OT: Dark Comedies You Love

[Bigboote]

Surprised this one hasn't come up:

 

[Bigboote]

Evil Dead II was a riot, plus it references HP Lovecraft's work. But you have to have a sick sense of humor. Do not watch this clip if you don't like fake blood:

 

[connie]

I don't disagree with anything you say and Lorraine Buco and Rosalie Aprile were great characters. But I would not expect a lot of women on a contemporized Mobey Dick set and the notion that all TV must fit some preconceived notion of quotas and agendas is as something you may want to take up with the Emmy Committee.

I have no idea what you mean by a contemporized Moby Dick set. If you are suggesting that one cannot faithfully present Melville's novel without largely excluding women characters from the plot, then I absolutely agree. But what does that have to do with anything? Breaking Bad was never bound by any such limitations, anymore than The Sopranos was constrained by Lord Jim.

As for the rest, the idea that my criticism of Breaking Bad suggests a need to satisfy "quotas and agendas" belies such a fundamental misconception of fiction--both as aesthetic object and cultural production--as to defy response. Breaking Bad is not made better by throwing in more female characters, anymore than, say, Perseplois is made worse by eliminating male characters. What is called for is a rounder, richer representation of the very world elicited by the work of art itself. It is difficult (though not necessarily impossible) to achieve that end if one begins by ignoring the absolutely fundamental role women play in the lives of all men--psychologically, emotionally, materially, sexually, spiritually; as siblings, mothers, grandmothers, lovers, neighbors, spouses, caretakers, old friends, new friends, co-workers, peers, teachers . . . you name it. The failure of Breaking Bad to imagine some way of bringing that reality into its fictional world is a shame. And in my judgment it keeps it from occupying the highest rank of television fiction.

 

[connie]

"You see, the string's gone in my leg..."

Sellers actually flubbed the line. It was supposed to be "The spring's gone in my leg . . ." But Kubrick kept it. The dynamic between Ripper and Mandrake is hysterical--the cultured, rational, controlled Brit delicately attempting to negotiate with this utterly unreachable bullet-headed American jackass and lunatic . . . Precious minutes tick away quietly as the world races to Armageddon, Mandrake meticulously folding his foil gum wrapper, while patronizing Ripper and his deranged "theory" .

 

[Dove]

Death at A Funeral...British version.

 

[connie]

I cannot comment on Mad Men because I never watched the show. I may be way off base, but the concept of a good old boys club doing bad things never appealed to me.

Your conceit that the development of female characters in Mad Men was superior to that in Breaking Bad, and therefore that makes Mad Men the far superior show for my mind sounds specious. You fail completely to mention the development of the male characters. Breaking Bad, indeed, failed to develop female characters. I would suggest some of the greatest films ever produced failed in that respect. Certainly you don't hold a similar disdain for every Orson Welles film, most John Wayne films, most Clint Eastwood films, most Kubrick films, every Spielberg films, most Kazan films, most Scorsese films. I could go on and on.

What Breaking Bad does however is give you the anti-tragic hero, having we as the viewer watch this great, spectacularly marginal and gifted underachiever fall from a low place. Although Mad Men seems a great show, it seemed a variation on and old trope. Breaking Bad was something different to me, as we see this man, Phoenix like, transform himself into scum. Turning toward the darkness in every man, and we root for him to the end. We rooted for Tony in The Soprano's, but with Tony we saw the why he broke bad and what he did to ameliorate that side of himself. With Walter, it was the why and how he became that person.

You have your preferences, I have mine. But the lack of development of female characters seems to me a poor excuse to downgrade a fine show. Certainly you don't hold that lens up to Game Of Thrones?

1. "the concept of a good old boys club doing bad things never appealed to me." I can tell you've never watched the show because, yes, you are way off base.

2. The development of several of the male characters in Breaking Bad is in many respects fine. But in no way does it operate to salvage the failure to even represent, much less develop, any even marginally significant female characters (except Skylar, and possibly Lydia).

3. "Disdain" . . . seriously?

4. "some of the greatest films ever produced failed in that respect". I agree. And we can discuss. But not sure why you regard critique as "disdain". After all, I can observe that Eisenstein's Potemkin achieves its valorization of the working class via the traditional narrative device of figuring women as objects and men as actors in the class struggle. But that doesn't mean I "disdain" the film. Analysis and critique enriches an understanding of the work of art and helps us understand the ways in which it embodies and expresses the deepest ideological impulses and contradictions of its time.

