Heist stories have such a satisfying structure. It’s not just getting one over on the man, but the lead up to it as well: Putting a team together, planning the heist (the target always has it coming!), doing the heist and improvising through unexpected problems. And then that pleasurable sensation at the end: They got away with it. So what happens if you take that structure and jumble it up so that the typical order of things doesn’t matter? That’s the experimental premise behind “Kaleidoscope,” starring Giancarlo Esposito as a master thief who rounds up a crew to abscond with $7 billion in bearer bonds.
They’re targeting the world’s three richest people who keep their assets in what is supposedly the most secure underground vault ever. Since bearer bonds are not assigned to any one individual, they are untraceable and therefore vulnerable to theft. Hence, the ultrahigh security measures.
If the Titanic was marketed as unsinkable, the vault in “Kaleidoscope” has been similarly marketed as impenetrable — the hubris of such confidence means both are under water in the end, literally. The show’s central heist is very loosely inspired by the real-life theft of bearer bonds from a subterranean vault in Manhattan, which became flooded and vulnerable to a break-in during Hurricane Sandy. Apparently, this sort of crime can actually be pulled off in the right circumstances — the fictional how and why of it (as well as the aftermath) forms the basis of the story.
One episode takes place six weeks before the heist. Another, the morning after. Another, seven years before. Another, a mere five days before the heist. All told, the story takes place over a 25-year span. When you hit play to start, everyone gets the finale last but otherwise Netflix serves up the remaining episodes at random.
So: Is the series more compelling (or compelling at all) not only because it’s nonlinear, but because we’re all collectively watching the episodes in a different order from one another?
My gut says no. There’s just not enough story or character development here to warrant eight episodes, let alone eight episodes that are juggling a gimmick. I’ll watch any show that’s smart enough to put Esposito in the lead. He’s that good. But he deserves far better writing than he’s getting here. Visually, everything is shot so indistinctly that there’s no memorable set piece that stands out.
Episode “Yellow” is the one I watched first and it serves as a decent entry point, coming roughly at the story’s midpoint when the team comes together, one by one. The camera zooms on Esposito’s face looking tired and haggard. This isn’t the impeccable Gus Fring of “Breaking Bad” and “Better Call Saul,” but a smart and thoughtful man who is worn out. Life has not been kind, thanks to circumstance, but also because the worm turned when an old friend did him dirty. So, revenge it is.
He assembles a rough-and-tumble crew: An old pal he knew from prison here, a driver there, plus a couple of flunkies who are married to each other, one of whom is a safecracker. There’s also his lawyer, who is a weapons expert and fences stolen jewelry on the side, which comes in handy when they need cash to fund the whole operation.
In order to get this heist off the ground, they have to pull of a series of smaller heists — pre-heist heists — that include everything from springing Esposito’s character from prison (that would be the “Green” episode and the one I think works best on a purely storytelling level) to raising the seed money needed to fund their grand break-in. The series has some challenges around delayed gratification and creator Eric Garcia was smart to mitigate that by building in several minor heists along the way. Less intriguing is the parallel storyline of the fed who has been tracking this crew for years. You have to fill eight episodes with something, I guess.
I like that Garcia and Netflix are playing around with form. The binge format doesn’t have to be locked into a set formula! But even if the writing were stronger, I wonder how well this experiment would work.
There’s a clockwork energy to heist stories that’s interrupted here. It lacks the right buildup, but I’m not even sure if watching the episodes in chronological order (a quick internet search will pull up that info) would fix the issue. The pacing’s just off.
Nor does the story have the sort of ending that sends you off thinking: Oh, that’s how it all came together. By the finale, I had lost all interest in the main heist itself.
But Esposito? He kept me pulled in.
———
'KALEIDOSCOPE'
2 stars (out of 4)
Rating: TV-MA
How to watch: Netflix
———
