Interesting, I seem to be that film's biggest hater, so my response probably fits into a 'we just see this film differently' category, but for me the recent adaptation sacrifices all opportunities at even slight meditations on passing nonverbal cues to hint at full characterization in favor of a fast-forward through plot. I think she turned in the best possible performance with the little she was given, but it reminds me a lot of those big-budget world-building HBO shows that posture at depth and characterization but really trick the audience into believing this when they're aggressively shoving us through the funhouse. Again, I'm the lone wolf here, so what do I know! I am glad she's being cast in big roles because she deserves it, regardless, but go see Million Impossible: Rogue Nation alreadyflyonthewall2983 wrote: ↑Sat May 13, 2023 8:15 amShe’s incredible in Dune, I’d never seen her before in anything and was kind of blown away by her acting.
TV of 2023
- therewillbeblus
- Joined: Tue Dec 22, 2015 3:40 pm
Re: TV of 2023
-
- Joined: Mon Jun 27, 2005 3:31 pm
- Location: Indiana
- Contact:
Re: TV of 2023
We can at least agree that it’s good she’s getting such opportunities.
- therewillbeblus
- Joined: Tue Dec 22, 2015 3:40 pm
Re: TV of 2023
Yeah, I was a bit worried after The Snowman fiasco. I also thought she portrayed a really interesting villain in Doctor Sleep
- therewillbeblus
- Joined: Tue Dec 22, 2015 3:40 pm
Re: TV of 2023
Not sure if anyone else watches The Other Two but I think it’s a brilliant zeitgeist satire doubling as an earnest look at the challenges of identity exploration in friction with the burdens of perceived social inadequacy. The airplane episode from season one hits the exact right mark of tragedy and absurdist comedy, with an appropriate ascension into nakedly mocking the practice of lying to feel a sense of belongingness by piggybacking on someone else’s trauma. Also, major points for building an entire B-plot out of a Pleasantville reference in 2023
- brundlefly
- Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2014 12:55 pm
Re: TV of 2023
therewillbeblus wrote: ↑Sat Apr 22, 2023 6:08 pmI'm loving Mrs. Davis, the new Lindelof series on Peacock. It's a positively-bananas sci-fi dramedy, which works at-odds with his typical sincerity but right in line with the tactful, self-conscious absurdism from The Leftovers' wackier moments. Betty Gilpin is terrific in the lead, and the imaginative elasticity the premise allows for is welcome, while still grounding to an internal logic we become gradually cued into with delightful reveals. I don't know how much it's 'saying' about the relationship between spirituality and technology in a world where both are so heightened, but the madcap explosion at meditating on that state with a swarm of uninhibited ideas intruding in on the action is expressing all we need to feel about it - no didacticism required. It's a great show for people who no longer think the world makes sense, but who don't want to drain their energy feeling bad about it during their leisure time either.
I too loved this show (perhaps a mini-series, which is how it’s chosen to chase Emmys) about antagonistic mothers and... I guess probably everything else – so much that I’m willing to forgive its foolish desire to make coherency contain its WTFery. It should have known better, especially when one of its ultimate lessons is how unsatisfying it is to explain every trick.
SpoilerShow
Not that it doesn’t tell us that’s what it’s going to do; its best shock comes right at the top with the billboard decapitation, but at that point having a horse-riding nun declare it’s a magician’s con is compounded surprise that seems like more magic instead of a reveal. But Arquette’s final sad confetti pop at least made you wish the show respected that character’s wishes.
The horse’s survival feels like a late addition so there’s a token unexplained mystery.
The horse’s survival feels like a late addition so there’s a token unexplained mystery.
That the pervasiveness of the titular app often seems incidental and less-than-threatening may be part of the show’s lesson and also part of the process. The good thing is that coming from a general place of kindness and understanding makes the show easier to digest than another angry Look Up From Your Phones, Sheeple! screed; the bad thing is that you quickly absorb and accept things at which you might otherwise wonder long after they’d sparked joy.
SpoilerShow
Despite the tone, I kept waiting for a malevolent reveal a la Neil Gaiman’s “Spy Story” Miracleman issue, where the omnipotent utopian force keeps uncurable, damaging players occupied with perpetual, impossible side-tasks.
Kudos to Peacock and maybe a secret sponsor(*) for setting a lot of money on fire for a show that has built-in extravagances and limitations and one that both is and is not extremely sacrilegious. Gilpin is great, Jake McDorman and Andy McQueen are perfect presences, esteemed character actress Margo Martindale always welcome. Shohreh Aghdashloo, of course. Lindelof is 3/3 in post-Lost series and should be followed to any channel (and I feel bad that co-creator Big Bang Theory grad Tara Hernandez doesn’t even have a Wiki page.) Have heard nothing but bad things about the Lindelof-Gilpin project The Hunt and have loathed the only other film I’ve seen by Craig Zobel but am now inclined to eventually check that out.