5. "Although Mad Men seems a great show, it seemed a variation on and old trope" . . . So . . . 92 episodes spanning eight seasons, covering over a decade in the development of roughly 20-30 principal characters . . . and it is all a "variation on an old trope" ? I think you might want to watch the series and rethink that.

6. "the lack of development of female characters seems to me a poor excuse to downgrade a fine show." As respects Breaking Bad (and accepting your use of the term "downgrade"), I disagree. Breaking Bad is a fine show. Have it all on DVD; have watched it all the way through several times. And many episodes I watched more than that. Giancarlo Esposito is remarkable. So is Bryan Cranston. And I have been a fan of Vince Gilligan since the X-Files. But the series suffers for the reasons noted. Nothing you've provided suggests otherwise.

 

[JordyG]

1. "the concept of a good old boys club doing bad things never appealed to me." I can tell you've never watched the show because, yes, you are way off base.

2. The development of several of the male characters in Breaking Bad is in many respects fine. But in no way does it operate to salvage the failure to even represent, much less develop, any even marginally significant female characters (except Skylar, and possibly Lydia).

3. "Disdain" . . . seriously?

4. "some of the greatest films ever produced failed in that respect". I agree. And we can discuss. But not sure why you regard critique as "disdain". After all, I can observe that Eisenstein's Potemkin achieves its valorization of the working class via the traditional narrative device of figuring women as objects and men as actors in the class struggle. But that doesn't mean I "disdain" the film. Analysis and critique enriches an understanding of the work of art and helps us understand the ways in which it embodies and expresses the deepest ideological impulses and contradictions of its time.

5. "Although Mad Men seems a great show, it seemed a variation on and old trope" . . . So . . . 92 episodes spanning eight seasons, covering over a decade in the development of roughly 20-30 principal characters . . . and it is all a "variation on an old trope" ? I think you might want to watch the series and rethink that.

6. "the lack of development of female characters seems to me a poor excuse to downgrade a fine show." As respects Breaking Bad (and accepting your use of the term "downgrade"), I disagree. Breaking Bad is a fine show. Have it all on DVD; have watched it all the way through several times. And many episodes I watched more than that. Giancarlo Esposito is remarkable. So is Bryan Cranston. And I have been a fan of Vince Gilligan since the X-Files. But the series suffers for the reasons noted. Nothing you've provided suggests otherwise.

1) Glad to be wrong

2) Again, nowhere do you comment on the development of the male characters of the show, which seems to me then that perhaps there wasn't much.

3) Okay, mild disdain.

4) See above. I agree though. Criticism is not contempt. But often criticism hides a disdain. I'm happy to see for you it does not. Yet, would a naturalized, wholesome development of female characters in Potemkin made it a "fuller, richer" experience; made it a better movie? Would it do the same for Welles' "Citizen Kane", or Spielberg's "Close Encounters'?

5) Bonanza lasted 431 episodes. General Hospital has been on TV since 1963. There are many soaps that mirror their success. The Tonight Show has been on TV since 1954. Again, many variations off of that show. There are many more examples of long running shows that are variations off of and have had variation from familiar tropes. Poor argument there.

6) I'm glad your criticism doesn't preclude your enjoyment of the show. Again, we perhaps have different tastes. I am also a big GOT fan, and from where I sit, this show is superior TV to Breaking Bad, The Wire, and The Soprano's. Just the way I feel. Yes though, in GOT women are the ones who undergo the biggest transformations, have the grandest dreams and goals, take the biggest risks. But they are also the ones put through the greatest crucibles, and the most denigrating of travails.

 

[connie]

1) Glad to be wrong

2) Again, nowhere do you comment on the development of the male characters of the show, which seems to me then that perhaps there wasn't much.

3) Okay, mild disdain.

4) See above. I agree though. Criticism is not contempt. But often criticism hides a disdain. I'm happy to see for you it does not. Yet, would a naturalized, wholesome development of female characters in Potemkin made it a "fuller, richer" experience; made it a better movie? Would it do the same for Welles' "Citizen Kane", or Spielberg's "Close Encounters'?

5) Bonanza lasted 431 episodes. General Hospital has been on TV since 1963. There are many soaps that mirror their success. The Tonight Show has been on TV since 1954. Again, many variations off of that show. There are many more examples of long running shows that are variations off of and have had variation from familiar tropes. Poor argument there.

