The Gilded Age

[Anonymous]

It’s really the writing and the dialogue that sucks the most.

Yes the acting that people are calling out is terrible, but if they don’t have anything powerful to say, there’s really nothing good acting will save.

It’s like one note over and over with no subtlety: these aren’t our kind of people. Ad nauseum. Beat us over the head with it.

Even early Downton was a little more subtle.

[Anonymous]

I'm enjoying it, it's light entertainment. I agree with PP that it's not really the acting that's bad, it's the writing and the story. Hopefully there will be more to it soon, but for now it is just snobby rich people with not much to do but talk which are the right sort of people. Maybe when the Peggy storyline develops that will be more interesting.

[Anonymous]

It's like Cynthia Nixon is trying to be 1800s Charlotte. It's not working.

[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.

This is so spot on. Brilliant analysis.

[Anonymous]

I'll fully admit I'm just watching for the costumes. They are glorious.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

I can't get over how clean the streets look. They used horses, stuff was literally shitty.
It's actually distracting at times.

[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?

The terrible acting is coming from that awful Bertha Russell character. It sounds like she memorized her lines and is just reciting them back on queue. Also, why does Ada (Cynthia Nixon) have to have a baby voice? I saw no need for this character to have that voice.

[Anonymous]

For anyone to think that this is the New York version of Downton Abbey is an insult to Downton. The only similarities are that it's a period piece, and they have a staff "downstairs". Other than that don't get your hopes up that this lives up to that same reputation that Downton enjoys - and rightfully so.

[Anonymous]

I am also watching 1883, which IMO is so much better. Interesting 2 period dramas about the same time are streaming together.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I am also watching 1883, which IMO is so much better. Interesting 2 period dramas about the same time are streaming together.

1883 is great!

[Anonymous]

I like it. It's a slow burn, but we are enjoying.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I like it. It's a slow burn, but we are enjoying.

I agree, and think it really picked up with episode 3.

[Anonymous]

I think some of the acting is great:
Christine baranski
Morgan Spector

Some terrible:
Gambling maid
Irish maid who went on the date

[Anonymous]

We are enjoying it very much. I like Carrie Coon's acting. She's marvelous.

[Anonymous]

I like it. And thankfully for those who don't there are any number of streaming shows and movies for them to choose from so that they never have to watch this one.