(*)spoilerShow
Do you think they went to Red Bull first?
- zedz
- Joined: Sun Nov 07, 2004 7:24 pm
Re: TV of 2023
I watched three episodes and have bailed (wall-to-wall cliches and expository dialogue, mainly). If I make it to the end it will be as a hate-watch, and I hate hate-watching.therewillbeblus wrote: ↑Sat May 13, 2023 3:07 amSilo is off to a promising start, pulling a now-familiar bait-and-switch on the directionality of the series, but one that worked for me at priming an implicit mystery beneath the three defined ones: the murder, the history, and why the lies. I haven't read the source, butRegardless of how it all turns out, I'm excited for some world-building, the process of the detective work unfolding, and Rebecca Ferguson finally getting a juicy starring role after being sidelined into one-note parts following her complex star-making MI:5 perf (including the sad dilution of that very character is its follow-up). Plus, Graham Yost has finally created another show!SpoilerShowI'm not too optimistic that whatever nefarious secrets being covered up by this fascist regime to suppress the people from an uprising, etc. are going to shed new light on an unoriginal sci-fi concept... However, the mystery I'm drawn to is why did our two pump-faked ostensible leads take the specific isolating death route that they did? Both of them clearly had allies within the silo, but seemed to be fully self-actualized in respective quick decisions to sacrifice themselves to 'protect' others, once finding out key information beyond what's been shared with the viewer. If the answer is just that there are eyes and ears everywhere, that'll be annoying, but if there's a clever reason for the secret-keeping and martyring clue-dropping, I'm intrigued
But, regarding your spoiler:
SpoilerShow
Wasn't it made abundantly clear that the devastated world outside the silo is an illusion intended to keep those inside inside? The whole thing about sending a message back by wiping the window? My theory is that the protective suit was supposed to be an execution / suffocation device, which is why whatsisname took his mask off. I've just realized that this might make the whole story an anti-vax conspiracy parable!
- therewillbeblus
- Joined: Tue Dec 22, 2015 3:40 pm
Re: TV of 2023
Yeah, it's broad attempts at striking eclectic tones and topical nuances reminded me of a sillier and less reflexive simulated content-explosion found in Assassination Nation. Ultimately I loved the finale, especially the hilarious and ethos-appropriate revealbrundlefly wrote: ↑Fri May 19, 2023 12:38 amtherewillbeblus wrote: ↑Sat Apr 22, 2023 6:08 pmI'm loving Mrs. Davis, the new Lindelof series on Peacock. It's a positively-bananas sci-fi dramedy, which works at-odds with his typical sincerity but right in line with the tactful, self-conscious absurdism from The Leftovers' wackier moments. Betty Gilpin is terrific in the lead, and the imaginative elasticity the premise allows for is welcome, while still grounding to an internal logic we become gradually cued into with delightful reveals. I don't know how much it's 'saying' about the relationship between spirituality and technology in a world where both are so heightened, but the madcap explosion at meditating on that state with a swarm of uninhibited ideas intruding in on the action is expressing all we need to feel about it - no didacticism required. It's a great show for people who no longer think the world makes sense, but who don't want to drain their energy feeling bad about it during their leisure time either.
I too loved this show (perhaps a mini-series, which is how it’s chosen to chase Emmys) about antagonistic mothers and... I guess probably everything else – so much that I’m willing to forgive its foolish desire to make coherency contain its WTFery. It should have known better, especially when one of its ultimate lessons is how unsatisfying it is to explain every trick.
SpoilerShow
of the highbrow app pitch to a lowbrow market, and how all the narrative absurdities we've encountered were sourced in superfluous advertisement keywords, taking on new literalized connotations from AI..
