For me, the lack of specificity was the big problem. Satire works when it's specific. If you're satirizing an authoritarian, you need to actually engage with their authoritarianism. This show keeps it all so vague, as if it's enough to say, "gee, isn't it absurd how people will follow a charismatic leader into death and destruction even when they're obviously unhinged?" When no, it's not absurd if you understand the psychological need that charismatic leader taps into.
I suppose I don't understand what story we should be following. My sense from the pilot is that the dramatic question is: will Elena's psychoses lead her regime to ruin? But to tell that story, we need to understand the specific dynamic that brought her into power because only then can we judge if her quirks outweigh whatever psychological need she's fulfilling for her people. But then, maybe I'm wrong about the story. Is it the story of two zany people connecting in the unlikeliest of places?
Even if it is a smaller story about Elena and Herbert, without knowing their context it holds little weight. When Herbert says that the US is making Elena a fool, is that true and a genuine concern of the people? A minority opinion? Him cynically playing to her ego? I have no way to know, so I can't judge whether he's some kind of true believer zealot, opportunist, or something else. Which means I can't hook into what he's doing, why he's doing it, and thus why I should care.
Aside from all that, I think this needed to be far funnier than it is. Which again circles back to specificity. If this weren't so carefully generic, maybe they could have given it the bite and wit it needed to really hit. Instead it feels like it landed in some mushy middle - unclear about its point and without the laughs to make it a fun watch. Winslet is amazing, as always, but I'm not sure why they went this route. After all, SUCCESSION went full Murdoch satire, and brilliantly so. If you get the chance to satirize authoritarians on HBO, why play coy? Just go for it.
Great review Myles. It's fair to say I enjoyed it far more than the episode. I don't know if I was in the wrong mood or I had the critical reviews ringing in my brain, but I really really struggled to get through it. I found everything about it irritating. I won't be watching any more because it irritated me too much. I was hoping it would be clever hybrid between Succession and The Great and no show can really live up to that sort of expectation. There's a reason those two shows are so loved because they do everything to such a high level. This just felt lazy and I just didn't care about any of it. It gives me no pleasure I was really looking forward to this one. I don't want to start wondering if the 9pm Sunday night slot is losing its touch but this didn't fill me with confidence.
This episode was very strange. There's too many zany things -- stuff like the husband's weird story down to the music and camera angles -- for it to be serious. But it's not zany enough -- like Duck Soup -- to be funny. I don't (yet at least) understand it or find it compelling.
For me, the lack of specificity was the big problem. Satire works when it's specific. If you're satirizing an authoritarian, you need to actually engage with their authoritarianism. This show keeps it all so vague, as if it's enough to say, "gee, isn't it absurd how people will follow a charismatic leader into death and destruction even when they're obviously unhinged?" When no, it's not absurd if you understand the psychological need that charismatic leader taps into.
I suppose I don't understand what story we should be following. My sense from the pilot is that the dramatic question is: will Elena's psychoses lead her regime to ruin? But to tell that story, we need to understand the specific dynamic that brought her into power because only then can we judge if her quirks outweigh whatever psychological need she's fulfilling for her people. But then, maybe I'm wrong about the story. Is it the story of two zany people connecting in the unlikeliest of places?
Even if it is a smaller story about Elena and Herbert, without knowing their context it holds little weight. When Herbert says that the US is making Elena a fool, is that true and a genuine concern of the people? A minority opinion? Him cynically playing to her ego? I have no way to know, so I can't judge whether he's some kind of true believer zealot, opportunist, or something else. Which means I can't hook into what he's doing, why he's doing it, and thus why I should care.
Aside from all that, I think this needed to be far funnier than it is. Which again circles back to specificity. If this weren't so carefully generic, maybe they could have given it the bite and wit it needed to really hit. Instead it feels like it landed in some mushy middle - unclear about its point and without the laughs to make it a fun watch. Winslet is amazing, as always, but I'm not sure why they went this route. After all, SUCCESSION went full Murdoch satire, and brilliantly so. If you get the chance to satirize authoritarians on HBO, why play coy? Just go for it.
I found it a frustrating watch.
Great review Myles. It's fair to say I enjoyed it far more than the episode. I don't know if I was in the wrong mood or I had the critical reviews ringing in my brain, but I really really struggled to get through it. I found everything about it irritating. I won't be watching any more because it irritated me too much. I was hoping it would be clever hybrid between Succession and The Great and no show can really live up to that sort of expectation. There's a reason those two shows are so loved because they do everything to such a high level. This just felt lazy and I just didn't care about any of it. It gives me no pleasure I was really looking forward to this one. I don't want to start wondering if the 9pm Sunday night slot is losing its touch but this didn't fill me with confidence.
I kept picturing Kate Winslet and Julianne Moore, in her May December character, playing "dueling speech impediments" while performing "Sisters."
This episode was very strange. There's too many zany things -- stuff like the husband's weird story down to the music and camera angles -- for it to be serious. But it's not zany enough -- like Duck Soup -- to be funny. I don't (yet at least) understand it or find it compelling.
It was…..something - I was intrigued and kind of bored at the same time. I don’t know why I was supposed to care about the characters.
Yes, Lenin from the Simpsons was my first thought as well.