6) I'm glad your criticism doesn't preclude your enjoyment of the show. Again, we perhaps have different tastes. I am also a big GOT fan, and from where I sit, this show is superior TV to Breaking Bad, The Wire, and The Soprano's. Just the way I feel. Yes though, in GOT women are the ones who undergo the biggest transformations, have the grandest dreams and goals, take the biggest risks. But they are also the ones put through the greatest crucibles, and the most denigrating of travails.

@ 2) in light of my initial observations, it should not be surprising that I would not comment on the development of male characters in BB. I observed that the show suffers from a lack of meaningful inclusion, deployment, integration, use and development of female characters. I did not comment on the show's uses of editing, lighting, color palette, pacing, etc. It hardly follows that because I did not address that, it means I regard BB as lacking in that respect.

@4) "often criticism hides a disdain" . . . In the context of literary (or film/tv) analysis, criticism is at one with evaluation, and evaluation often implies or leads to a judgment. In some instances, the judgment can reveal the attitude that the work is so fundamentally bad as to warrant contempt, does not even merit our consideration, etc. Nothing in my original post (or what followed) suggests anything like that.

" . . . would a naturalized, wholesome development of female characters in Potemkin made it a "fuller, richer" experience; made it a better movie?" No idea what is meant by "naturalized, wholesome development", so I cannot answer.

re. "fuller, richer experience". I described The Sopranos as affording a richer text, at least in so far as the way it enables representations of women. I cannot speak for others' experience. But if one wishes to characterize the effect of a richer text as leading to a "better" text, then I can live with that for our purposes here.

@5) I think you are missing the point (or maybe you have a different idea of what constitutes a "trope"; perhaps you mean "genre"). Without actually addressing the work of art, there seems little value in suggesting that it is "a variation on an old trope". This would become all the more the case where the work of art consists of over 90 hours of audi0-visual text. (Consider the form. A limerick may offer a pungent, aphoristic insight. But it is by its very nature rather limited in what it can tell us about human affairs; a parable, perhaps less limited; a short story, less so; a novel, even less so; and so on.) In light of the fact that you acknowledge that you have not even watched MM, you are really in no position to offer meaningful comment--something you initially acknowledge but then apparently abandon.

@6) I've never understood why some suggest that critique and "enjoyment" are somehow considerations along a continuum.

. . . "in GOT women are the ones who undergo the biggest transformations, have the grandest dreams and goals, take the biggest risks. But they are also the ones put through the greatest crucibles, and the most denigrating of travails." Perhaps what you describe goes to something meritorious in the aesthetic production. All depends on what is at issue, what the text allows, its correspondence to our reality and the reality depicted, and how it reveals something meaningful about us, society, culture.

 

[RockyMTblue2]

I have no idea what you mean by a contemporized Moby Dick set. If you are suggesting that one cannot faithfully present Melville's novel without largely excluding women characters from the plot, then I absolutely agree. But what does that have to do with anything? Breaking Bad was never bound by any such limitations, anymore than The Sopranos was constrained by Lord Jim.

As for the rest, the idea that my criticism of Breaking Bad suggests a need to satisfy "quotas and agendas" belies such a fundamental misconception of fiction--both as aesthetic object and cultural production--as to defy response. Breaking Bad is not made better by throwing in more female characters, anymore than, say, Perseplois is made worse by eliminating male characters. What is called for is a rounder, richer representation of the very world elicited by the work of art itself. It is difficult (though not necessarily impossible) to achieve that end if one begins by ignoring the absolutely fundamental role women play in the lives of all men--psychologically, emotionally, materially, sexually, spiritually; as siblings, mothers, grandmothers, lovers, neighbors, spouses, caretakers, old friends, new friends, co-workers, peers, teachers . . . you name it. The failure of Breaking Bad to imagine some way of bringing that reality into its fictional world is a shame. And in my judgment it keeps it from occupying the highest rank of television fiction.

Well, my Moby Dick may have been a bit extreme but I was in a rush. How do you feel about The Godfather?

 

[RockyMTblue2]

Evil Dead II was a riot, plus it references HP Lovecraft's work. But you have to have a sick sense of humor. Do not watch this clip if you don't like fake blood:

Were you around when John Zacherle hosted is comic horror show? I ate that stuff up as a kid. A friend and I actually made an 8mm Fan Film Zacherle production. From the archives:

Zacherley Archives

He was the Soupy Sales of horror.