SpoilerShow
the final shot of 'windmill-tilting', only coming from the inanimate object toward the person - or perhaps mentally-created by the mother demonstrating our abilities to create narratives coming from any direction. It's not exactly explicitly inspiring or meaningful in any specific way, but it's a striking image
- therewillbeblus
- Joined: Tue Dec 22, 2015 3:40 pm
Re: TV of 2023
Thanks for the rec - yeah, I don't think this is in any way going to be High Art, it's just the same old dystopian stuff recycled and there are definitely dialogue issues... we'll see if it does anything new with the ideas. I did get all of that from your spoilerbox (yes, extremely beating-us-over-the-head clear, on all accounts, including your theory which is practically outright stated in its exposition) but my invested 'mystery' has more to do withzedz wrote: ↑Fri May 19, 2023 1:00 amI watched three episodes and have bailed (wall-to-wall cliches and expository dialogue, mainly). If I make it to the end it will be as a hate-watch, and I hate hate-watching.therewillbeblus wrote: ↑Sat May 13, 2023 3:07 amSilo is off to a promising start, pulling a now-familiar bait-and-switch on the directionality of the series, but one that worked for me at priming an implicit mystery beneath the three defined ones: the murder, the history, and why the lies. I haven't read the source, butRegardless of how it all turns out, I'm excited for some world-building, the process of the detective work unfolding, and Rebecca Ferguson finally getting a juicy starring role after being sidelined into one-note parts following her complex star-making MI:5 perf (including the sad dilution of that very character is its follow-up). Plus, Graham Yost has finally created another show!SpoilerShowI'm not too optimistic that whatever nefarious secrets being covered up by this fascist regime to suppress the people from an uprising, etc. are going to shed new light on an unoriginal sci-fi concept... However, the mystery I'm drawn to is why did our two pump-faked ostensible leads take the specific isolating death route that they did? Both of them clearly had allies within the silo, but seemed to be fully self-actualized in respective quick decisions to sacrifice themselves to 'protect' others, once finding out key information beyond what's been shared with the viewer. If the answer is just that there are eyes and ears everywhere, that'll be annoying, but if there's a clever reason for the secret-keeping and martyring clue-dropping, I'm intrigued
But, regarding your spoiler:If you want to see a completely bonkers sci-fi premise done relatively well on Netflix, check out the Turkish series Hot Skull. Lots of the same dystoptian tropes - probably generated by the same algorithm - but sent through a faulty teleporter with a DVD of Pontypool. Extremely silly, but a lot more fun than Silo.SpoilerShowWasn't it made abundantly clear that the devastated world outside the silo is an illusion intended to keep those inside inside? The whole thing about sending a message back by wiping the window? My theory is that the protective suit was supposed to be an execution / suffocation device, which is why whatsisname took his mask off. I've just realized that this might make the whole story an anti-vax conspiracy parable!
SpoilerShow
why these characters are 'unable' to share more with those they trust on the inside. If there is indeed enough evidence gathered by both Rashida Jones and then David Oyelowo to have full trust that the silo is an oppressive space, which clearly was both of their respective experiences, why not make an effort to share more with the trusted person on the inside before venturing out on your own? Jones told Oyelowo some things, but stopped herself before departing alone. He knew he could trust Ferguson, and that she would take in whatever information he had, but instead he kept it to himself before going out and left clues. If there's evidence that the government is suppressing a rebellion, why not gift some building blocks to help band together a group of likeminded individuals before making that existential choice? It doesn't make sense for Oyelowo to venture out to send a message back like so many have done and died before him, and then also set up all these messages inside for Ferguson. Maybe it's just going to be stupid (the most likely explanation is that there is surveillance everywhere and he just couldn't do it in a way that ensured her safety, or whatever) but for two people to only give half-measured intel to their only trusted people alive inside, yet simultaneously make impulsive, sound, intentional decisions to isolate themselves from those inside, just doesn't add up to an internal logic of motivation. They are separately motivated in these two directions, but there does not seem to be a reason why they wouldn't info-drop more before exile, unless they really really care about these people but don't wanna actually help them too much, because that wouldn't build a good series..
- zedz
- Joined: Sun Nov 07, 2004 7:24 pm
Re: TV of 2023
Re. your spoiler box, I wrote that off as just bad plotting! I had assumed that Character A had established the same code for Character C as they'd received from Character B, but then it didn't seem to play out like that. (I see neither you nor I have bothered to process the characters' names!) It seems like some characters can say whatever they like as long as there's some water running (and the audience needs the exposition), but others maintain a vow of complete silence (if the show needs to generate some mystery).
Thanks for the intel from the outside about episode four!
Oh, one plot element that I thought was clever:
Thanks for the intel from the outside about episode four!
Oh, one plot element that I thought was clever:
SpoilerShow
The characters figuring out that the only message they could send from the outside was doing exactly what they were expected to do, since anything else would be digitally censored.
- therewillbeblus
- Joined: Tue Dec 22, 2015 3:40 pm
Re: TV of 2023
I don't blame you! That's what I mean when I say it's probably just going to go unanswered under the assumption of a recycled Big Brother Is Watching logic, but if there is some more nuanced answer, it could be cool. At the very least, I think that's the most interesting avenue the mystery could venture into at this point
Ha, and this is what I wrote off as just mechanical sheeple behavior, emphasizing that these characters aren't really characters at all, not that the show feels that way or is aware of it!
