Monthly Archives: October 2022

Miss Scarlet almost Proper Wokeness

Posted on by
Wokeness

I’m not a big fan of Miss Scarlet and the Duke but the second episode of the new season almost got it right. It was tantalizingly close to Wokeness done properly but failed in the end. Such a shame.

The show is clearly a vehicle to display a strong woman as the lead character. Miss Eliza Scarlet, played by Kate Phillips, is the titular character and the self-proclaimed only female private detective in London.

Just because a show wants to display a bit of Wokeness doesn’t mean it’s going to be bad. I’ve written several times I consider myself a member of the Wokeness clan. Several of my novels involve female leads. There’s nothing wrong with wanting equality in society but I’m also a fan of good entertainment and Miss Scarlet doesn’t quite make it there.

The Wokeness Plot was Good

This episode of Miss Scarlet involved Eliza investigating the theft of a Charles Darwin sketch from a museum. The museum in question being owned and operated by a woman. Things get strange when it turns out someone placed an advertisement in the local paper offering an enormous reward for the sketch before it was even stolen and requesting applications be put to Miss Scarlet.

The Estranged Husband

Miss Scarlet investigates the estranged husband of the museum owner who is played as an over-the-top jerk. This is one of the big problems with portraying Wokeness improperly. The unwoke, for lack of a better term, are overly one-dimensional, caricatures. They are so dumb, so angry, so ridiculous that it becomes impossible to take them seriously.

Instead of making the man so simple; why not give him some nuance? He is jealous of both his mother and his wife’s successes. That’s an interesting idea. His mother was apparently an Egyptologist who didn’t get credit for her work. The problem is we don’t find out about all this until the very end of the episode.

Eliza following the moth into the hidden chamber was a ludicrous way for the audience to learn about this critical information. Why can’t mom simply mention her past in conversation during the investigation? Why not have the husband gently chide his mother, “Nobody wants to hear about that old news” or something like that. That’s an organic method of displaying the subtle way in which women and minorities are treated unfairly, to genuinely show why Wokeness is important.

Waste of Time Red Herrings

A huge amount of time was spent tracking down art thieves and forgers. Several scenes involved Miss Scarlet, standing out like a sore-thumb, under-cover and following a master forger only to be saved at the last moment by the Duke. Why? It just wasted time. The real Red Herring was the husband stealing the sketch because of feelings of inadequacy compared to his wife and mother. That’s the story! That’s the Wokeness we needed.

More Time Wasted

The young detective, son of the commissioner, took up a huge amount of time and energy. When you’ve got forty-five minutes to tell a story, you absolutely can’t waste time like this. Every scene is important. The story was the husband’s jealousy. That’s the Wokeness angle and it’s a good one. We just didn’t explore it properly. We didn’t get nuance, we didn’t get interesting characters, we didn’t learn anything useful about why he felt this way.

The Ending

I found the conclusion wholly disappointing. The mother’s plan didn’t really make a lot of sense but with a few tweaks it might have done so. The entire anagram business seemed contrived and how did the sketch get into the bust?

That being said, the basic concept of mom wanting publicity for her daughter-in-law’s museum and Miss Scarlet is a great idea. A woman who went out and challenged the world but didn’t get the credit she deserves. Now she’s trying to help other women. It’s fantastic, it’s real, it’s visceral Wokeness.

Conclusion

This episode had so much potential but in the end, it largely failed, for me at least. That’s a shame because it feeds the anti-wokeness mob. Why not focus on the husband’s jealousy? Have him come to some realization at the end about his mother, his wife. That’s an arc, that’s a story, that’s good entertainment.

So close, yet so far.

Tom Liberman

The Alienist Crafts a Stupid Investigation

Posted on by
The Alienist

I can’t say that I particular enjoyed the first season of The Alienist but decided to give the second season a look. The second episode of the second season really turned me off and I’d like to spend some time talking about one thing I think went wrong.

The Alienist sort of tells story Laszlo Kreizler, played with a gravelly monotone by Daniel Bruhl. The titular character studies the human psyche and uses that to solve crimes with the help of Sara Howard, played by the overly dire Dakota Fanning, and the equally dire John Schuyler Moore, portrayed by Luke Evans.

I have a lot to criticize in the show, not my first time, but I’m going to focus on the investigation and why it left me so dismayed that I’ll likely abandon the show.

