The Gilded Age

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It was so bad. Are they making a 2nd season?

Yes, they've been filming for some time now.

[Anonymous]

I like it. It’s not groundbreaking, but I like the cast and the sets and costumes are fun to look at. It’s just a pretty period drama with some really charismatic actors, I don’t know, I think y’all are overthinking it.

[Anonymous]

Such a stupid show but I'll watch for Carrie Coon's outfits.

[Anonymous]

Total fluff. I like the dog storylines and that's about where my emotional investment lies.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The reviews are quite good, maybe it gets better?

Probably the reviewers are more interested in pretty costumes than watching a proper historical show.

We've lost the ability to capture the past mores and metaphysical relationships with their cultures and societies and that's why today's historical productions are so lacking. All you have to do is to watch the great BBC productions from the 1970s and 1980s into the 1990s to see how bad today's productions are. A big part of it really has to do with that today's directors are afraid to show the past as it was, including the pervasive social and racial discriminations that people took for granted as part of ordinary everyday lives and actions and thoughts and conversations. They'd rather invent an alternative history like Bridgerton. But even in Bridgerton they fail because such a society could only exist with stringent social and class divides that people wore as a second skin.

We can compare Downton Abbey to Upstairs Downstairs of the 1970s to see the difference. It's not a question of whether Downton is too nice and there is a risk, as some directors make, in treating the past as some sort of monster suffering and oppression porn and wanting to get their revenge by tossing in feisty feminists to teach people a lesson or two, but people genuinely did think differently and it affected how they related to just about everything. An excellent example would be Jeremy Brett's Sherlock series, made in the 1980s by BBC. They are not high budget productions like the recent movies, but capture the zeitgeist of the 19th century about as well as it's ever been done because it so accurately portrays the interplay among the classes and genders of British society in a way that is so natural and believable because it is done without exaggeration or attempts at moralizing or imposing a modern sensibility of right and wrong. When Brett's Holmes interviews a lowly maid, his mannerism and language are respectful enough, but it is still different than interviewing a grand titled lady. He is not servile to the latter, but he intuitively understands the expectations required of him by the context he lives in and it is reflected in the mannerism. Brett, and his fellow actors, understood the need to get into the 19th century skin without passing judgment. Today's actors can't - or aren't allowed to.

Your analysis is correct if the aim is historical accuracy. But it isn’t, it’s entertainment. And it’s real, diverse actors that are hired to play roles. By limiting period pieces we are both limiting the actors but also reinforcing the social constructs that we are trying to shake ourselves from. But that’s only second to the ultimate goal of the movie which it making money through attracting wide audiences and awards.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Such a stupid show but I'll watch for Carrie Coon's outfits.

+1
I wonder how historically accurate those beautiful but over-the-top costumes are. Did women really dress like that?

[Anonymous]

I would watch almost anything in this genre and even I couldn’t watch this show, it is tragically garbage.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Total fluff. I like the dog storylines and that's about where my emotional investment lies.

Pumpkin!
That pup is a better actor than Meryl Streep's kid.

[Anonymous]

I am confused - did whatshername (Meryl’s daughter) ever “come out” as in a debutante ball? Isn’t it a requirement to be presented to society before “dating”? I know Gladys hasn’t been presented yet, as they keep yammering on about - but what about Miss Brook, who is a little older even?

[Anonymous]

OMG, Nathan Lane was SO BAD as a “southern gentleman.” It was almost like watching an SNL spoof.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I am confused - did whatshername (Meryl’s daughter) ever “come out” as in a debutante ball? Isn’t it a requirement to be presented to society before “dating”? I know Gladys hasn’t been presented yet, as they keep yammering on about - but what about Miss Brook, who is a little older even?

She probably debuted in Philly. She wore her hair up from the first scene, which means she was out.

[Anonymous]

Amazing how much Audra McDonald looks just like Phylicia Rashad in this role. I actually thought it was her for the first two episodes.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Amazing how much Audra McDonald looks just like Phylicia Rashad in this role. I actually thought it was her for the first two episodes.

They don't look alike at all.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Amazing how much Audra McDonald looks just like Phylicia Rashad in this role. I actually thought it was her for the first two episodes.

They don't look alike at all.

Wrong.

[Anonymous]

I just finished this series and while I thought it was ridiculous at first, it grew on me. Wasn't quite as terrible as it started out being. Anyone know when Season 2 will be out?