I'm going to keep watching for now, simply because I've been in a personal mode of watching TV shows more frequently and movies less during the work week, which helps me turn my brain off a bit due to familiar cues, etc., and this one coming out on the cusp of Friday is perfect self-soothing nonsense. Plus maybe it'll be cool sometimes, and I don't mind watching Rebecca Ferguson emote for an hour
- The Curious Sofa
- Joined: Fri Sep 13, 2019 6:18 am
Re: TV of 2023
I'm half way through Mrs. Davis. I find this show more exhausting than fun and the relentless wackiness is grating on me (it reminds my of this years Best Picture Oscar winner, which I also found interminably cute) Betty Gilpin is good in anything and Damon Lindelof is what made me watch this but it lacks the richness of his best work (The Leftovers, Watchmen). I suppose it's more of a piece with co-showrunner Tara Hernandez' work and I always did my best to avoid The Big Bang Theory.
To those who have watched all of it, does it stick the landing or should I throw in the towel if I'm not won over by episode 4 ? After initial online enthusiasm for the show, there didn't seem to be much buzz around the ending, though I didn't read reviews of it for obvious reasons. By its half point this show has so many balls in the air, it will have to be really clever about its resolution or it will feel like a cheat.
To those who have watched all of it, does it stick the landing or should I throw in the towel if I'm not won over by episode 4 ? After initial online enthusiasm for the show, there didn't seem to be much buzz around the ending, though I didn't read reviews of it for obvious reasons. By its half point this show has so many balls in the air, it will have to be really clever about its resolution or it will feel like a cheat.
- therewillbeblus
- Joined: Tue Dec 22, 2015 3:40 pm
Re: TV of 2023
I think it ties up nicely but doesn't stray from its own bizarre internal logic already established. The ending does exactly what you'd expect, leaning into some universal sentiment on generational trauma, technological innovation obstructing human connection, cravings of social-emotional intimacy etc., and also subverts catharses by crushing expectations for labyrinthine mystery mastermind narratives in a deliciously stupefied fashion. EEAAO is an interesting point of comparison, since that film also does both these things - leaning into absurdity to get to an honest if broad meditation on ubiquitous concerns - but I like Mrs. Davis more because it's way breezier and less earnest about its dramas when they do get touched on, as if it recognizes, accepts, and relishes the fact that the silly fun is more meaningful to bask in sometimes than the solemnity of the issues. I feel like Lindelof and co saw EEAAO, said, "We all 'get it', so let's lighten up" and did just that
- brundlefly
- Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2014 12:55 pm
Re: TV of 2023
If you're halfway through and hate the ride, you're allowed to get out! The tone you find so annoying is not going to change; this is the show. An exploded horse doesn't change its splatter. I was actually surprised by the end of ep three that they were going for actual emotional resonance, spiritual honesty, some thematic unity. It sounds like the only reason you'd like landing is that it ends all the jumping around. I thought its plot got a little too coherent for this kind of kitchen sink storytelling, but I prefer a billion loose ends to a single Band-Aid. This, they made it work, for good and ill.
Not sure what elements of The Big Bang Theory are in play here. I've only caught a couple episodes and I remember them as being more formulaic than aggressively random. I don't think Mrs. Davis is at odds with Lindelof-land once you factor in turns like The Leftovers' "International Assassin" episode.
Not sure what elements of The Big Bang Theory are in play here. I've only caught a couple episodes and I remember them as being more formulaic than aggressively random. I don't think Mrs. Davis is at odds with Lindelof-land once you factor in turns like The Leftovers' "International Assassin" episode.
- therewillbeblus
- Joined: Tue Dec 22, 2015 3:40 pm
Re: TV of 2023
This is right onbrundlefly wrote: ↑Mon May 22, 2023 7:12 pmNot sure what elements of The Big Bang Theory are in play here. I've only caught a couple episodes and I remember them as being more formulaic than aggressively random. I don't think Mrs. Davis is at odds with Lindelof-land once you factor in turns like The Leftovers' "International Assassin" episode.
- The Curious Sofa
- Joined: Fri Sep 13, 2019 6:18 am
Re: TV of 2023
I was ok with one wacky episode in The Leftovers but am probably in the minority of those who liked the bleak first season the best. I don't hate Mrs. Davis, it does make me laugh at times (yup, the horse) and I'm more on the fence than totally negative on it. I've given a break for now but will probably return to it.brundlefly wrote: ↑Mon May 22, 2023 7:12 pmIf you're halfway through and hate the ride, you're allowed to get out! The tone you find so annoying is not going to change; this is the show. An exploded horse doesn't change its splatter. I was actually surprised by the end of ep three that they were going for actual emotional resonance, spiritual honesty, some thematic unity. It sounds like the only reason you'd like landing is that it ends all the jumping around. I thought its plot got a little too coherent for this kind of kitchen sink storytelling, but I prefer a billion loose ends to a single Band-Aid. This, they made it work, for good and ill.
Not sure what elements of The Big Bang Theory are in play here. I've only caught a couple episodes and I remember them as being more formulaic than aggressively random. I don't think Mrs. Davis is at odds with Lindelof-land once you factor in turns like The Leftovers' "International Assassin" episode.
