|
Post by Jay on May 27, 2021 10:00:40 GMT -8
I think it's neat that opinion has coalesced around "Dyatkova" being one of the best episodes of the series. I agree. I think it really maximized what the show is good at in its ambiguities.
To add an actual thought, I realize that one of the things that I hadn't yet remarked on, but I meant to add to the whole "journey-thus-far" synopsis, but I really enjoy that no matter whatever else is going on, Henry is doggedly a teenage boy. Normally I find such plotlines to be a distraction from the main drama, but instead it has a grounding effect and adds nuance to the "should I stay or should I go" thing everyone's wrestling with. Now nearing the finale, I don't see myself recanting on the earlier accusations of a casual kind of sexism, at best I'd probably clarify that the show has women who are extremely competent at what they do, but they're probably among the best I've ever encountered at portraying young adults without being the sole focus.
|
|
|
Post by Incandescence 112 on May 27, 2021 14:49:06 GMT -8
I think it's neat that opinion has coalesced around "Dyatkova" being one of the best episodes of the series. I agree. I think it really maximized what the show is good at in its ambiguities. To add an actual thought, I realize that one of the things that I hadn't yet remarked on, but I meant to add to the whole "journey-thus-far" synopsis, but I really enjoy that no matter whatever else is going on, Henry is doggedly a teenage boy. Normally I find such plotlines to be a distraction from the main drama, but instead it has a grounding effect and adds nuance to the "should I stay or should I go" thing everyone's wrestling with. Now nearing the finale, I don't see myself recanting on the earlier accusations of a casual kind of sexism, at best I'd probably clarify that the show has women who are extremely competent at what they do, but they're probably among the best I've ever encountered at portraying young adults without being the sole focus. I'd put "Mail Robots" at #1, "Dyatkovo" as #2, "Stingers" at #3, and those big S4 episodes right below it ("The Rat", "Travel Agents", "Statue of Liberty", "Dinner For Seven". Also love "The Deal" for addressing the plight of the Refuseniks and "New Car" for Henry's near tearful admission of guilt over breaking into a neighbor's house to play video games to his murderous parents. "That's what evil people tell themselves when they do evil things." Gets me every time.
|
|
|
Post by ThirdMan on May 28, 2021 13:11:53 GMT -8
Finally watched The Queen's Gambit. An enjoyable enough program, though pretty conventional as a "tortured genius" narrative. And is it just me, or does Anya Taylor-Joy's voice and cadence in the show sound a lot like Sarah Michelle Gellar's?
|
|
|
Post by Jay on Jun 7, 2021 20:03:55 GMT -8
I'm not so sure I have any further thoughts having finished The Americans about a week ago, but I think it was the happiest ending they could have managed under the circumstances, which is saying something. I'll pivot opposite to my earlier hot take to add that the friendship between Stan and Philip really brought the series together at the end and it was interesting to see how both handled the confrontation they had been lurching towards for so long. Another somewhat odd thing to think of is how there was limited closure to any number of storylines and figures and they just moved on to the next operation, but really I think that would be how the nature of the business went and once you'd cleared x or y objective, there would not necessarily be any point in continuing the relationship (sorry Martha). I think one reason I thought about it is because spy thrillers tend to be very tightly orchestrated with little out of place, and I suspect they decided that wasn't as natural for what they were doing. My ma likes strong female characters in TV shows so I finally caved and started showing her Halt and Catch Fire, which I have never actually finished having thrown up a "MISSION ACCOMPLISHED" banner when it was allowed proper closure. Weirdly, I've appreciated what's going on in the early episodes a lot more than I formerly did although the plots are still all but stock and frequently rely on Joe bluffing his way to success.
