|
Post by Incandescence 112 on Sept 11, 2019 17:41:07 GMT -8
I think the first season of Killing Eve is kind of excellent, even if the second has its flaws. But there are probably better examples of great shows that are only just starting their runs (i.e. Barry, which has had two very strong seasons thus far, but is still too recent to comfortably rank among the decade's best shows). Re. Mad Men and Breaking Bad - those and other shows which began in the 2000s have already had enough time to settle into their place in history. I'll judge their place in this decade based on the quality of the seasons they produced from 2010 onward. (By this measure, for example, Breaking Bad will most likely rank higher than Mad Men.) I'm just having flashbacks to when you put Orphan Black on your Best Shows of the Lustrum list, noting that the first season was fantastic and the second season was stumbling somewhat. Which is funny, because most television critics fail to note that Killing Eve is almost literally the same show as Orphan Black. I also will be real with you all and say that much as I like Breaking Bad, I have to say that if this is the best TV show of all-time then TV must suck! (Hyperbole, somewhat, and I haven't seen the last season with the alleged best episode ever of television in it. But whenever the show does something artsy I always feel like Vince Gilligan is tapping me on the shoulder and going "look at this cool camera angle we thought up! Hey, Walt's wearing pink just like the symbolism bear, get it?" The show does tension very well, and plotting less well but acceptably so, and Cranston and Paul are obviously brilliant, but I think the collective public opinion is overrating it just a little.) It's not even close to one of my favorites. Most of my favorites have real variety-they do a bunch of things really well, not just one thing exceptionally well. Adding that to the fact that the themes largely fall flat to me, and its tonal clashes (its startlingly bleak story often is at odds with its action-fantasy tendencies and propensity for pleasing the audience by giving them exactly what they want). I wouldn't get too hyped up for Season 5-I almost completely lost interest in the first half.
|
|
|
Post by Incandescence 112 on Sept 11, 2019 17:59:13 GMT -8
It's funny you all mention Mad Men, because (as far as I know) it's the only show of the Platinum age which really does what I love about The Americans, and why I love that show so much and have it as my #1. Which is that it uses the period setting really, really well - not just for easy 80's nostalgia, but to develop the characters and lend depth to show's worldbuilding and themes. I wasn't totally sold on the pilot episode, but the next one, where they bumble around losing their minds about the Reagan assassination attempt, fascinated me and made me want to keep going. I've written this before, I think, but the moment I realized I head-over-heels loved this show on both a head and gut level was somewhere in the third season, where the show parallels Philip buying his daughter a dress with America training the mujaheddin. The way that by dint of its setting, the show is able to be about geopolitics and capitalism-versus-communism at the same time it's about marriage and family - I love that. This is a long way of saying that there's more to great television than character arcs and whether the episode-to-episode consistency is good or if they're retreading plot points from earlier seasons. A lot of shows I love aren't super great when we judge them by the metrics I see you all using here but are fantastic anyway. E.g., for all the problems the show had with the criminal subplot, Jane the Virgin was never not one of my favorite shows on television at any given time it was on. And, at risk of retreading conversations from at the start of the decade, I think that this is why Buffy is never on the pantheon even though the show does so much so well, and is sticking with me all these years later. I find it odd to bring up Jane the Virgin-I've seen nothing but praise for it. Oliver Sava gave it more perfect 'A' grades than 99.999% of shows covered at the AV Club. Emily Nussbaum and Abigail Nussbaum have both raved about it as well. Many I've seen have called it the most consistent network drama of all time. It seems like it does fit the conventional definition of good tv. It'll probably never be one of my favorites (not the biggest fan of the genre it's in), but I'm looking forward to trying it out nonetheless. Same with The Americans-one commenter called it the closest America has come to European art cinema-each frame at once gripping and drenched in symbolism. I disagree, but I'm probably in the minority. I'm more in line with Grant Nebel at The Solute. To me, it was a drab, dour show that never took any real risks. But we're in the minority. Most critics will have it in the top 5 of the decade, along with other cable anti-hero dramas (big shocker). For the record, most prestige dramas aren't to my taste. I love Deadwood-that's pretty much it. Justified isn't really considered top-tier, and it eschews traditional prestige conventions. The Shield doesn't really count either, I think. Anyway, I think you can rest easy. Jane the Virgin and The Americans are more likely to be on most people's top ten list than...... Bojack Horseman (cartoon about depressed talking horse.), Steins;gate (An anime! Those are for weebs!), Person of Interest (A bland CBS procedural with about 10% awesome sci-fi? Are you kidding me?), Adventure Time (It's just randomness for the sake of it!), Over the Garden Wall (okay...haven't heard anything negative about it-but it's an animated fairy tale, therefore it's inferior to edgy cable dramas), or Justified (It's a hillbilly soap opera with one great season and five middling ones). I might sound slightly defensive here, but none of those criticisms resonate with me at all, and I stand pretty firmly where I do on those shows. But I have heard them nonetheless. The Good Place is probably my most popular pick, but I'd consider it lower due to the first half of season one and season three. Rest easy! You're less likely to have tomatoes thrown at you than I am. Lastly, watching Passion of the Nerd's videos are reminding me of how brilliant Buffy (and Angel-you heard me Quiara!) really are. I would absolutely consider them contenders for 'best shows ever'.