 

[RockyMTblue2]

Surprised this one hasn't come up:

You'd be who, the giant with bolts in its neck? Or .... you are off theme but let the thread wander, a great BY tradition. Peter Boyle was a great Frankenstein, but how they ever got any work done on that set with that group of actors is beyond me.

 

[connie]

Well, my Moby Dick may have been a bit extreme but I was in a rush. How do you feel about The Godfather?

Never read the novel. Have seen the movie many times but probably not in ten years. It is, of course, historically important for a number of reasons. Strong performances. Terrific score and effective uses of music and mood. Pretty good script. Purposeful editing and cinematography. Very effective cinematic storytelling. Some provocative insights into a some aspects of American culture and the Italian immigrant experience. I am somewhat uncomfortable with the way the film invites a certain sympathy with Michael, though that may well be one of its strengths. And it arguably fetishizes violence in a way that has, unfortunately, become almost mandatory in mainstream "gangster" films. What the film suggests about patriarchy, masculine sexual identity, and sexual politics is not particularly ground-breaking by contemporary standards, but was significant for its time. It lacks the critical edge of, say, The Sopranos. But it may be unfair to judge it by such a standard, particularly given the limitations imposed by form and its time.

I find the figure of Fredo compelling and courageously performed. Indeed, Cazale's performances in GFI and II are remarkable and greatly under-appreciated. To give some idea of just how remarkable, consider that within one year after making GFII, Cazale plays opposite Pachino (Sonny) in Dog Day Afternoon (1975), and (in the words of one commentator) in playing Sal completely and almost single-handedly erases the Michael/Fredo dynamic.

Go to 7:30 in

 

[connie]

and here (0:16 to 4:40)

 

[connie]

and here . . . Look at the way Lumet initially moves the camera away from the manager's desk (with the sleeping manager, suggesting a languorous yet exhausting ordeal), and allowing the kitchenette doorway to come forward into the frame, along with the background characters (with their barely audible chatter), with the partially blinded windows on either side. This is such a subtle and elegant way of changing the scene and introducing an air of intimacy and casualness, both of which serve to create the tension that ramps up but never provides release. This is what I call purposeful, meaningful staging and direction. Lumet is incredible at this. His uses of slow camera movement and minimized editing are among the best.

 

[dogged1]

Well if your going to bring up Mel Brook's in the context of dark comedies how could you possibly leave out this one?



I post this with some trepidation. Please remember that Mel was using humor to mock racism and stereotypes.

 

[Gamecockfan77]

I love Breaking Bad. It's one of the best shows ever in my opinion.

In the end though it's a bit of a pulp premise that the writers did their very best to make into something more than run of the mill television. Even the very well acted supporting characters with backstory are ultimately a bit one dimensional and fantastic. It's a dark comic that takes itself very seriously.

Some of these are getting retrofitted into more life-like people by Better Call Saul, another very good show.

I feel like BCS will have a big impact on my next re-watch of BB.

.......

As far as gender or minority representation in shows, I just look at it as though some shows tell those stories and some don't. I do feel as though Skyler is a pretty major figure in the show though. It's a show about Walt, but she's not just along for the ride.

 

[connie]

Some of these are getting retrofitted into more life-like people by Better Call Saul, another very good show.

I absolutely agree. Michael McKean's Chuck McGill may be the greatest performance of his career. And Rhea Seehorn as Kim Wexler is very good. Indeed, the Kim-Jimmy relationship and dynamic is similar in some ways to the Scully-Mulder relationship of Gilligan's X-Files. The relationship reveals a mutual respect and intelligence. It is variegated, psychologically and emotionally complex. It fills out and complicates any easy understanding of what "love" means. And it resists the temptation (repeatedly and lazily employed in vast amounts of film and tv) of representing "love" via cliched expressions of affection (kissing, make-out scenes, etc.). So far as I recall, the series almost never sexualizes Kim in the conventional fashion (e.g., by concocting scenarios and circumstances designed to titillate or invite the male gaze). The suggestion, of course, is that she and Jimmy are intimate. But that constitutes a mere fraction of their relationship and who they are as characters. That dimension is largely private, even to the audience. In these and other respects, Better Call Saul excels in ways that many other shows, arguably even BB, do not. Frankly, I think BCS is "better" (admittedly, largely a matter of personal preference). It pays dividends upon repeated viewing, affording new insights and discoveries each time you watch.


