded sales tactics. It's a lot of little lies and manipulations at first that snowball into something very frightening very quickly. It's obvious from the start that Betsy is going to become addicted to OxyContin, but then other characters who should know better fall victim too, or have close shaves, as a result of the avalanche of misinformation that Purdue unleashes. I appreciate that "Dopesick" acts as a public service announcement of sorts, alerting viewers to the tactics of Purdue and its ilk, and showing the extent of the damage they caused. And if the Sacklers seem too unrealistically villainous, they only have themselves to blame.
The major criticism I've heard about the series is that it's too unsubtle and too concerned with making sure that viewers understand all the little nuances of the bad medicine and corrupt players. However, it's a result of there clearly being a lot of passion and a lot of emotional investment in this project from its creators. You can feel the anger and the tension coming across in so much of the writing, and nobody is pulling their punches. This is as tough a watch as something like "Chernobyl," and viewers can expect to be put through the emotional wringer.
My only real criticism of the miniseries is that wrangling six stories all at once was probably too much. It's impossible to keep the timelines of all the characters straight, and there's not enough material for some and too much for others. You could have made an entire film about Richard Sackler alone, and I'm sure someone else will eventually. However, the execution is good enough here to sustain the weaker stretches, and I had no trouble getting through all eight episodes.
And in the end, I feel like Strong and Levinson and their collaborators did what they set out to do - to hold somebody accountable, even if it's only on the small screen.
---
No comments:
Post a Comment