‘Frasier’ Reboot Review
As a show, the Frasier reboot is good, light-hearted fun. Compared to the original, it’s largely a disappointment.
I was reluctant to begin watching the Frasier reboot. The original show was a staple of my childhood, so to have to re-live it through a reiteration that starts 20 years after the series’ original run ended seemed like it would be a depressing experience, tarnishing the former glory of one of television’s best sitcoms. The news that David Hyde Pierce and Jane Leeves wouldn’t reprise their roles as Niles and Daphne amplified this feeling.
Initially, the show’s first episode fits that bill. Although Frasier Crane is a less interesting character at this stage of his life than in the show’s first run, Kelsey Grammar hasn’t lost any understanding over the years of what made his character so great. His performance is the standout in the series, but that isn’t so surprising given how many times he’s semi-reprised it over the years as Sideshow Bob in The Simpsons.
It’s the new characters I knew I would be reluctant to accept, and they start off as painfully run-of-the-mill. There’s been much attention directed at the inclusion of Nicholas Lyndhurst in the series, the acclaimed British actor widely known to UK comedy fans for his role as Rodney Trotter in Only Fools and Horses. Lyndhurst’s role as Alan Cromwell, Frasier’s friend and colleague who couldn’t care less about his job as a lecturer, is far less interesting. The jokes revolving around how little he cares about his students or his teaching duties quickly run thin, until it becomes clear that this is the basis for much of the character’s personality.
It’s hard not to draw immediate comparisons between Alan and Niles from the show’s original run. David Hyde Pierce’s character might not have been the protagonist, but his presence had a huge impact on the series’ plotting and what made it so special. He wasn’t just a bit-part character who was only there to make witty quips from the sidelines. He was an essential part of the lifeblood to this series, which was always the chaotic family unit that Frasier inadvertently formed between himself, Martin, Niles and Daphne. Just because there’s a new character for Frasier to bounce off of doesn’t make up for the holes left in these characters’ absence.
Of course, the reboot can’t simply hang onto the past. The actors have grown older, and it would be ridiculous to pretend that their characters are in the same stage of their lives as when the original run finished. It’s also impossible to ignore the tragic death of John Mahoney, who played Frasier’s dad Martin. With all that in mind, it makes sense for this iteration of the series to focus on Frasier’s relationship with his son Freddy. Now it is our protagonist’s turn to experience the troubles of fatherhood, and the disappointment that comes with having a son who doesn’t always want to be around him, and the close-mindedness that Frasier now exhibits as he judges his son’s lifestyle and habits.
By making their relationship the inverse of the adversarial but loving bond between Frasier and his dad Martin, it serves as a fitting tribute to the original series. However, the reboot’s opening episode remains largely a disappoint. The plot is hastily thrown together, and while it might be standard fare for sitcoms, the irrational way the characters behave feels too out of place for Frasier. The original show thrived when it showed how out-of-touch and delusional Frasier and Niles could be (who could forget their theory that an ape was trained to kill a woman with a gun, or that dumpster-fire idea to start a restaurant together).
But here the irrational tendencies are on full display among the show’s side characters, like Olivia and Alan, who arrive into Freddy’s home just moments after his father does. Freddy, who didn’t even want his father to stay in his apartment to have dinner with him, puts up no resistance to these two strangers invading his space. His roommate Eve also inexplicably has no issues with hiding the existence of her baby to pretend she’s someone she isn’t. This is also where we learn that she’s an aspiring actress, a character trait that, like Rodney’s general apathy towards his career, is not enough of a base for a character’s personality to rest on.
It’s only when the show offers a reconciliation between Freddy and his father that I started to appreciate what it was going for. It’s interesting to watch Frasier play the curmudgeonly old father, too set in his ways to accept that his son doesn’t want to carve out the same path for himself in life that he did. Recognising that this is a dynamic that he has been on the other end of, Frasier makes a genuine attempt to forge a lasting relationship with his son, and their heartfelt conversation is what saves the episode from mediocrity.
Where the show shines is in its dramatic moments, as it makes us remember that there’s something endearing about these characters. Unfortunately, it’s in the comedic moments where it suffers, where there aren’t any characters (besides Frasier) who prove to be half as interesting as Niles, Martin, Daphne or Roz ever were. Even the title character doesn’t hold up to his golden years, since now there’s a sense of pompousness and theatricality missing from the iconic shrink / radio presenter.
At times it feels like this show is simply going through the motions, until one of its dramatic moments appears, or even the odd comedic one, to give the series a sense of place, familiarity and comfort. There’s still a spark to this the series, enough to stop me from questioning why I finished its first season after I’d been contemplating quitting it halfway through the first episode. Future seasons, (if they do come) will confirm whether the reboot can rise above its tedious moments, where it far too often feels like just another sitcom, instead of a worthy successor to one of television’s greatest comedies.