|
|
|
Post by Jeremy on Sept 11, 2019 18:42:58 GMT -8
There's a lot more to great TV than what we've come to generically understand as "prestige" drama. I very rarely come across a Top 10 list that doesn't feature at least one non-prestige TV show (usually in the #10 slot). Any critic who turns his or her nose up to any show that doesn't fit a certain set of parameters (regardless of its quality) isn't worth reading, IMO.
On the subject of Americans and Mad Men and period settings - I absolutely think that usage of settings and background elements to create nuance is key to any series. Heck, you didn't even mention Freaks and Geeks, which not only has one of the most meticulously rendered period settings in all of television, but features a nearly endless stream of "little moments" that add immeasurable texture to the series. (And yes, Freaks is technically a Platinum Age show, since it debuted after The Sopranos.)
|
|
|
Post by otherscott on Sept 12, 2019 6:40:49 GMT -8
I think the whole "prestige" TV thing has always had a bit of a negative connotation. It is used by people who seem to think critics operate under the belief that the form of a TV show has an impact on how good it would be and how it is reviewed. And they use it in the context of saying they find the prestige TV shows stuffy and impersonal compared to the much more fun things on TV.
I think it's just creating an unnecessary false boundary. I am not a critic, but I think I evaluate TV in a similar matter. I don't care whether a show is supposed to be "prestige" or not either in deciding whether to watch it or how to evaluate it. I look at whether the shows objectives are interesting (aka biased political or social statements, or generic battles between good and evil generally are not interesting objectives) and then whether it meets those objectives in unique and exciting ways. That's basically my entire criteria, I don't care what form the show comes in.
I'm going to disagree with a couple points you made, Flamey.
1. I can understand seeing The Americans as drab and dreary. The former is the reason J.C. never took to it that well, and the latter is the reason I took a very long time to warm up to it fully. But I think saying it doesn't take risks is just outright false. The show is aired primarily in the United States, has main characters that are RUSSIAN SPIES, and then proceeds to have those spies commit more and more egregious and awful acts and still wants you to ultimately sympathize and understand them. I know antihero dramas are a thing and are very popular, but this isn't a Walter White situation where the show starts by making him very sympathetic. This isn't even The Sopranos where you actually should hate the main characters, on the contrary The Americans wants you specifically to not hate them despite everything. It was always a pretty risky show in terms of trying to keep its audience and keep people on board with its ultimate goals.
2. I think you are miscategorizing both Jane the Virgin and Bojack Horseman. Jane the Virgin is not anything close to what is considered a "prestige" show, and it will not show up on most critics best of decade lists. Whereas you are nowhere near unique for thinking Bojack is amazing, because it is, and I actually expect it on a lot of lists. And this is more subjective, but despite being a cartoon about a talking horse, Bojack skirts a lot closer to the "prestige" label than Jane the Virgin.