Edit: I REMEMBERED THE OTHER THING I WAS GOING TO SAY. I read a short piece the other day that was comparing the book version of The Queen's Gambit to the series. Spoilers moving forward, but among other things, the boys don't succeed in helping her out in the big tournament (she has to improvise on her own), but the bigger changes were with Jolene. On the negative side, Jolene molests her and tries to get her to respond in kind, but it also evens out some of the curious bits of her character: She doesn't appear out of nowhere to help what's-her-eyes, but is sought out instead, and that gross bit where she was sleeping with a white lawyer to get in was a TV intervention whereas in the book she was working the lawyer angle entirely on her own despite getting in on a physical ed scholarship. It makes sense to me in that the Jolene aspects of the series felt the most hackneyed to me. But it seems some of the complexities of the novel were ironed over which is a reminder that for as much as media tries to be socially conscious and "woke" and all that, many of the decisions are still being made and acted on by white dudes and so we often get a version of these stories that's still filtered through their worldview.
|
|
|
Post by Incandescence 112 on Jun 17, 2021 18:51:40 GMT -8
I'm not so sure I have any further thoughts having finished The Americans about a week ago, but I think it was the happiest ending they could have managed under the circumstances, which is saying something. I'll pivot opposite to my earlier hot take to add that the friendship between Stan and Philip really brought the series together at the end and it was interesting to see how both handled the confrontation they had been lurching towards for so long. Another somewhat odd thing to think of is how there was limited closure to any number of storylines and figures and they just moved on to the next operation, but really I think that would be how the nature of the business went and once you'd cleared x or y objective, there would not necessarily be any point in continuing the relationship (sorry Martha). I think one reason I thought about it is because spy thrillers tend to be very tightly orchestrated with little out of place, and I suspect they decided that wasn't as natural for what they were doing. My ma likes strong female characters in TV shows so I finally caved and started showing her Halt and Catch Fire, which I have never actually finished having thrown up a "MISSION ACCOMPLISHED" banner when it was allowed proper closure. Weirdly, I've appreciated what's going on in the early episodes a lot more than I formerly did although the plots are still all but stock and frequently rely on Joe bluffing his way to success.
Edit: I REMEMBERED THE OTHER THING I WAS GOING TO SAY. I read a short piece the other day that was comparing the book version of The Queen's Gambit to the series. Spoilers moving forward, but among other things, the boys don't succeed in helping her out in the big tournament (she has to improvise on her own), but the bigger changes were with Jolene. On the negative side, Jolene molests her and tries to get her to respond in kind, but it also evens out some of the curious bits of her character: She doesn't appear out of nowhere to help what's-her-eyes, but is sought out instead, and that gross bit where she was sleeping with a white lawyer to get in was a TV intervention whereas in the book she was working the lawyer angle entirely on her own despite getting in on a physical ed scholarship. It makes sense to me in that the Jolene aspects of the series felt the most hackneyed to me. But it seems some of the complexities of the novel were ironed over which is a reminder that for as much as media tries to be socially conscious and "woke" and all that, many of the decisions are still being made and acted on by white dudes and so we often get a version of these stories that's still filtered through their worldview.
The Halt finale is so good that it pulls some reverse Lost magic and makes the rocky first season seem better in retrospect. Let us know what you make of the finale!
|
|
|
Post by Jay on Jul 2, 2021 20:35:42 GMT -8
I'll roll out some formalized commentary of the H+CF finale in the coming days but I appreciated that it stayed true to the series tone in the finale and left things more open than closed. My only two observations for the moment are:
1) Cam wore overalls an awful lot in S4, didn't she? 2) I'm not sure that I've ever encountered a show that comparably had a grasp on and utilized each main character's musical sensibilities. 3) That is NOT what the Ten of Swords means (although Carol Kane tried to soften the blow)
|
|
|
Post by Jeremy on Jul 3, 2021 19:10:00 GMT -8
I admire how the Halt and Catch Fire finale manages to wrap up the show's character arcs so perfectly while still being vague enough that you're left to interpret some of the meaning behind the closure. Really is true to the spirit of the show.
One interesting bit of trivia - the final scene was originally set to be scored to Phil Collins' "Take Me Home," but when licensing costs proved too high, they opted for "Solsbury Hill" by Peter Gabriel. It fits the scene perfectly (both in tone and editing), so I was surprised to learn that it wasn't the producers' first choice.
|
|
|
Post by Jay on Jul 4, 2021 10:26:49 GMT -8
I'll take the liberty of drafting a longer response here assuming the mood takes me...