The Crime

Babies are being killed. That’s certainly an emotional reason for me to want to catch the vile killers. A poor woman’s child was killed and the mother was blamed and executed in the first episode. A wealthy ambassador’s child was kidnapped in the second episode and that’s where Sara, John, and Laszlo spring into action.

I don’t list the characters randomly, I start with Sara because she is now, clearly, the lead character in The Alienist with Laszlo taking on a supporting, if that, role.

The Investigation

A doll is found at the home of the ambassador and Sara goes to a store that sells dolls where the body of the first child was found. She gets the address of a purchaser from the shopkeeper and begins the investigation.

She decides to go into a bad part of the town to look at the building late at night. It turns out to be a burned-out shell. While there with John, the two are spotted by a band of ruffians and driven into an alley but the thugs spot a drunken, passed out man nearby and decide to abandon the pursuit.

Sara and John follow the ruffians back to a tavern. Sara apparently knows the owner and he tells her the ruffians work for a fellow named Goo Goo who owns the building in question.

The next day a pair of torsos are discovered and it is stated the gruesome remains are unidentifiable with even tattoos cut off.

John, at the newspaper office, is told by a woman that two of Goo Goo’s men were found dead. John quickly travels to the crime scene still cordoned off by the police. John spots an old acquaintance sitting on a box and pays the man to be put in touch with Goo Goo.

Goo Goo then learns about John. He confronts the reporter, putting a knife to his throat. John is saved by Sara who appears from nowhere at the last minute and threatens to shoot off Goo Goo’s penis. Goo Goo wanders off with his friends.

Why It Doesn’t Make Sense

Where to start? What a mess. If the above narrative makes any sense to you, please use the comments to explain it to me.

Why investigate the building at night? How lucky is it the very villains involved in the kidnapping happen to walk by? What a lovely coincidence the tavern keeper is a friend of Sara and knows all the useful information.

The bodies were unidentifiable one moment and then suddenly known when it becomes useful. Another amazing coincidence is the dockworker who knows Goo Goo and is sitting right there. Goo Goo seeks out and attacks John.

It’s all contrived to lead us to various scenes and left me incredibly cold and disinterested.

How The Alienist Investigation Might Go

As some of you may know, I think of myself as somewhat of a writer. Twelve novels and all. I understand that shortcuts have to happen. It can’t all follow a logical narrative in order to get from Point A to Point Z. Therefore, I offer up for your perusal, how I might write the investigation I so heavily criticize.

Sara and John learn of the building. They immediately head over to city hall and find the records. They discover it burned down and is a fake address used to purchase the dolls. They find out the owner is a man named Goo Goo Knox. John talk to some fellow reporters and learns where Goo Goo makes his office, who are his associates, what are his suspected crimes.

Sara and John arrange a meeting with Goo Goo under false pretenses associated with some of his criminal activities. Perhaps they are fellow criminals or John is corrupt and learned something about a rival gang and wants a payout for the information.

Conclusion

The way it’s done in the show allows for some dramatic confrontations and I suspect that’s the point. We have the narrow escape in the alley, the gory bodies, the knife to the throat scene. If we do it the way I want, those scenes don’t happen. We don’t meet the tavern owner and his daughter who I think will show up again.

I understand the thinking, I just don’t agree with it. I do think a lot of people like the sensational, gruesome, violent scenes. Not to say I would write it boring and clinical; I’d find ways to create drama within a logical investigation. I am curious as to your opinion on the subject.

Do you prefer a logical investigation or one that has more sensational elements but doesn't make logical sense?

View Results

Loading ... Loading ...

Tom Liberman

Is The Undoing Crap or Gold?

Posted on by
The Undoing

I recently watched The Undoing on HBO and came away somewhat ambivalent. There are a number of things to like about The Undoing but, in the end, it left me slightly disappointed. I’ve written before about how an ending must be satisfying for any sort of entertainment to succeed completely. In this case it did not.

The Undoing tells the story of the Fraser family and the Alves family. Jonathan Fraser is the bridge between the two. He is a doctor treating the Alves son and Jonathan also has an affair with Mrs. Alves. It is her gruesome murder and the arrest of Fraser that drives the plot.