|
|
|
Post by Incandescence 112 on Sept 12, 2019 7:16:32 GMT -8
I think the whole "prestige" TV thing has always had a bit of a negative connotation. It is used by people who seem to think critics operate under the belief that the form of a TV show has an impact on how good it would be and how it is reviewed. And they use it in the context of saying they find the prestige TV shows stuffy and impersonal compared to the much more fun things on TV. I think it's just creating an unnecessary false boundary. I am not a critic, but I think I evaluate TV in a similar matter. I don't care whether a show is supposed to be "prestige" or not either in deciding whether to watch it or how to evaluate it. I look at whether the shows objectives are interesting (aka biased political or social statements, or generic battles between good and evil generally are not interesting objectives) and then whether it meets those objectives in unique and exciting ways. That's basically my entire criteria, I don't care what form the show comes in. I'm going to disagree with a couple points you made, Flamey. 1. I can understand seeing The Americans as drab and dreary. The former is the reason J.C. never took to it that well, and the latter is the reason I took a very long time to warm up to it fully. But I think saying it doesn't take risks is just outright false. The show is aired primarily in the United States, has main characters that are RUSSIAN SPIES, and then proceeds to have those spies commit more and more egregious and awful acts and still wants you to ultimately sympathize and understand them. I know antihero dramas are a thing and are very popular, but this isn't a Walter White situation where the show starts by making him very sympathetic. This isn't even The Sopranos where you actually should hate the main characters, on the contrary The Americans wants you specifically to not hate them despite everything. It was always a pretty risky show in terms of trying to keep its audience and keep people on board with its ultimate goals. 2. I think you are miscategorizing both Jane the Virgin and Bojack Horseman. Jane the Virgin is not anything close to what is considered a "prestige" show, and it will not show up on most critics best of decade lists. Whereas you are nowhere near unique for thinking Bojack is amazing, because it is, and I actually expect it on a lot of lists. And this is more subjective, but despite being a cartoon about a talking horse, Bojack skirts a lot closer to the "prestige" label than Jane the Virgin.Sure, you're welcome to disagree-but disclaimer: I never claimed to be a special snowflake or 'unique' in any way due to my taste in television-or at least I never meant to. That would be idiotic. 1. That's down to subject matter, which I wasn't really considering. The Cold War is over, so I don't consider this a huge risk. Tension between Russia and the US may be rising, but it's still not nearly as high as it was during the 60s or 80s. I stand by my original statement. From a narrative perspective, it very much rigidly stuck to what's considered 'good' or 'important' tv-dull color palette, glacial pacing, and incredibly serious. Even super-fan Van der werff described its plotting as 'meat and potatoes'. 2. Bojack started out as a raunchy comedy-pretty far from a prestige label, I think. It's also populated with talking animals. You may be correct about Jane the Virgin-but Quiara implied it didn't fit the label of a great show by traditional metrics (consistency, episode-to-episode quality). Which, from what I hear, it does. It's also received wide critical acclaim from several high-profile critics, and appeared on about a dozen top-ten lists in 2014 and 2015. Maybe they forgot about it eventually-who knows. Regardless, I applaud Jane for not conforming, and it probably deserves all its accolades.
|
|
|
Post by Jeremy on Sept 12, 2019 11:36:38 GMT -8
Yeah, I agree with Flame here - The Americans does a lot of things, but it isn't much of a risk-taking show. The first couple of seasons establish some bold characterizations for Philip and Elizabeth, but they aren't unique in the antihero drama (I feel confident in saying that The Sopranos doesn't want you to hate the main characters, evil as they are), and I don't consider a Russian perspective to be very bold, considering the show debuted at a time when many Americans considered the Russian threat to be a joke.
The show sticks firmly to status quo for much of its run, wringing out character and story arcs long after they lose their freshness, and it only upsets the applecart when it's "safe" for the storyline to do so (i.e. Nina and Gaad in Season 4). In terms of style and structure, it's very much in line with the great 2000s dramas that preceded it - which is fine, but it does seem a little retro in the more stylistically outre 2010s
To my mind, The Americans does one thing excellently - the Elizabeth/Paige dynamic - and everything else falls somewhere between "very good" and "eh." It's a well-made show, but it's not in contention for my Top 10 of the Decade.
(As an aside, I would like to point out that unlike Flame, I do claim to be a special snowflake and unique due to my taste in television. But you all probably knew that.)
|
|
|
Post by ThirdMan on Sept 12, 2019 13:58:58 GMT -8
I think my somewhat limited appreciation for The Americans has more to do with it offering very little variety in terms of tone, content, and visuals. "Drab" can be fine, but if it's always that way, it can just get a liitle monotonous.