And Michael Mando's Nacho is arguably as complex and fully realized as any character from BB, save Walt.

 

[JordyG]

@ 2) in light of my initial observations, it should not be surprising that I would not comment on the development of male characters in BB. I observed that the show suffers from a lack of meaningful inclusion, deployment, integration, use and development of female characters. I did not comment on the show's uses of editing, lighting, color palette, pacing, etc. It hardly follows that because I did not address that, it means I regard BB as lacking in that respect.

@4) "often criticism hides a disdain" . . . In the context of literary (or film/tv) analysis, criticism is at one with evaluation, and evaluation often implies or leads to a judgment. In some instances, the judgment can reveal the attitude that the work is so fundamentally bad as to warrant contempt, does not even merit our consideration, etc. Nothing in my original post (or what followed) suggests anything like that.

" . . . would a naturalized, wholesome development of female characters in Potemkin made it a "fuller, richer" experience; made it a better movie?" No idea what is meant by "naturalized, wholesome development", so I cannot answer.

re. "fuller, richer experience". I described The Sopranos as affording a richer text, at least in so far as the way it enables representations of women. I cannot speak for others' experience. But if one wishes to characterize the effect of a richer text as leading to a "better" text, then I can live with that for our purposes here.

@5) I think you are missing the point (or maybe you have a different idea of what constitutes a "trope"; perhaps you mean "genre"). Without actually addressing the work of art, there seems little value in suggesting that it is "a variation on an old trope". This would become all the more the case where the work of art consists of over 90 hours of audi0-visual text. (Consider the form. A limerick may offer a pungent, aphoristic insight. But it is by its very nature rather limited in what it can tell us about human affairs; a parable, perhaps less limited; a short story, less so; a novel, even less so; and so on.) In light of the fact that you acknowledge that you have not even watched MM, you are really in no position to offer meaningful comment--something you initially acknowledge but then apparently abandon.

@6) I've never understood why some suggest that critique and "enjoyment" are somehow considerations along a continuum.

. . . "in GOT women are the ones who undergo the biggest transformations, have the grandest dreams and goals, take the biggest risks. But they are also the ones put through the greatest crucibles, and the most denigrating of travails." Perhaps what you describe goes to something meritorious in the aesthetic production. All depends on what is at issue, what the text allows, its correspondence to our reality and the reality depicted, and how it reveals something meaningful about us, society, culture.

Well.

2) This was in lieu of your comment that BB lacked development of female characters. I responded that BB had a wealth of development of male characterizations. We are talking, I believe, about characters and their relative development, are we not? I wondered if in fact MM was guilty of the reverse. Perhaps you don't see that as relevant. I do now as I did then. All other things neither of us are commenting on are admittedly in support of either the characters, the actors, the plot, commercial aspects, or socio/political considerations. But we are speaking directly about characters relative to themselves and each other.

4) The ideal of criticism has never been the fact of the human critic. I'm sorry to say that criticism has not and cannot always be one with evaluation. That would ( very) broadly be as if I said societal ethics are as one with personal morals. The history of critics from Sam Johnson onward has often (not always or even predominantly; but often) shown those who wield that pen to be both contemptuous and vindictive of and toward those on the other end of that pen. Many times a critics final judgement is more a conclusion, having more to do with something or someone tipping the scales, and many critics hold long, sharp tongued grudges. If I suggested you hold any of these feelings toward BB I apologize. Yet, I don't think saying you hold a mild disdain for the shortcomings you perceive in BB egregious or too far off the mark.

I'll restate. If Potemkin further developed its female characters in a way that felt organic within the concept of the film would that make it better? More of a classic? Would it do so for any of the films I mentioned? I think not.

5) Yes all TV shows are limited in their POV's, context, modes of expression, and language. All have plot limitations, character limitations, and limits on the dynamic interactions of the characters. All these and more are due to the limitations of the medium. I've always thought one of the meanings of trope was a common or overused theme. Am I now wrong?

So . . . 92 episodes spanning eight seasons, covering over a decade in the development of roughly 20-30 principal characters . . . and it is all a "variation on an old trope" ?

Perhaps I am missing the point, but the shows I mentioned, especially GH lasted 60 years, some characters evolved over the course of 40 or more of those years. So yes, it is possible for a show with many, many character, to show constant variations of the same themes (tropes) over and over again.