What I liked

Let’s start with the elements of The Undoing I enjoyed. The writers did an absolutely terrific job of keeping me guessing. Right up until the very end I wasn’t entirely positive who committed the crime. My early guess was that Grace Fraser, played ably by Nicole Kidman, bludgeoned Elena Alves to death. From there I fluctuated between Grace, Jonathan, their son Henry, and even the grandfather played by Donald Sutherland.

I found the setting entirely believable and the events around Reardon School, including the ostentatious auction, immersed me in the life of the Fraser’s completely.

Likewise, the acting proved largely excellent. Grant, Kidman, and Sutherland led the way but the supporting cast largely convinced me as well. Lily Rabe stands out for her portrayal of Grace’s friend as did young Noah Jupe as Henry.

What I didn’t Like

I found the courtroom scenes unconvincing. I regularly found myself thinking both lawyers didn’t know how to object properly, having watched real lawyers do it at the Depp and Heard civil trial. I kept emerging from immersion to think to myself, is that a question or a statement? Shouldn’t someone object here?

The final reveal also left me a bit dissatisfied. Shouldn’t the police and prosecution have discovered the information about Jonathan’s past during the investigation? They didn’t really need Grace to present it to them on a platter.

The Conclusion

As you may have guessed from my tease at the beginning of this review, the ending left me quite unhappy. I think the series should have ended with the final courtroom revelation. We know everything, boom, credits. Over and done. However, that’s not flashy. There is no running, shouting, or chasing. We don’t have helicopters and police cars. We don’t have a frantic Grace or an angry Jonathan and that’s what the audience apparently wants.

Not me. The last ten minutes of The Undoing really soured my entire opinion of an otherwise very good series. Of course, you may disagree! Tell me why.

Stick the landing!

Tom Liberman

Is Hans Cheating a Predetermined Result

Posted on by
Is Hans Cheating

Is Hans cheating? That question continues to roil the chess world, and beyond. Ever since Magnus Carlsen formally made an accusation that’s been speculated in the chess circles for over a year, it’s been a major news story. Is Hans Cheating? It’s not the question I will answer today. Sorry.

I’d like to discuss the notion of a predetermined result. The Is Hans Cheating question brings the problem into great clarity, for me at least. It’s a question that affects not only the chess community but our general perception of the world at large.

Do you have a strong opinion about Hans cheating? Will his future results change your opinion about that? No, they will not. Let’s discuss.

Hans can’t Win and he can’t Lose

If you, like me, tune into chess tournaments; there is vociferous debate in the chat rooms on the subject. Is Hans cheating? There are those who say he absolutely did not cheat against Carlsen and those that say Hans most certainly did cheat in that match and others as well. The debate rages during the current United States Chess Championship in which Hans is competing.

One of the interesting parts of the debate is Hans defenders frequently point out Hans can’t win. If he wins a game then his detractors assume he is continuing to cheat. If he loses then that means his past cheating is exposed because, with the new rules in place, he can’t cheat now.

The problem is these self-same defenders are guilty of the exactly the same thinking, only in reverse. If Hans loses a game, it’s because of the pressure he’s under and it doesn’t prove anything. If he wins a game then it shows he’s didn’t cheat in the past because he can still win under more stringent scrutiny.

In other words, whether you think Hans is cheating or not, you look at events through the proverbial rose-colored glasses and come to the conclusion that best suits your narrative. You will not, under almost any circumstance, change your mind.

It’s not just Chess

This is not just an issue with the Is Hans Cheating question. I see this every day in online debates. Both sides are completely unwilling to interpret any fact, any event, any argument in a way that persuades them to change their point of view. Everything feeds their predetermined decision. Nothing contradicts it. It matters not how many knots she or he must tie themselves into to achieve the desired result.

I suspect this is a human condition. Julius Caesar wrote: Men in general are quick to believe that which they wish to be true. I’d add only one caveat to Caesar’s insightful comment. Women too.

Conclusion

The only weapon against this enemy is critical thinking. As I watch the United States and the world drift toward totalitarianism, as I see people eagerly embrace leaders who demand absolute rule, as I watch in dismay as people gleefully talk about disenfranchising, hurting, even killing those who disagree with their views, I am ever more convinced we must start a critical thinking curriculum at the earliest moments of our educational system.

Will it happen? You tell me.

Tom Liberman