Yeah, I just prefer content that has a wider range of expression, is all.
|
|
|
Post by Incandescence 112 on Sept 12, 2019 14:12:26 GMT -8
Yeah, I agree with Flame here - The Americans does a lot of things, but it isn't much of a risk-taking show. The first couple of seasons establish some bold characterizations for Philip and Elizabeth, but they aren't unique in the antihero drama (I feel confident in saying that The Sopranos doesn't want you to hate the main characters, evil as they are), and I don't consider a Russian perspective to be very bold, considering the show debuted at a time when many Americans considered the Russian threat to be a joke. The show sticks firmly to status quo for much of its run, wringing out character and story arcs long after they lose their freshness, and it only upsets the applecart when it's "safe" for the storyline to do so (i.e. Nina and Gaad in Season 4). In terms of style and structure, it's very much in line with the great 2000s dramas that preceded it - which is fine, but it does seem a little retro in the more stylistically outre 2010s To my mind, The Americans does one thing excellently - the Elizabeth/Paige dynamic - and everything else falls somewhere between "very good" and "eh." It's a well-made show, but it's not in contention for my Top 10 of the Decade. (As an aside, I would like to point out that unlike Flame, I do claim to be a special snowflake and unique due to my taste in television. But you all probably knew that.) I would've liked The Americans more if it had borrowed a little but from The Shield. The Shield wasn't afraid to be pulpy, fast-paced, and exhilarating. Its writers weren't afraid to shatter the status quo in ways that permanently altered the trajectory of the story. In other words, "Every time The Americans seems ready to break out into something relentlessly fast-paced, it slows down and backs away. We really saw this in the third season. The second season ended with some devastating blows: a Russian informant (effectively a double agent) for the FBI, Nina (Annet Mahendru), was arrested by the Russians and the last we saw of her was riding away in the back of a limo; and the Jennings’ handler, Claudia (Character Actress Margo Martindale), revealed Moscow Center’s plan to eventually recruit their daughter Paige (Holly Taylor) as an agent, a “second-generation illegal.” In the show’s biggest misstep, Nina remained as a character in season three, largely moping in a KGB prison and with the promise of freedom offered to her if she used her feminine wiles on a Russian Jewish scientist. This had exactly nothing to do with the main plot, and didn’t seem to have any dramatic purpose beyond keeping an attractive woman on screen and on the payroll. ( The Shield solved this problem by paying an actor for a season when his character wasn’t part of the show anymore.) A few episodes back, Nina took a bullet to the back of the head, something that seems to have shocked a lot of viewers and TV critics but which struck me as both completely predictable and 15 episodes overdue. " I was and still am baffled by Emily Vanderwerff's proclamation of The Americans as a five-act Shakespearean tragedy. That's The Shield (with three acts). "All The Americans misses is a commitment to its premise, the willingness to go all in on its drama. At its heart, it’s Alias, not Mad Men, a great pulp thriller, not a character study. Going all in might make it unrealistic, but so what? Look at Sophocles, Homer, Shakespeare, or Eugene O’Neill and realize that none of them gave one fuck about realism or restraint. The great, thrilling, and over-the-top dramas are the ones that have lasted through time. (David Fincher said that when we remember the films of 1982, it’s The Road Warrior and not Gandhi that comes to mind. I’d be equally willing to bet that Mad Max: Fury Road will be the film that viewers remember in 2050, not Spotlight.) The Americans has always been good. Tomorrow night it has another chance to become memorable. " Yeah, I really like Grant "wallflower" Nebel's thoughts. You guys should check out his comments on The Shield. That's some CT-quality writing. David Chase was surprised at how many Sopranos fans wanted Tony to die in the finale. So I'd say the show definitely wanted you to empathize with Tony. And if the show really wanted me to empathize with them, it sort of failed. I would have been fine had P and E switched places with Oleg. And yes, Jeremy is very special. We all know this.
|
|
|
Post by Jeremy on Sept 12, 2019 14:58:11 GMT -8
Yeah, I've read some of Wallflower's Shield reviews. (Freudian and Iguana recommended them on the old forum several years ago.) He's a sharp and talented writer. I agree with most of that Americans quote, apart from his implication that TV/film should push to be big, loud, and over-the-top in order to stand the test of time better. I don't think The Americans had to be bigger and more thrilling just for the sake of it. But the show did feature multiple storylines that logically could and should have reached exciting conclusions, and the writers chose to back off and avoid the risk of upsetting the status quo.
