Apparently, “Persons of Interest” Aren’t Women

I’m not one to turn down a new crime show. Give me a detective, a forensic team or a vigilante out for the truth and I’m pretty much a happy camper. So I was expecting to enjoy the new CBS procedural “Person of Interest” (premiering tonight at 9/8 central), particularly since it’s the brainchild of “Lost” producer J.J. Abrams and Dark Knight/Memento screenwriter Jonathan Nolan. Unfortunately, after watching the pilot I’m feeling robbed–and not in the good way that’s followed by philosophical one-liners from street-hardened detectives.

First off, what could have been an interesting meditation on surveillance culture suffers from heavy-handedness and an out-there premise. The show hits viewers over the head with dozens of clips of gritty security camera footage, allusions to September 11, and images of cameras peering menacingly with their glowing viewfinders, like 2001‘s Hal, from every lamppost and stoplight. Instead of a subtle questioning of our Big Brother society, which might be interesting, the show goes with a convoluted sci-fi premise: A computer program gathers information from all this surveillance and predicts which members of the public will be involved in a crime. Yet this sophisticated program cannot tell whether they will be victims or perpetrators, or where, what, when and how the crime will occur, giving our team of human protagonists their mission–to figure it all out and stop the crimes before they are committed. As a premise this makes about as much sense as that 2008 Angelina Jolie film Wanted, in which a band of weaver-assassins receive instructions about who to kill from a mysterious loom.

At least Wanted had a woman lead (even if the film itself was a flimsy excuse to show two physics-defying fantasies–a naked Jolie and curving bullets). Both “Person of Interest” leads are men: There’s Mr. Finch (Michael Emerson, best known as Ben Linus from Lost), the man who designed the premonitory algorithm for the government but now secretly uses it in his own private lab/office to track down potential victims and murderers. More of an “idea man,” Finch hires former CIA agent John Reese (James Caviezel, The Prisoner) to actually do the creepy stalking and surveillance necessary to either stop or protect the “person of interest,” whose social security number is spit out by the computer.

As for female characters, the options are fairly limited. We have Reese’s half-naked, now-dead girlfriend, whom we’ll probably never see again outside of flashbacks meant to build Reese’s character. There’s the person of interest for the episode; another one-off, she’s an assistant attorney whom Reese presumes will be the victim of a crime until–an unexpected twist happens! Lastly, there’s a woman detective who interviews Reese at the beginning of the show after he beats up some gang members on the subway who attempt to rob him. According to the show’s website, Detective Carter (Taraji P. Henson) is a series regular, but her character is so one-dimensional that even the show forgets about her, introducing her in the first five minutes and then only bringing her back for two brief blips.

For me, a show with no notable female cast members is a big turn-off. But my problem with “Person of Interest” runs deeper. Not only are the male leads vacant and the female characters tangential, but the male characters occupy obnoxious, macho cliches: the hacker and the ex-soldier. Finch and Reese patronizingly believe that they can save the world through a combination of voyeurism, preternatural cleverness and brute strength.

All that might be bearable if the acting were at least mildly interesting, but I haven’t seen such stilted acting on a television show in a long time. Emerson plays his character as though they’d just rigged the algorithm-generating computer to talk for itself. Reese is supposed to be a mysterious heartthrob, a 21st century Richard Kimble seeking vengeance for some unknown injustice, but he just comes off as a run-of-the-mill action hero.

Who knows, Person of Interest” may become a glowing, international success, hailed as the most brilliantly complex thing to hit television since, well, “Lost.” I’ve certainly stopped trying to second-guess the topsy-turvy whims of the television industry and its viewers. And pilot episodes are a funny lot–some clever pilots have led to loathsome shows, and some stilted and stumbling pilots have heralded hidden genius.

Whether or not “Person of Interest” garners acclaim and loyal viewers, I do think it’s treading dangerous waters in a post-9/11 world. After all, the show suggests that 24/7 surveillance can serve some greater good and that the possibility of future crime justifies preemptive violence. Haven’t we heard that line somewhere before?