Anyways, thanks to you and thewillbeblus for the responses.
- therewillbeblus
- Joined: Tue Dec 22, 2015 3:40 pm
Re: TV of 2023
Episode five might be my favorite. I think it mixes the wackiness with dark drama well in addition to offering the most info-dropping in a ‘(back)story time’ scenario. The last three just build off of that one into missions which are variations on what you’ve already gotten, but I’d encourage you to at least watch one more if you feel up to it since you’re already there
- therewillbeblus
- Joined: Tue Dec 22, 2015 3:40 pm
Re: TV of 2023
I'm still watching, and with only one episode remaining in the first season, we haven't gotten... anywhere? The theory you mention in the spoilerbox seems incredibly obvious to me too, but the "reveal" we got at the end of episode nine (which was portrayed as a big twist, as if expecting us to be wow'd, despite already getting the same information in episode two from Oyelowo's POV) iszedz wrote: ↑Fri May 19, 2023 1:00 amI watched three episodes and have bailed (wall-to-wall cliches and expository dialogue, mainly). If I make it to the end it will be as a hate-watch, and I hate hate-watching.
SpoilerShowWasn't it made abundantly clear that the devastated world outside the silo is an illusion intended to keep those inside inside? The whole thing about sending a message back by wiping the window? My theory is that the protective suit was supposed to be an execution / suffocation device, which is why whatsisname took his mask off. I've just realized that this might make the whole story an anti-vax conspiracy parable!
SpoilerShow
characters watching video footage of someone cleaning on the outside, the world looking normal and habitable
And yet, all that said, I'm still finding this a perfect Thursday night show. I'm not 'hate-watching' it, but there's nothing I really want to do at the end of the work week other than eat a pint of ice cream and watch something taking place in another world without being too investing. If Rebecca Ferguson weren't in the lead and this came out any other day of the week, I'd have bailed by now, but if it stays in place, I'll probably finish it to the end. I really wish you were a writer on the show, zedz, because the "anti-vax conspiracy parable" would be pretty cool to weave in
Also, Graham Yost's fingerprints are nowhere to be found here. After constructing such a rich, lived-in world with Justified, and making creative choices around reveals/twists that were thoughtful and provocative to audiences, I have no idea what he's doing here. However, there's one bit of connective tissue I only noticed last night, despite the character making appearances way earlier in the season - a completely unrecognizable Vasquez!
- therewillbeblus
- Joined: Tue Dec 22, 2015 3:40 pm
Re: TV of 2023
Re: Silo's finale - something actually sorta surprising happened! Which sparks a lot of interesting possibilities, though I'm not counting on the series actually exploring them..
zedz wrote: ↑Fri May 19, 2023 1:00 amSpoilerShowWasn't it made abundantly clear that the devastated world outside the silo is an illusion intended to keep those inside inside? The whole thing about sending a message back by wiping the window? My theory is that the protective suit was supposed to be an execution / suffocation device, which is why whatsisname took his mask off.
SpoilerShow
So in a twist, we find out that the green environment those who go out to clean see is actually the illusion, and the vision for those inside is the real thing. It's a clever bit of reverse psychology - it tricks the people who left believing they found evidence of the silo’s lies to have those suspicions confirmed, and then turn around and clean to “show” the people inside that they were right, but it really just reinforces the silo’s government’s authority (i.e. 'we send people to clean, and they’ll do it.' So each party gets what they ‘want’. And they leave holes in the suits to kill those individuals, showing the people inside that the government is correct. A double whammy - the deserters will do as they're told, and then they will die as we told you. Instead of the initial theory that the government was poisoning the people in their suits, causing them to die, they were just leaving an opening to kill them with the toxic air that does really exist outside!
We'll see if they do anything with this, but I like the idea that the Silo’s government creates this kind of 'game' as a way to weed out rebellious personalities: leaving some space and relics for them to locate “evidence” of things being okay outside, and then sending them out, thus ‘outing’ the people who would likely rebel anyways and causing them to engage in self-fulfilling prophecies. It becomes a kind of win-win, except the rebels who think they're winning actually wind up losing while still believing they're right.
We'll see if they do anything with this, but I like the idea that the Silo’s government creates this kind of 'game' as a way to weed out rebellious personalities: leaving some space and relics for them to locate “evidence” of things being okay outside, and then sending them out, thus ‘outing’ the people who would likely rebel anyways and causing them to engage in self-fulfilling prophecies. It becomes a kind of win-win, except the rebels who think they're winning actually wind up losing while still believing they're right.
