Masters of Sex
(Showtime, new. Drama.)
Watched: first two episodes
Premise: The story
of Masters and Johnson, a pair of medical researchers in the 1950’s who launch
an early empirical study into human sexual response.
Promise: It sounds
like the setup for a Skinemax porno, but although it’s sexy at times, it’s
fundamentally a character-driven period drama about medical researchers in the 1950s. The female lead is a sexually liberated,
professionally ambitious woman in an era when few women publicly admitted to
being either. She maneuvers to get what she wants, and then faces the undeserved,
albeit not unlikely, consequences of her actions. The
male lead is a doctor who’s more passionate about the study of sex than about the
having of it. He wants to understand
women’s physical sexual response, but has very little interest in understanding
women themselves. His ego and intellect mean he is smart enough
to convince himself that his selfish, often cruel decisions are for the benefit
of others. The others are interesting
too—the doctor’s wife; a prostitute who helps him with the study; and NicholasD’Agosto (of whom I’ve long been a fan) as a sexist cad who wants more of a
relationship, or perhaps just more control over the woman in it, than the
friends-with-benefits arrangement he’s offered. All of them strive for a sort of control over
their environment that they just can’t have, and that is the core of the show—strive
as we might, we are all, ultimately, at the mercy of each other.
The show is, in
large part, about gender inequality and normative gender expectations. But unlike many shows in the "quality" genre that hard-sell
gender inequality, this one doesn't also appear to champion it.
In general, the women are competent and have their own wills. They’re often punished for that competence
or will, or for their trust in others, but the show never implies that the
punishment is just, only consequential. Regarding sex, the shows views seem to be a bit complicated. Although the premise of the show is that marriage,
love, and sex don’t (and shouldn't) always go together, its moral is that sexual liberation isn’t
a panacea. It’s not sex-negative so much
as it’s considerateness-positive, but its implicit message is that without
communication, neither sex nor marriage is likely to be a good idea. In other words, until people learn to respect
and appreciate each other, they’ll never be able to achieve quite what they
want. And who am I to reject that
message?
Verdict: So far, it remains interesting. It’s right on the border of the sort of drama
that I find more “good” than “interesting,” but at this stage it’s both. I’m willing to give it a continued try.
Betrayal (ABC,
new. Drama.)
Watched: Pilot
Premise: Anatomy of an extramarital affair between a
prosecutor’s wife and a mobster’s attorney.
Promise: It's not a terribly new concept: a woman and a man—each already married—meet and experience instant, irresistible chemistry that leads them
into an extramarital affair. Here, they meet
as photographer and gallery-goer, respectively; it isn’t until late in the pilot
that we discover the facts that make their affair a particularly inopportune
match. I’m not a huge fan
of infidelity stories—I don’t enjoy watching people lie for selfish reasons—but
they can be done well, and when they are, I’m willing to enjoy them. So I was ready to give this show the benefit of
the soapy doubt. “Lust is a force beyond
our control” isn’t the worst theme ever, although it’s certainly not a
particularly original one.
And although
this show isn’t terribly original, it also isn’t bad, exactly…it just isn’t
good in any particular way. The
characters’ lives and emotions are complex enough for them to be human, but
none of them are particularly distinctive.
They’re all different varieties of blah or unlikeable … and they’re not quite
hateable enough for me to wish them ill, either. So we’re left with the story of a bunch of people
we don’t particularly care about one way or the other. It may be possible to make a satisfying story
about such people, but I don’t have confidence that this will do that,
either. It’s a driving narrative, but I’m
not sure I care what it’s driving toward. I don’t happen to watch True Blood or
Revenge, but both of them have sort of a “guilty pleasure” juiciness that makes
them appealing even if they aren’t particularly satisfying stories. This show doesn’t have that, either. One reason, I suspect, is that both parties
have children—which means the consequences of their affair, whatever they may
be, will fall on their innocent children as well as their (apparently unappreciative)
spouses. To up the drama, the show foreshadows
that someone will shoot the female lead 6 months from now—we aren’t told who,
or why, or whether she will live. I
suppose the foreshadowing is supposed to give us something to be curious about,
but instead it seems a bit gratuitous. In fact, the whole show seems a bit
gratuitous.
Verdict: Not much to recommend it unless you’re a big
fan of infidelity stories.
On the DVR: Lucky
7 (canceled), Sean Saves the World, Witches of East End, Reign, @Midnight, and Ravenswood (recording tonight)
No comments:
Post a Comment