Poster from CBS’s “Person of Interest,” premiering tonight at 9pm.


  1. Aviva,

    Your description of the basic premise also reminds of that strange, could-have-been-so-much-better flick, MINORITY REPORT ( ). Kind of a random comment, but my brain is shutting down on me. Parallels could be drawn, at any rate.



  2. Ms. Feminist says:

    I realize this is a magazine for women but the whole bit about there being no female leads in this show comes off as whiny and shallow. There are only two leads and they are guys. It’s not like this is some all-male ensemble. And J.J. Abrams is KNOWN for casting strong female leads. But sometimes, that’s just not what the story is about. I’m a feminist but I don’t expect females to be injected everywhere just for the sake of (misperceived) equality. This particular show doesn’t call for a female lead.

    If you don’t like it, go watch Thelma and Louise and think about what to say when some guy whines and complains that it doesn’t have any strong male characters.

    • The comparison with Thelma & Louise doesn’t really hold up, given that the vast majority of buddy shows and movies are male-led, and it’s one of very few good-quality examples of that trend being subverted. There haven’t been many others in the twenty years since.

      Men can whine about that if they want — but we still live in a patriarchial society, where they are better represented in every way, from politics to pop culture.

      And I don’t get why a show would “not call” for a strong woman — an ex-soldier could easily be a woman, for example.

    • Actually, I had a far bigger problem with the premise of the show and the acting than with the show having no female leads (which is why I say that “my problem with [the show] runs deeper” than it’s lack of female leads). However, as this is a feminist blog/magazine, it would be remiss (and silly) to not mention what the roles are like for women on the show. I also made a point to mention that the roles for men on this show seemed cliched and uninteresting. Why would I mention the male roles but not the (lack) of female roles? If it had been a great pilot with a unique and plausible premise, I wouldn’t have cared whether it had a female lead or not (and I would have written my review to reflect that). There are plenty of shows without female leads that are still good shows. I do not think this is a good show (at least, not in my opinion based on the pilot).

  3. Iliana Echo says:

    You like crime shows, try “The Mentalist” (just started its 4th season on CBS). Interesting, deep characters, and although the title character is male, the biggest supporting character is a smart, independent woman, and the rest of the core team is pretty well split (two men, one woman).

    • I like “The Mentalist”–the Patrick Jane character is great–but haven’t really been able to get into it on a regular basis. It’s probably one of those shows I’ll suddenly get hooked on five seasons in and end up watching a hundred back episodes at once!

  4. Great review! I actually kind of like the premise, and think it would be great if it were cleverly done — with a jaded female detective whose career is a warning against surveillance culture, perhaps. But it sounds like just a standard, stock character-filled procedural with a quirky premise, which makes is far less inviting.

    • Thanks, Diane. I’d like the premise more if it were some sort of indictment of surveillance culture, but it wigs me out that the premise is an implicit approval of wire-tapping, etc. That said, maybe that will change as the show develops. I’m not sure if I’ll stick around to see whether that happens or not, but maybe I’ll revisit it mid-season.

  5. Wwwuh-oh.

  6. I can’t believe the terrible review that you gave this awesome show…I’m a woman, and Person of Interest is the BEST show that I’ve ever seen! I’d seen every episode but the pilot, and managed to find it online last night…it was fantastic, in NO way how you said it was. Some people have no accounting for taste!

  7. It’s time to watch the show again. Carter, Root, and Shaw. Really, Shaw. They are amazing. Love this show!

  8. What Celeste said, give it another go. Many female lead and recurring actresses have emerged. Your premise is outdated.

  9. Five of the most complex, interesting female characters I have ever seen on television have come out of this show(Shaw, Root, Carter, Zoe and Control, for anyone who’s wondering who I’m counting) The regular cast includes neurodivergent female characters, female POCs and canonical LGBTQ representation. Give it another shot, the boys are the least interesting part of an amazing show, and honestly, they will grow on you given time.

Speak Your Mind


Error, no Ad ID set! Check your syntax!