- The Curious Sofa
- Joined: Fri Sep 13, 2019 6:18 am
Re: TV of 2023
Just making my way through Silo and I agree that it doesn't have much to add to the dystopian genre and its sluggishly paced. It's the type of prestige series which would have been better as a movie. Rebecca Ferguson and the mid-century production design (I want those tiles everybody has in their kitchen!) keep me watching though. I'm up to episode 6 and it picks up a little once it turns into a murder investigation. The cast is generally first class, so the poor performance by Common, who at this point is the closest we have to an outright villain, sticks out like a sore thumb.
-
- Joined: Sat May 29, 2021 7:34 am
Re: TV of 2023
It's not exactly TV of 2023, but don't know where else to post it - I was looking for shows similar to Gilmore Girls and found Parenthood. Lorelai Gilmore and Nate from Six Feet Under are there too. Wondering if Nate's role in this show is the alternate epilogue of SFU's ending by the Parenthood creator Jason Katims (who I have yet to explore). Currently watching the last episode of season one.
- domino harvey
- Dot Com Dom
- Joined: Wed Jan 11, 2006 2:42 pm
Re: TV of 2023
I enjoyed the first few seasons, but never finished it (through no fault of the series). If you like it, your next step after would be Friday Night Lights, which shares some of the same creative team
- Matt
- Joined: Tue Nov 02, 2004 12:58 pm
Re: TV of 2023
Bunheads might scratch that itch. The follow-up from Amy Sherman-Palladino which also features Kelly Bishop (Emily Gilmore).Shanzam wrote:I was looking for shows similar to Gilmore Girls
-
- Joined: Sat May 29, 2021 7:34 am
Re: TV of 2023
I'll check it out, thanks, Katims seemed to have written around 12 episodes of Friday Night Lights. I like the atmosphere of familiarity in Parenthood, but don't know if I will watch all the seasons.domino harvey wrote: ↑Tue Jul 25, 2023 12:38 pmI enjoyed the first few seasons, but never finished it (through no fault of the series). If you like it, your next step after would be Friday Night Lights, which shares some of the same creative team
On a whim + dancing reminds me of Frances Ha, I'll remember it, thanks...the show centers on a Las Vegas showgirl who gets married on a whim and winds up teaching alongside her new mother-in-law at her ballet school.
I also watched 4 episodes of Silo in the meantime, don't think I've watched many dystopian TV series in general so it reminds me of all the sci-fi series I've watched, but more character-driven and with the scientific aspect happening sometimes in (alternate) present or past rather than future tense. It could probably also be labeled as a detective show in a dystopian context.
- diamonds
- Joined: Sun Apr 24, 2016 2:35 pm
Re: TV of 2023
Putting in a good word for Soderbergh's Full Circle now that it's out in full. Didn't anticipate the post would be this long but maybe it will encourage anyone still trying to fill a Succession-sized hole in their schedule to seek it out.
I quite enjoyed the ride. It marks the third collaboration between Soderbergh and screenwriter Ed Solomon (after Mosaic and No Sudden Move), but it also seems like the latest installment in a project that began in earnest with The Laundromat, which found Soderbergh (and there, writer Scott Z. Burns) attempting to find ways to dramatize complex financial crimes. While its aims—untangling labyrinthine global schemes and elucidating the Calvinball rules of capital—are ambitious, The Laundromat's messy patchwork of genres and tones doesn't come off, and Soderbergh's bizarre sense of humor ensured its reach would be more limited than Adam McKay's earlier companion piece The Big Short.
No Sudden Move represents a reworked approach and a kind of lateral advance. Instead of direct-to-camera addresses about the big issues, Soderbergh and Solomon integrate ideas about corporate conspiracy, environmental crimes, and the effects of urban renewal on the poor into a twisty genre plot. What begins as a home invasion sets two hired criminals of different backgrounds on a path cutting through a cross-section of Detroit's wealth strata, leading all the way up to an automotive company boardroom.
Full Circle builds on the formula set by No Sudden Move, multiplying characters and plot complications across a larger canvas and moving the action to the current day, and it strikes me as the most confident iteration of this particular storytelling preoccupation yet. Solomon's script is extremely dense in plot incident and backstory, and it's a testament to Soderbergh's Premingerian skill with balancing multiple narrative strands and a large cast that it comes off as cleanly as it does. The story involves two families, one of well-to-do Manhattanites, the other a Guyanese crime syndicate, which converge in a botched kidnapping that subsequently reveals secrets and connections between them.
As a narrative tapestry it's an impressive feat, and it should come as no surprise that Soderbergh's directing instincts remain sharp and robust. In his post-"retirement" phase, Soderbergh has been pretty sparing with handheld camerawork, but Kimi seems to have decisively broken the seal—Full Circle finds him back in the jittery-precise handheld mode that made The Knick so exhilarating. He keeps things at ground level, moving with the characters as they move through city streets and suburban residences, police stations and hospitals, hotels and motels, posh apartments and parking garages (and, memorably, the back of a van), privileging no one character over the rest. The first two episodes, which lay out the characters and then let the kidnapping play out in real time, are thrilling work. The texture of his digital images here looks grittier than usual to my eyes; it looks very nice and occasionally quite striking. The colors of the Guyanese street market in the first episode are so warm and vibrant—enough to leave an impression of a paradise lost once the boys find themselves having to carry out a horrifying initiation ritual in a dingy, hellish back alley in NYC.