6) Well, often those who don't like an idea, novel, political leader, philosophy or even a TV show often tend to be critical of it. But then again, some of us are most critical of the things we love. I think, your criticisms of BB notwithstanding, you may find yourself spiraling along that same continuum(s) now and then.

 

[Gamecockfan77]

I absolutely agree. Michael McKean's Chuck McGill may be the greatest performance of his career. And Rhea Seehorn as Kim Wexler is very good. Indeed, the Kim-Jimmy relationship and dynamic is similar in some ways to the Scully-Mulder relationship of Gilligan's X-Files. The relationship reveals a mutual respect and intelligence. It is variegated, psychologically and emotionally complex. It fills out and complicates any easy understanding of what "love" means. And it resists the temptation (repeatedly and lazily employed in vast amounts of film and tv) of representing "love" via cliched expressions of affection (kissing, make-out scenes, etc.). So far as I recall, the series almost never sexualizes Kim in the conventional fashion (e.g., by concocting scenarios and circumstances designed to titillate or invite the male gaze). The suggestion, of course, is that she and Jimmy are intimate. But that constitutes a mere fraction of their relationship and who they are as characters. That dimension is largely private, even to the audience. In these and other respects, Better Call Saul excels in ways that many other shows, arguably even BB, do not. Frankly, I think BCS is "better" (admittedly, largely a matter of personal preference). It pays dividends upon repeated viewing, affording new insights and discoveries each time you watch.


And Michael Mando's Nacho is arguably as complex and fully realized as any character from BB, save Walt.

I'd add that the show gives one of the most realistic portrayals of the practice of law that I've seen on TV.

Wexler is really good.

 

[connie]

Well.

2) This was in lieu of your comment that BB lacked development of female characters. I responded that BB had a wealth of development of male characterizations. We are talking, I believe, about characters and their relative development, are we not? I wondered if in fact MM was guilty of the reverse. Perhaps you don't see that as relevant. I do now as I did then. All other things neither of us are commenting on are admittedly in support of either the characters, the actors, the plot, commercial aspects, or socio/political considerations. But we are speaking directly about characters relative to themselves and each other.

4) The ideal of criticism has never been the fact of the human critic. I'm sorry to say that criticism has not and cannot always be one with evaluation. That would ( very) broadly be as if I said societal ethics are as one with personal morals. The history of critics from Sam Johnson onward has often (not always or even predominantly; but often) shown those who wield that pen to be both contemptuous and vindictive of and toward those on the other end of that pen. Many times a critics final judgement is more a conclusion, having more to do with something or someone tipping the scales, and many critics hold long, sharp tongued grudges. If I suggested you hold any of these feelings toward BB I apologize. Yet, I don't think saying you hold a mild disdain for the shortcomings you perceive in BB egregious or too far off the mark.

I'll restate. If Potemkin further developed its female characters in a way that felt organic within the concept of the film would that make it better? More of a classic? Would it do so for any of the films I mentioned? I think not.

5) Yes all TV shows are limited in their POV's, context, modes of expression, and language. All have plot limitations, character limitations, and limits on the dynamic interactions of the characters. All these and more are due to the limitations of the medium. I've always thought one of the meanings of trope was a common or overused theme. Am I now wrong?



Perhaps I am missing the point, but the shows I mentioned, especially GH lasted 60 years, some characters evolved over the course of 40 or more of those years. So yes, it is possible for a show with many, many character, to show constant variations of the same themes (tropes) over and over again.

6) Well, often those who don't like an idea, novel, political leader, philosophy or even a TV show often tend to be critical of it. But then again, some of us are most critical of the things we love. I think, your criticisms of BB notwithstanding, you may find yourself spiraling along that same continuum(s) now and then.

2) "We are talking, I believe, about characters and their relative development, are we not?"

No. I was talking about the lack of the existence of, use of, deployment of, and development of meaningful female characters.

"I wondered if in fact MM was guilty of the reverse."

In my judgment, it certainly isn't. The show is brilliant in its representations of numerous aspects of male-female relationships, how patriarchy operates in different ways in the home and at work, in the private sphere and public sphere, how both women and men negotiate the tensions and contradictions presented, and so on, and does so in a way that manifests conduct and the inner and outer lives of its characters in ways that are challenging, recognizable, sympathetic. You really should give it a chance.


"Yet, I don't think saying you hold a mild disdain for the shortcomings you perceive in BB egregious or too far off the mark."