Mike used to talk about how Buffy was his favorite show in part because it was willing to take risks that other shows would not. In his words, Buffy "pulled the trigger." By that definition, The Americans is a show that didn't pull the trigger.
|
|
|
Post by Incandescence 112 on Sept 12, 2019 17:07:28 GMT -8
Yeah, I've read some of Wallflower's Shield reviews. (Freudian and Iguana recommended them on the old forum several years ago.) He's a sharp and talented writer. I agree with most of that Americans quote, apart from his implication that TV/film should push to be big, loud, and over-the-top in order to stand the test of time better. I don't think The Americans had to be bigger and more thrilling just for the sake of it. But the show did feature multiple storylines that logically could and should have reached exciting conclusions, and the writers chose to back off and avoid the risk of upsetting the status quo. Mike used to talk about how Buffy was his favorite show in part because it was willing to take risks that other shows would not. In his words, Buffy "pulled the trigger." By that definition, The Americans is a show that didn't pull the trigger. I totally agree with Mike there. I love shows that force its characters to deal with the consequences of their actions. Buffy and Angel did it, The Shield did it, as did many of my favorite dramas. It may apply to comedy too-I'd have to think about it. It's a little different than characters 'getting what they deserve'-sometimes it works when the opposite happens. It just bothers me, say, when a character makes a choice to reveal that her parents are Russian spies.....and the only thing that comes out of that was her life becoming a little more stressful in Seasons 4 and 5. I don't think wallflower was trying to say *every* show should choose to go big-I think he was saying that shows should live up to the dramatic potential inherent in their premise. There's a *lot* of drama in the Americans' premise, but it largely avoided it because it was determined to be the next Sopranos (by the way-they failed on that front. Every flashback/dream sequence was pretty terrible). Not much ever really happens plot-wise-not that big a problem, except the biggest character turn was one of the main characters who's been the Soviet hardliner the entire time suddenly decides the greater good is more important than blind adherence to an ideology...but I digress.
|
|
Quiara
Grade School
Posts: 775
|
Post by Quiara on Sept 12, 2019 21:38:21 GMT -8
I can understand seeing The Americans as drab and dreary. The former is the reason J.C. never took to it that well, and the latter is the reason I took a very long time to warm up to it fully. But I think saying it doesn't take risks is just outright false. The show is aired primarily in the United States, has main characters that are RUSSIAN SPIES, and then proceeds to have those spies commit more and more egregious and awful acts and still wants you to ultimately sympathize and understand them. I know antihero dramas are a thing and are very popular, but this isn't a Walter White situation where the show starts by making him very sympathetic. This isn't even The Sopranos where you actually should hate the main characters, on the contrary The Americans wants you specifically to not hate them despite everything. It was always a pretty risky show in terms of trying to keep its audience and keep people on board with its ultimate goals. Feel like "they're RUSSIAN SPIES, O M G!" is severely overrated as an aspect of the show's deliberate audience alienation, relative to "Elizabeth Jennings is an unrepentant Stalinist, and the show views this perspective as valid, and honestly kind of views her Marxist anti-American perspective as the correct one." I also think that for all the talk of the show's dreariness, The Americans is very much a show centered on empathy, not merely because we're expected to have empathy for the protagonists, but in the sense that the show is very much about Philip and Stan and Oleg and Elizabeth learning love and empathy, despite being in a line of work in which love and empathy are viewed as weaknesses to be exploited. I think there are shows that are on their face less gruesome but when they do violence it's glamorous and cool in a way that feels much crueler than The Americans where the degrading parts are designed to be degrading rather than funny or cathartic. (Did I mention I hated Killing Eve? Because I hated Killing Eve.)