One of Soderbergh's not-so-secret strengths is his facility with actors, and the cast here, consisting of veterans and newcomers alike, is almost uniformly great. (The one surprising bum note for me was Zazie Beetz, who plays her stock maverick cop a little too casually obnoxious at nearly all times). The actors playing the Guyanese crew are real standouts (and one wonders why this wonderful accent and slang haven't graced the screen before!). I don't think I've seen a character quite like CCH Pounder's superstitious criminal matriarch Savitri Mahabir, whose sweet grandmotherly demeanor (at one point she winkingly quotes Bobby McFerrin) can shift on a dime to cold authority and menacing single-mindedness. The moral and emotional center of the series rests on newcomer Adia's Natalia, an impressive performance with some delightfully funny banter as well. Even a one-note character like Jharrel Jerome's Aked is enlivened by the actor's intense eyes and Kanye-esque snarl, a lively soloist in the symphony.
In interviews Soderbergh has stressed the difficulty of adapting drama to a world where smartphones make people accessible to one another 24/7, but he and Solomon deserve praise for how seamlessly they integrate smartphones within the thriller mechanics and general fabric here. Many initial press articles about the series highlight the tense moment in E2 where a character
But even their passive existence in the show's world feels just right. For example, in the middle of a furious brainstorming session in E3, a character suddenly thinks to make a quick Google search only to find "Not an article, not even a fucking New York Post!", stoking his suspicions and providing him an epiphany. At another point, a character figures out where someone is by
And many more examples. The economic issues relating to First World exploitation of the Third World are for the most part right on the surface, though the depiction is uncommonly nuanced. In Full Circle, the exploiter/exploited dynamic doesn't fall cleanly along racial lines; Mrs. Mahabir is very quick to take advantage of the migrants in trouble in Guyana, whom she knows about because she employs Natalia as a personal masseuse (a suggestive upstairs/downstairs dynamic). And the final plot revelation is about
The focus on class is refreshing, and it is embedded in the drama's genre stratification as well. For the Brownes, the kidnapping sets off a kind of domestic melodrama involving questions of fidelity and parentage, exposing secrets about the origins of the family's wealth and jeopardizing their marriage. (Their son remains safe in a cabin upstate, and the worst they have to put up with is Zazie Beetz's insistent postal inspector). The young Guyanese characters however remain trapped in a film noir; the kidnapping sends them spiraling through increasingly claustrophobic, life-or-death situations where they find themselves at the mercy of more powerful forces, requiring constant movement and quick thinking.
Without a big ad campaign centering it in the conversation, the series unfortunately seems destined to be overlooked among the glut of streaming options. It's a shame, because while it is by no means flawless, it is very good—clean, fluid genre filmmaking, the kind that's easy to undervalue but which is very pleasurable to watch.
I quite enjoyed the ride. It marks the third collaboration between Soderbergh and screenwriter Ed Solomon (after Mosaic and No Sudden Move), but it also seems like the latest installment in a project that began in earnest with The Laundromat, which found Soderbergh (and there, writer Scott Z. Burns) attempting to find ways to dramatize complex financial crimes. While its aims—untangling labyrinthine global schemes and elucidating the Calvinball rules of capital—are ambitious, The Laundromat's messy patchwork of genres and tones doesn't come off, and Soderbergh's bizarre sense of humor ensured its reach would be more limited than Adam McKay's earlier companion piece The Big Short.
No Sudden Move represents a reworked approach and a kind of lateral advance. Instead of direct-to-camera addresses about the big issues, Soderbergh and Solomon integrate ideas about corporate conspiracy, environmental crimes, and the effects of urban renewal on the poor into a twisty genre plot. What begins as a home invasion sets two hired criminals of different backgrounds on a path cutting through a cross-section of Detroit's wealth strata, leading all the way up to an automotive company boardroom.
Spoilers for No Sudden MoveShow
Matt Damon's climactic monologue was reportedly directly inspired by Ned Beatty's Network speech, with Soderbergh wanting to stop the narrative dead in order to have him deliver what amounts to a rhetorical thesis for the film. It's a grand gesture, and though it does come uncomfortably close to the Banderas/Oldman/Streep addresses of The Laundromat, it also functions within the film as a satisfying way of contrasting the means, methods, and character of white collar and blue collar crime. A good film, and if nothing else No Sudden Move ought to be commended for accomplishing in under two hours what the dreadful fourth season of Fargo labored to do in many more.