You have a different conception of critique than I do. Most so-called criticism is decidedly a form of appreciative evaluation. (See the works of Frank Kermode, Roland Barthes, EM Forster, Updike, Nabokov . . . the list is endless.) There is absolutely nothing wrong with looking at the object of art and noting how, why and where it succeeds, and how, why and where it may fall short of success. To suggest that the latter is born of contempt seems an odd reaction--one that misses much. After all, numerous members of this forum regularly comment, appreciatively and critically, on the performances of UConn WCBB, game in , game out. I would not regard most of that criticism as contemptuous, or as anything other than an effort to sympathetically evaluate the merit of the games, the play, and the players. In any case, I reject any global suggestion that literary criticism (and its corollaries in other media) is contemptuous or vindictive. And even to the extent that it is, doesn't that merely beg the question of whether the position articulated has merit?


"I'll restate. If Potemkin further developed its female characters in a way that felt organic within the concept of the film would that make it better? More of a classic? Would it do so for any of the films I mentioned? I think not."

These are the wrong questions. Potemkin's uses of female characters are organic to the film. It is just that some (not all) ways in which that is executed manifest the problem I reference. To ask whether making the film in a different way would make it "more of a classic" is a rather meaningless question. It's like asking whether the Mona Lisa would be "more of a classic" if Da Vinci had painted it differently. How could one possibly answer such a question? How could one ever take a meaningful position on any answer given? Moreover, why would such a question even be asked, since it effectively asks us to judge between the known and an infinitude of unknowns?


5) "I've always thought one of the meanings of trope was a common or overused theme. "

Strictly speaking, a trope is merely a figure of speech, typically involving metaphor. Other modes of expression (music, for example) may be said to give rise to and use tropes. But theme is something quite different.


6) "Well, often those who don't like an idea, novel, political leader, philosophy or even a TV show often tend to be critical of it. But then again, some of us are most critical of the things we love. I think, your criticisms of BB notwithstanding, you may find yourself spiraling along that same continuum(s) now and then."

If I don't "like" a novel, it is usually because I regard it as poorly written, poorly conceived, derivative, poorly executed, unimaginative, and so on. Would I be critical of it? Sure. But (again) it hardly follows that therefore I don't "like" anything that allows for critique. I think here is where we initially parted ways. You believed that my critique of BB means I didn't like it or was contemptuous of it or vindictive or something. I should think the more appropriate reaction would have been something like: "Huh. That's an interesting observation. Not sure I follow or completely agree. Can you explain further? Do you mean to say . . . If so, then how do you read Skylar's decision in Season 4 to . . . ? Seems to me that Walt's alienation from Skylar is shown to flow from a certain sense of powerless (maybe even a kind of metaphorical emasculation), and that the series invites us to consider how the male ego is structured in a way that often requires the expression of power and control, even if its effects are destructive. For example, there's a scene in a Season X where Walt literally shows up naked in a grocery store. One way to read this moment is . . . Perhaps in this sense, BB provides fairly interesting insights into masculine sexuality, including the way it is structured notwithstanding the relative absence of female characters. Thoughts?"

Wouldn't that be a healthier and more productive approach to engaged dialogue?

 

[connie]

I'd add that the show gives one of the most realistic portrayals of the practice of law that I've seen on TV.

Well, I understand what you mean. But seriously, there are many legal practices: big firms, small firms, solo practitioners, civil practitioners, criminal lawyers, staff attorneys, securities lawyers who work for the fed. gov't, tax attorneys, med. mal. experts, trial attorneys, those who focus exclusively on appellate practice, trusts/wills/estates lawyers, small-town lawyers, masters of the universe directors and principal shareholders, products liability guys, prosecutors, insurance coverage guys, in-house attorneys. . . the list is endless. It is very difficult to generalize what constitutes the "realistic" practice of law. Many lawyers never have occasion to ever enter a courthouse.

Truth is that for many lawyers, a "realistic" protrayal of what they do would entail a 7 hour headshot of someone sitting at a computer reading documents, answering emails, drafting and reviewing documents, entering billable time, dictating memos., and so on. I guess BCS does this to some extent; better than most.

 

[itsasport]

A Clockwork Orange, and, my favorite, Prizzi's Honor.

 

[Bama fan]

In Sergio Leone's brilliant "For a Few Dollars More", there were some moments of wonderful dark comedy:

this one got a mention in best villain,too. Jack of all trades.

 

[Replicant]