The Gilded Age

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I loved the costumes but the sets were total crap. Or at least the exteriors were crap. It looked like they filmed it at some old-time theme park.

The set aren't historically right. Costumewise it's well-done, early 1880s. But the lavish French-style interiors we see is about 15 years too early. And other sets miss the high Victoriana clutter so popular in the 1870s and 1880s.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It was not good. Cynthia Nixon brought it down several notches and there are too many Broadway people who we know from other roles. The casting feels disjointed.

Yeah why did they cast cynthia Nixon. Can they swap in Kim catrall? You could tell the subtle shade from goddess Christine baranski in the Stephen Colbert interview - it was hard for her to even say Cynthia’s name.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It was not good. Cynthia Nixon brought it down several notches and there are too many Broadway people who we know from other roles. The casting feels disjointed.

Yeah why did they cast cynthia Nixon. Can they swap in Kim catrall? You could tell the subtle shade from goddess Christine baranski in the Stephen Colbert interview - it was hard for her to even say Cynthia’s name.

Cynthia has been recognized many times for her talent. She is only an Oscar away from an EGOT

Yet I have no idea why she portrays her character as this hysterical biddy.. Ada could have had some quiet strength to her but instead just comes off as silly

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Sets and costumes were nice to look at.
Plot and script were a snore.
Overall a waste of a lot of talent, but I’ll keep watching.

That was my take. Some good actors, and I'd watch for the clothes and sets, but the story itself didn't grab me.

[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.

On one of your points -- I think it's good that they are including people of color in period pieces, since people of color existed in the past (yes, even in Victorian London). But very few seem to be able to avoid imposing a modern sensibility on the dialogue and plot, whether with respect to the POC or just the social interactions in general. Either their characters think and talk and act like 20th or 21st century people, or they think and talk and act like modern stereotypes of people in the past (which can lead to oppression porn or even just really stifled, one-dimensional characters). In reality, life was complicated, and the position of women (say) wasn't the same in the 17th century as it was in the 18th, which were both different from the 19th. Class relations, gender roles, etc., weren't static. The relationship of the old aristocracy (real or just social) and the rising middle class and "new money" was much more complicated than just pure snobbery.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Sets and costumes were nice to look at.
Plot and script were a snore.
Overall a waste of a lot of talent, but I’ll keep watching.

That was my take. Some good actors, and I'd watch for the clothes and sets, but the story itself didn't grab me.

Agreed.

[Anonymous]

I really enjoyed it for what it is and can’t wait to watch the storylines develop. I liked Succession too so maybe I just like the shows everybody on here can’t stand.

[Anonymous]

I just watched the second episode. Sort of hate watched it.

The dialogue is very Julian Fellows circa the end of Downton when I stopped watching.

The accents are all over the place.

I’m hoping it gets better. I wish it was as good as The Knick, but that would require Stephen Soderburgh, so, not likely.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Am I the only one who thinks that the acting by Meryl Streep's daughter is... terrible? Or is the dialogue just really stilted and awkward?

You are correct. She's horrible. And Cynthia Nixon is completely mis-cast.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I thought it was ok but nearly as interesting as Downtown Abby. the script was trying way too hard to keep hammering the point between "old" and "new" new york. I seriously doubt people back them spent that much time discussing. The truly wealthy arent concerned at all about new money. The Bertha character was silly with her constant babbling about getting accepted by Old New York.
No idea what Cynthia Nixon is doing in that dopey character ada either.

They have the new and old down well. People were overly focused on this then. The old were largely Dutch. The new American English. It was a big deal then.

This is interesting - the same divide exists among whites in South Africa, but for different reasons.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I think it could be a great show if they had done a better job with the casting of the main characters. They are such blah actresses.

I couldn't agree more. The way they all enunciate their words is very unnatural. Louisa Jacobson (Meryl Streep's daughter-- we know why she was cast) is pretty wooden and not attractive enough for the role she is playing. She looks just like Susan Olsen who played Cindy in the Brady Bunch. She is just awful. Cynthia Nixon, eh.. again, wooden. The best actors are not the leads except for Morgan Spector. I think he is great, but his beard grosses me out.

I really think all of the actors need to work on how they deliver their lines. They are all pretty much stilted and wooden in their delivery.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I really enjoyed it for what it is and can’t wait to watch the storylines develop. I liked Succession too so maybe I just like the shows everybody on here can’t stand.

It's only on this board that there's a dedicated group of people that don't like Succession. It's a fantastically popular show.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Am I the only one who thinks that the acting by Meryl Streep's daughter is... terrible? Or is the dialogue just really stilted and awkward?

You are correct. She's horrible. And Cynthia Nixon is completely mis-cast.

HA! just saw this an wrote up something just now above. She is horrible. When I initially viewed the program I kept thinking that this actress must have connections because she is horrible! Then I looked her up and saw she is Meryl Streep's daughter. Honestly, Meryl Streep is overrated in my opinion. But that's an aside for another time. The show would be so much better with another cast in place, at least replacing Cynthia Nixon, Louisa, Jacobson and Carrie Coon (who I LOVED in the Leftovers)

[Anonymous]

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

Someone is getting paid off or blackmailed for the reviews this show is getting. I kinda like the show, but the reviews need to be more critical.

[Anonymous]

Cynthia Nixon should never breathe the same tv air as Christine Baranski.