Chicago Fire

When it comes to movies or series about first responders, pathos is sort of part of the territory; it simply comes naturally with the job for those who put their lives on the line every day. It becomes a problem, however, when the filmmakers are unable to judge the correct and bearable degree. If there is a little more of it than just right, it becomes inadvertently ridiculous very quickly. However, the creators of Chicago Fire have managed to find the right measure (so far). They don't need to celebrate the fire department with slow motion footage of a puppy being carried out of a fiery inferno - they simply let them get on with their job. Of course, it is adapted for the eye of the viewer; thus, the frequency of breathtaking and dramatic emergency call-outs is too frequent and somewhat over the top. However, all emergency response scenes work without exception; partially because there are no solo superhero stunts (which, on the contrary, would rather add work for colleagues); instead, there is a realistic interplay of many team members, where everyone has a precise role. Individual characters are also well depicted; everyone’s personal life is ruined (if they are lucky enough to have any at all) and they no longer expect any gratitude. The people they have rescued don’t tend to offer words of thanks but lawsuits. It's basically a big-budget, uncynical, American version of the British series Sirens about everyday heroes and, of course, an unacknowledged Third Watch spin-off. As far as the production is concerned, it’s pleasing that the creators are not afraid to take advantage of photogenic Chicago, and thanks to the budget, it looks and sounds good. And so far, only the Barbie-like duo of female paramedics is a nuisance; compared to the male ensemble (whom, in addition to male charisma also has acting talent), it is an eye sore. (18.10.2012)