|
|
|
Post by Incandescence 112 on Sept 13, 2019 5:04:12 GMT -8
I can understand seeing The Americans as drab and dreary. The former is the reason J.C. never took to it that well, and the latter is the reason I took a very long time to warm up to it fully. But I think saying it doesn't take risks is just outright false. The show is aired primarily in the United States, has main characters that are RUSSIAN SPIES, and then proceeds to have those spies commit more and more egregious and awful acts and still wants you to ultimately sympathize and understand them. I know antihero dramas are a thing and are very popular, but this isn't a Walter White situation where the show starts by making him very sympathetic. This isn't even The Sopranos where you actually should hate the main characters, on the contrary The Americans wants you specifically to not hate them despite everything. It was always a pretty risky show in terms of trying to keep its audience and keep people on board with its ultimate goals. Feel like "they're RUSSIAN SPIES, O M G!" is severely overrated as an aspect of the show's deliberate audience alienation, relative to "Elizabeth Jennings is an unrepentant Stalinist, and the show views this perspective as valid, and honestly kind of views her Marxist anti-American perspective as the correct one." I also think that for all the talk of the show's dreariness, The Americans is very much a show centered on empathy, not merely because we're expected to have empathy for the protagonists, but in the sense that the show is very much about Philip and Stan and Oleg and Elizabeth learning love and empathy, despite being in a line of work in which love and empathy are viewed as weaknesses to be exploited. I think there are shows that are on their face less gruesome but when they do violence it's glamorous and cool in a way that feels much crueler than The Americans where the degrading parts are designed to be degrading rather than funny or cathartic. (Did I mention I hated Killing Eve? Because I hated Killing Eve.) I have some counterpoints to that. The first part, I mean. -They had Oliver North on the writing staff. -The show doesn't really discuss the ideological conflict much, and definitely doesn't take sides or make judgements. I feel like if you came out of the show with an anti-American view, it's probably because you already had it. The same could be said for the opposing view as well. -No way two Jewish writers would take the side of the USSR (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antisemitism_in_the_Soviet_Union), nor a Stalinist worldview (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doctors%27_plot)
|
|
|
Post by otherscott on Sept 13, 2019 7:13:10 GMT -8
Feel like "they're RUSSIAN SPIES, O M G!" is severely overrated as an aspect of the show's deliberate audience alienation, relative to "Elizabeth Jennings is an unrepentant Stalinist, and the show views this perspective as valid, and honestly kind of views her Marxist anti-American perspective as the correct one." I also think that for all the talk of the show's dreariness, The Americans is very much a show centered on empathy, not merely because we're expected to have empathy for the protagonists, but in the sense that the show is very much about Philip and Stan and Oleg and Elizabeth learning love and empathy, despite being in a line of work in which love and empathy are viewed as weaknesses to be exploited. I think there are shows that are on their face less gruesome but when they do violence it's glamorous and cool in a way that feels much crueler than The Americans where the degrading parts are designed to be degrading rather than funny or cathartic. (Did I mention I hated Killing Eve? Because I hated Killing Eve.) I mean, I was simplifying. Obviously "Russian spies with hearts of gold" wouldn't have been the same level of audience alienation as what we got. I disagree with the concept that the show takes the anti-American perspective as the correct one, but it 100% views her perspective as valid. In fact, the show doesn't really condemn Marxism at all, it condemns the KGB of being more concerned with maintaining its power than sticking to the core concepts of Marxism. Elizabeth is a true believer in the cause, and never throughout the show does she become something other than that. The only time she starts to waver is when she realizes the KGB no longer seems to maintain that as their principle goal. What's pretty amazing, and I would say absolutely risky, about the show, is that it never really condemns Philip and Elizabeth much at all. Some people will say the ending is like the ending to The Shield where the loss they suffered at the end was an ultimate punishment for their actions, but I could just as easily argue the view that it was a sacrifice they chose to make on behalf of their ideals. I cannot think of another show where the main characters commit such heinous actions and the show deliberately chooses not to condemn them - Breaking Bad, The Sopranos and The Shield are all specifically about that condemnation. (Okay you could argue Dexter and 24, but that seems to be more a case of the show taking those characters side than The Americans, which is much more distant in the viewpoint of the narrative.) Also I don't think The Americans is about learning love and empathy, it's more about trying to balance it with the cold realities of the way those traits are exploited. Finally, I understand now that Jeremy and Flamepillar are talking about taking risks from a plotting perspective, but ultimately I think that's a little bit overplayed in shows. When I think of a show truly taking a risk I think of Weeds. Killing off main characters tends not to be too risky in my opinion unless they are a significant draw to the show.
