My wife was watching it off and on over the weekend. I wasn’t really focused on it, but from what I saw, it could’ve been a movie or even a short film. Expanding the premise across a full season only seems to lead to the repetitive “will she get caught” storyline that ultimately turned me away from “The Americans” and other shows. In hindsight, it’s also why I only finished watching Dexter at my wife’s urging… I lost interest in the premise before the first season had finished.
On Tue, Feb 22, 2022 at 12:18 PM Adam Bowie <[email protected]> wrote: > I'm not sure how many have seen this Netflix limited series from Shonda > Rhimes, but I devoured the whole thing over a few days last week and I have > a couple of big questions. > > The story is a take on the real Anna Sorokin/Delvey who inveigled her way > into New York's high society between 2013 and 2017. I came into it cold, > knowing nothing about the woman, or what had happened to her in real life. > > The series is structured in that way that everything seems to be these > days - with two separate timelines. The present(ish) day where Anna > Chlumsky's Vivian Kent is trying to write Anna's story for "Manhattan" > magazine (more on that in a minute), and then we go back in time to see > what Anna was doing. > > The story unravels over a slightly too long nine episodes, and at first it > did feel that if you didn't know who Anna was, the show wasn't going to > explain that to you. In other words, the first episode was slightly jarring > and I was left feeling I'd need to Google the characters to get caught up. > But then I'd find out what happened and that'd spoil the series. > > Things improved, but the show has made some very odd decisions. At the > start of each episode they say that the story is true aside from the bits > they completely made up. Of course, as viewers, we don't know which bits > are true and which are dramatic licence. > > We do know that "Vivian Kent" and "Manhattan" magazine were, in reality, > Jessica Pressler and New York magazine. "Manhattan" magazine shares "New > York" magazine's typeset masthead. But by fictionalising the reporter, who > we are supposed to care most about, they then run into some seriously > unethical areas. When Anna gets a plea deal, everyone is in no doubt that > she should take it, but the "Kent" knows that it'd be better for her if she > went to trial. So she basically works with the defence and persuades Anna > that she should go to trial. (Her defence lawyer similarly wants the fame > that a trial would get even if her client might be better off with the > plea). > > I've no idea what happened in reality, but the reporter getting involved > like this would surely be a career killer at any proper journalistic > organisation. Indeed, the backstory of "Kent"'s character is about > something she'd done at Bloomberg that completely derailed her career. > > Then we follow "Kent" going around to see the various people who Anna was > involved in and trying to get them to talk. She does this with great gusto, > but often falls back on the line that she won't put their name in the story > but call them something slightly vague. Except that the things she's > calling them are so specific, everyone would be Google-able in about five > minutes. > > Now I like Anna Chlumsky from Veep, but here she's going off the rails big > time, gurning the whole way through. She's pregnant (which I think the real > reporter was), but it takes over her story to such a large extent, that it > becomes tedious. > > A lot has been written of Julia Garner's Delvey/Sorokin and in particular > her accent which is truly something. But I actually found Chlumsky's > character more distracting. Garner portray's her character in a way that > you can see how sheer self-belief allowed her to carry off what she did. > > Can I recommend this? No. Did I devour it? Absolutely, despite being way > too long. But there's plenty for a journalism ethics class to take apart in > this. At least from this side of the Atlantic. > > > Adam > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "TVorNotTV" group. > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an > email to [email protected]. > To view this discussion on the web visit > https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/tvornottv/CAD_sJGBijSxM60z8L1KKYz8t-ipGYpYZZ7_hOJ-37djwkDVPKw%40mail.gmail.com > <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/tvornottv/CAD_sJGBijSxM60z8L1KKYz8t-ipGYpYZZ7_hOJ-37djwkDVPKw%40mail.gmail.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer> > . > -- Kevin M. (RPCV) -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "TVorNotTV" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/tvornottv/CAKgmY4BeJZGCTwRvkjXYPBfJgn2J4q0Ntmv1uXRcs-V2_VpJZg%40mail.gmail.com.