As a narrative tapestry it's an impressive feat, and it should come as no surprise that Soderbergh's directing instincts remain sharp and robust. In his post-"retirement" phase, Soderbergh has been pretty sparing with handheld camerawork, but Kimi seems to have decisively broken the seal—Full Circle finds him back in the jittery-precise handheld mode that made The Knick so exhilarating. He keeps things at ground level, moving with the characters as they move through city streets and suburban residences, police stations and hospitals, hotels and motels, posh apartments and parking garages (and, memorably, the back of a van), privileging no one character over the rest. The first two episodes, which lay out the characters and then let the kidnapping play out in real time, are thrilling work. The texture of his digital images here looks grittier than usual to my eyes; it looks very nice and occasionally quite striking. The colors of the Guyanese street market in the first episode are so warm and vibrant—enough to leave an impression of a paradise lost once the boys find themselves having to carry out a horrifying initiation ritual in a dingy, hellish back alley in NYC.
One of Soderbergh's not-so-secret strengths is his facility with actors, and the cast here, consisting of veterans and newcomers alike, is almost uniformly great. (The one surprising bum note for me was Zazie Beetz, who plays her stock maverick cop a little too casually obnoxious at nearly all times). The actors playing the Guyanese crew are real standouts (and one wonders why this wonderful accent and slang haven't graced the screen before!). I don't think I've seen a character quite like CCH Pounder's superstitious criminal matriarch Savitri Mahabir, whose sweet grandmotherly demeanor (at one point she winkingly quotes Bobby McFerrin) can shift on a dime to cold authority and menacing single-mindedness. The moral and emotional center of the series rests on newcomer Adia's Natalia, an impressive performance with some delightfully funny banter as well. Even a one-note character like Jharrel Jerome's Aked is enlivened by the actor's intense eyes and Kanye-esque snarl, a lively soloist in the symphony.
In interviews Soderbergh has stressed the difficulty of adapting drama to a world where smartphones make people accessible to one another 24/7, but he and Solomon deserve praise for how seamlessly they integrate smartphones within the thriller mechanics and general fabric here. Many initial press articles about the series highlight the tense moment in E2 where a character
SpoilerShow
must race against his rapidly dying phone battery—not as contrived as it seems given that the events are taking place at the tail end of a very long day.
SpoilerShow
accessing his fiancée's account on a food delivery app (a common enough practice among couples) and checking the last location where she had food delivered.
SpoilerShow
the collusion between the McCuskers and a Guyanese politician to rewrite zoning laws in order to profit from an investment scheme.
Ending spoilersShow
These plots intersect again a few more times, and the final encounter between Louis and Sam in the latter's apartment is unexpectedly reconciliatory and immensely satisfying. Sam's decision to give Louis the painting is the first step in her atonement, a recognition of her responsibility for the chain of events set in motion decades ago that has led all the way to the arrival of this boy, thousands of miles from home, at her door. The past's tendency to resurface is a quintessential noir theme, and it is all over Full Circle, popping up even in the prohibition era tunnel underneath Garmen Harry's house that allows him and Xavier to escape the raid—the city itself bears traces of the past.
Soderbergh also caps off the Guyanese plot with one of the strongest images of his career:
Soderbergh also caps off the Guyanese plot with one of the strongest images of his career:
Last edited by diamonds on Sat Nov 04, 2023 12:29 pm, edited 2 times in total.
- therewillbeblus
- Joined: Tue Dec 22, 2015 3:40 pm
Re: TV of 2023
Nice defense- unfortunately I found it underwhelming as a whole, but still a fine way to spend six hours. The turns/reveals became increasingly obvious after the first two eps (the second episode ends with a glance that thinks it’s an ambiguous clue but is clearly exactly what you suspect, and things don’t really surprise from there). But I really enjoyed that two-ep first act - playing to Soderbergh’s strengths in narrative unveiling, where the plot itself is not complicated but rolled out in a fashion that keeps us both at a distance from the secret-keeping principals and blended with their limited vantage points sown from the isolation of their secrets
Command Z was similarly a mixed bag - I enjoyed the high concept and the Liev Schreiber bits were gold, but otherwise I didn’t laugh or care much about the short-form shenanigans. My partner loved it as an urban planner focusing on climate change and sea level rise, and she felt they got a lot right and were artistically clever about applying that knowledge. Not a shock given the care put into the science behind Contagion, but pretty cool I guess
Command Z was similarly a mixed bag - I enjoyed the high concept and the Liev Schreiber bits were gold, but otherwise I didn’t laugh or care much about the short-form shenanigans. My partner loved it as an urban planner focusing on climate change and sea level rise, and she felt they got a lot right and were artistically clever about applying that knowledge. Not a shock given the care put into the science behind Contagion, but pretty cool I guess