|
|
|
Post by Incandescence 112 on Sept 13, 2019 7:32:54 GMT -8
Feel like "they're RUSSIAN SPIES, O M G!" is severely overrated as an aspect of the show's deliberate audience alienation, relative to "Elizabeth Jennings is an unrepentant Stalinist, and the show views this perspective as valid, and honestly kind of views her Marxist anti-American perspective as the correct one." I also think that for all the talk of the show's dreariness, The Americans is very much a show centered on empathy, not merely because we're expected to have empathy for the protagonists, but in the sense that the show is very much about Philip and Stan and Oleg and Elizabeth learning love and empathy, despite being in a line of work in which love and empathy are viewed as weaknesses to be exploited. I think there are shows that are on their face less gruesome but when they do violence it's glamorous and cool in a way that feels much crueler than The Americans where the degrading parts are designed to be degrading rather than funny or cathartic. (Did I mention I hated Killing Eve? Because I hated Killing Eve.) I mean, I was simplifying. Obviously "Russian spies with hearts of gold" wouldn't have been the same level of audience alienation as what we got. I disagree with the concept that the show takes the anti-American perspective as the correct one, but it 100% views her perspective as valid. In fact, the show doesn't really condemn Marxism at all, it condemns the KGB of being more concerned with maintaining its power than sticking to the core concepts of Marxism. Elizabeth is a true believer in the cause, and never throughout the show does she become something other than that. The only time she starts to waver is when she realizes the KGB no longer seems to maintain that as their principle goal. What's pretty amazing, and I would say absolutely risky, about the show, is that it never really condemns Philip and Elizabeth much at all. Some people will say the ending is like the ending to The Shield where the loss they suffered at the end was an ultimate punishment for their actions, but I could just as easily argue the view that it was a sacrifice they chose to make on behalf of their ideals. I cannot think of another show where the main characters commit such heinous actions and the show deliberately chooses not to condemn them - Breaking Bad, The Sopranos and The Shield are all specifically about that condemnation. (Okay you could argue Dexter and 24, but that seems to be more a case of the show taking those characters side than The Americans, which is much more distant in the viewpoint of the narrative.) Also I don't think The Americans is about learning love and empathy, it's more about trying to balance it with the cold realities of the way those traits are exploited. Finally, I understand now that Jeremy and Flamepillar are talking about taking risks from a plotting perspective, but ultimately I think that's a little bit overplayed in shows. When I think of a show truly taking a risk I think of Weeds. Killing off main characters tends not to be too risky in my opinion unless they are a significant draw to the show. I disagree that The Shield condemned Vic Mackey. The Shield told Mackey's story from a bird's eye view, and let the viewer decide for themselves. It was never interested in exploring moral questions. It was interested in telling the best story possible. Also disagree with both of you that Elizabeth's perspective is presented as valid. It was always presented to me that it made sense to her and was a rationalization for her actions. However, she was also portrayed as being, essentially, a jingoist who's out of touch with how people in the Soviet Union actually live. It also repeatedly highlights the fact that they have essentially accomplished nothing through all their despicable deeds. "That's what evil people tell themselves when they do evil things." We never said shows have to kill off characters-what Jeremy and I were getting at is that idea of 'pulling the trigger', of making a bold narrative choice to not back down, and deal with the consequences.
|
|
|
Post by Jeremy on Sept 13, 2019 10:23:23 GMT -8
To its credit, I don't feel like The Americans ever fully "took sides" in the Cold War conflict. Any sympathy the viewers feel for Elizabeth's views is testament to the writers and Keri Russell crafting a character both committed to anti-American beliefs and yet still worth (for some viewers, anyway) sympathizing with.
Scott is right in pointing out that the show not explicitly condemning their pro-Soviet views is kind of risky, at least from a viewership perspective. (And it's not a risk that paid off, since the show's ratings were generally awful.) But yeah, I'm referring more to risks from character and story perspectives, and in properly following through on potentially interesting storylines. There are plenty of other dramas this decade which have it beat on that front.
|
|