The Ten of Swords has particular nuances to its meaning that pertain to the show in ways that, well, I'd struggle to come up with a more apt selection. Visually, with the body impaled and lying flat against the horizon, you can interpret that it's not supposed to be good, and while Carol Kane tried to lift it by noting oh there's light on the horizon, the general theme is total destruction (as in, a complete break) and betrayal. Does it represent the series or doesn't it? Certainly, there's considerable betrayal throughout, mostly at the professional level, but Cam and Donna seem to have reconciled in the close, and Gordon certainly made an attempt to leave few loose ends behind. How complete is the destruction? It depends on whether you interpret it as purely malevolent or merely the foreclosure of certain opportunities. However, as applied to Joe, there is that break, with Gordon, with Cameron, and with technology broadly so that he could take up as a humanities teacher. Yet, the result is different not necessarily bad: He survives, he has the aptitude for what he's doing, and affinity he has for mentorship and dealing in abstracts (and kids generally; I did appreciate the circle back to his relationship with Joanie and Haley) has found a productive outlet in teaching, which is the "thing" of the connection that he was always striving for. It wasn't what he imagined for himself, and I'll admit to being blindsided by it, but that doesn't mean that it's nonsensical.
I was left wondering, given that there seems to have been a bit of a jump from S3 to S4, if naming the finale "Ten of Swords" was an admission by the creators that they didn't succeed the way they had hoped to, but it nevertheless is an ending and closure. It's an interesting synecdoche for the series, as I said, plenty resonant, but how I conceive of the series, I would probably pick another symbol provided to us earlier: Pilgrim. As Cameron sees it, she respects the audience and trusts them to figure things out on their own. She wants to take them through an experience. It's process based more than plot-oriented. For the general public, there are probably too few explosions, bells, and whistles. They want to have clearer rooting interests and more measurable impacts. The show doesn't work that way but honestly, life only rarely does either. I appreciated throughout the organicism surrounding the show's trajectory where there's that in-the-moment, hyperfocus on the One Big Thing (person or project) as the solution to everything, but in reality it's rarely that, and one's antipathies and misunderstandings and misreadings of circumstances don't exactly square to some Manichean good versus evil setup no matter how angry you may be. Much like Pilgrim, Halt and Catch Fire went all in on not spelling things out (well, a few conscious circle-backs aside from the fourth season), on trusting you to notice and draw conclusions on your own. It makes for a more rewarding rewatch for the complexities, much like Pilgrim is intended to reward replay, but it's not as self-consciously showy in its presentation, and thus has an intended audience rather than a succeeding in a broadbase, common denominator appeal.
|
|
|
Post by Jay on Jul 4, 2021 10:30:55 GMT -8
Also, I couldn't fit it into my analysis in a way that I liked, but one of my favorite moments of the finale, was when Cam and Donna were imagining the whole life cycle of their next venture and its inevitable, but amicable demise.
|
|
|
Post by Jeremy on Jul 5, 2021 6:43:52 GMT -8
The writers wrote the S3 finale to work as a series finale because they were so uncertain if the show would get a fourth season. As such, the final two episodes of S3 function as a sort of coda to the show up to that point. When the show did get a last-minute renewal for S4, they employed the time-jump again, giving the fourth season a fresh feel that still feels of a piece with the earlier seasons.
The final Cameron/Donna scene is excellent, and I understand why some fans felt it should have been the final scene of the series. Still, I think the writers made the correct call with the final scene they chose. Maybe I'm just a sucker for bookends, but it felt appropriate to give Joe the last word (even if he was never quite the show's best character) if only to demonstrate how far he'd come from the early days.
|
|
|
Post by Jay on Jul 17, 2021 13:13:12 GMT -8
I've been a bit of a trendwhore lately in that I'm watching Lupin on Netflix, figuring that an action-mystery (thriller?) would provide something to talk about and my mother moreover is a sucker for anything en français (it auto-selected the dubbed version though, which is fine by me). I don't know that it bears a total wrap considering that it's presumably an ongoing series that rests on a cliffhanger I haven't seen yet, but for the most part I've found it an intriguing update of the source material that seems respectful to its origins. However, the main thrust of the series overall is Racism in France, as the protagonist is Senegalese and frequently marginalized, discriminated against, underestimated, or overlooked due to his skin tone. One thing that adds intrigue to that rather basic notion is how France is presented otherwise, with the villainous family having an Italian surname and two of the prominent members of the police investigation force bearing Moroccan and Algerian names, such that the "French" characters seem somewhat in the periphery. It all seems rather deliberate commentary.
Another thing I'd note as a resident Moffat hater is that I found it to be a pleasant alternative to Sherlock as there's enough material there for you to keep up with what's happening and how he's pulling it all off without too many clever reveal dumps. There's often a flashback that shows Assane sneaking something into or out of someone's pockets, but he's not omniscient or infallible, which makes it more palatable overall.
|
|
|
Post by Incandescence 112 on Jul 17, 2021 20:19:37 GMT -8
I've been a bit of a trendwhore lately in that I'm watching Lupin on Netflix, figuring that an action-mystery (thriller?) would provide something to talk about and my mother moreover is a sucker for anything en français (it auto-selected the dubbed version though, which is fine by me). I don't know that it bears a total wrap considering that it's presumably an ongoing series that rests on a cliffhanger I haven't seen yet, but for the most part I've found it an intriguing update of the source material that seems respectful to its origins. However, the main thrust of the series overall is Racism in France, as the protagonist is Senegalese and frequently marginalized, discriminated against, underestimated, or overlooked due to his skin tone. One thing that adds intrigue to that rather basic notion is how France is presented otherwise, with the villainous family having an Italian surname and two of the prominent members of the police investigation force bearing Moroccan and Algerian names, such that the "French" characters seem somewhat in the periphery. It all seems rather deliberate commentary. Another thing I'd note as a resident Moffat hater is that I found it to be a pleasant alternative to Sherlock as there's enough material there for you to keep up with what's happening and how he's pulling it all off without too many clever reveal dumps. There's often a flashback that shows Assane sneaking something into or out of someone's pockets, but he's not omniscient or infallible, which makes it more palatable overall. I think Moffat's great as long as you don't A) pair him with Mark Gatiss or B) ask him to write an adaptation of a famous 19th century story with a Clever! (TM) twist on it or C) ask him to show-run the two biggest shows on British television at the same time. Lotta caveats, I know! But Press Gang is far smarter and funnier than it needs to be--it's great children's tv. And as someone who recently re-watched the first ten seasons of revived Doctor Who--AKA pre-Chibnall--I think his run is the best in the show's history. Not the most consistent--Russell T. Davies' and Tom Baker's first three seasons were more consistently good--but definitely the boldest and most interesting run the show's ever had.
|
|
|
Post by Jay on Jul 17, 2021 21:18:10 GMT -8
A good caveat to be aware of. I hated Dracula and hated Sherlock.
|
|
|
Post by Incandescence 112 on Jul 19, 2021 12:06:07 GMT -8
A good caveat to be aware of. I hated Dracula and hated Sherlock. The former was fairly wretched, completely failing to be either sexy or scary while succeeding in being a sum, self-satisfied mess. The latter is more interesting, not completely devoid of merit but filled with gaping fundamental flaws all the same. I don't think Moffat's particularly well suited to writing people like Sherlock Holmes--he's better at writing The Doctor, for example, because the Doctor is an average Gallifreyan who's not as smart as he thinks he is. But Gatiss is also a factor.....I love The League of Gentlemen, but man,.....
If we're going to throw in Jekyll as well, again, some interesting ideas in there, but story-wise it goes very far off the rails about halfway through. At least it's entertaining, though, which you can't say about The Final Problem.
Of course, his run on Doctor Who is controversial as well, but on the whole much easier to defend. Seasons 5, 8, and 9 are all time greats, and 6 and 10 are still good tv.
|
|
|
Post by Jay on Jul 19, 2021 21:42:51 GMT -8
I hit the end of Lupin as of this evening, and would reiterate my claims about it previously: It's smart, but not condescending, and leaves you an adequate breadcrumb trail to where "hey wasn't that" or "that intro seemed to have been dropped" ends up having payoff in an unchronological way. It's a thesis that I would suggest is true of literature generally in that it's better if it not outsmart the consumer entirely but leave them with material to work their way to a conclusion and feel good about themselves in the process. It's not great television, but it is largely satisfying and adapts source material less familiar to an American Audience.
In more global news to the casting at large, I realized early on that I recognized one of the actresses, and as it turns out Juliette Pellegrini is played by Clotilde Hesme, who also played Adèle in Les Revenants. Less explicable is her father Hubert Pellegrini being played by a guy who I can only characterize as "French Paul Giamatti." The dub actor even sounds like him and all attempts I've made to discover who it is have turned up inconclusive if not evasive.
|
|