I'm not going to do a whole review and synopsis here, but I might make one with my future cohost in video format. I'm not sure yet. When my friend Joan and I watched the pilot, we actually debated whether this was worth covering in addition to, or even instead of, Stories. But All's Fair isn't fun bad, it's not self-aware enough, nor does it have the charm of a show trying its best despite production limitations. It's genuinely, unintentionally, and completely awful. It has every resource at its disposal and can't utilize a single one. It's the only Murphy show I've seen so far that I have no desire to watch more of, and honestly, there's not much I can say that critics haven't pointed out already. So let's go over some reviews.
In his review for The Times (linked above), Ben Dowell says "[Kardashian] is to acting what Genghis Khan is to a peaceful liberal democracy, though of course the dialogue... doesn't help her cause." He ends his article with perhaps the most accurate point I've read so far: "It's so steeped in its noxiously dumb stream of feminist sloganising [sic], and our heroines are so dreadful, that it sometimes feels as if it doesn't even like women very much." Now, do I think the show doesn't like women? Yes. But do I think Ryan Murphy himself might be a little sexist? Also yes, but with a chill kind of sexism that's innocuous enough to let slide if a gay guy does it. We'll cover that in the YouTube series.
Jeanine T. Abraham's article in Medium says "Someone needs to tell Ryan Murphy that there's more to writing a compelling woman-centered series than placing a bunch of talented actors and a social media mogul together in one place and expect them to make your pig's ear of a script into a silk purse. The dialogue and storylines are mind-numbingly horrible, with so many clichés woven through each episode, it's hard to watch." Not much to say here except "yes, I agree".
Alison Herman's review in Variety starts with "It probably says all you need to know about 'All's Fair' that a legal drama ostensibly about women's empowerment begins with a pilot written and directed by men." Oh, come on Herman, you can barely tell, it's only evident in every line of dialogue. But yeah, that's obviously a great point. Another great point: "'All's Fair' demonstrates such a low opinion of its own viewers, assuming we'll bark like seals when fed disconnected scraps of sassy one-liners, flashy outfits and men-ain't-shit commiseration." OK, this I do want to talk about, it touches on what might be my greatest gripe with the show, but Herman has another critique that's worth mentioning. "The waste feels more flagrant with every pornographic shot of a Chanel bag, vintage car or over-the-top ensemble."
There's one scene where Naomi Watts's character, "Liberty Ronson" (oof) consults with a woman looking to divorce her wealthy husband (Judith Light). It quickly devolves into showing off expensive jewelry and listing coveted brands. The show's obsession with opulence pales in comparison to its other faults, in my opinion, but it always manages to be annoying. Though I have no evidence to support this, it feels like a Kardashian contribution, because no other Murphy show is this lavish.
Like I said earlier, I'm not going to do a deep dive on this yet. Maybe not ever. It's about an all-woman team of high-powered divorce lawyers, but it's barely about that (in the pilot at least). They never appear in court, and seem to settle every case with blackmail and hard truths about male inadequacy. The rest of the show is about their personal lives, which somehow manage to be even less entertaining than the cases they barely work. That's all for the synopsis, I'll just do a brief review.
The writing in this show is abysmal, full of Ryan Murphy-esque girl-boss quips that manage to bring down the performance of every actor involved. The core cast (aside from Kardashian, whose inability to act is such a given that it doesn't warrant mentioning) is full of strong performers, and if you don't believe me, look at the promo image at the top of this post. I mean, Naomi Watts and Glenn Close? I've even seen Sarah Paulson and Niecy Nash act well in other Murphy projects. Yet the script prohibits them from rising above mediocrity in every single scene. In a way, it's genuinely subversive: it proves without a doubt that a poor craftsman really can blame their tools (more like her tools, am I right, ladies?). For Murphy to render such pros powerless is an impressive feat; he manages to construct an invincible glass ceiling in a show about breaking the glass ceiling. Rose McGowan must be feeling pretty glum, and maybe a little vindicated.
Usually, I would rewatch the episode and find some notable quotes, but I don't want to do that. If you're curious, read literally any review. One of the other two things I wanted to mention is that it's boring. So boring. There are never any stakes, and I can't imagine how there could be. When Kardashian's character (Allura Grant, somehow one of the more reasonable names in this show) learns that her husband wants a divorce, she's completely unperturbed in the next scene. Her coworkers come over to drink some wine (the same night of the divorce thing, by the way) and basically just say "Well, you always knew how to pick 'em," and Allura responds, "lol, I know. Men, right?". There's no tension, nothing compelling happens, and it makes time crawl more than a DMT trip.
The last thing worth mentioning is how condescending this show is in its attempts to feel feminist. It's a level of undisguised pandering that comes off as legitimately insulting. When Allura's boyfriend confronts her about his desire for divorce, he states that her life overshadows his. Allura points out that he has three Super Bowl rings, and he basically says "But I still feel so small next to you, babe." The show pokes fun at the straight male's fragile ego with all the deftness of a natural disaster. But babe, I, with my traditional masculine qualities, am just so intimidated by the success of you, a powerful woman. I know this feels like an exaggeration, but the dialogue really is this on-the-nose. Also, it's kind of funny that the writers tossed Kim K. an alley-oop by giving her a scene that almost certainly mirrors her lived experience, but she still can't muster any emotion in her performance.
It makes me long for the days when I thought the voiceover monologues in season 1 of The Handmaid's Tale were too heavy-handed. Yet here I am reiterating the same points that other reviewers like Abraham and Herman already made, but louder and worse. Maybe I'm as susceptible to this kind of behavior as the writers are. Maybe they're actually geniuses, maybe this ham-fisted, nuance-less drivel is, in itself, a statement on the male perception of the female experience, a brilliant meta-commentary on the dangers of mistaking sympathy for genuine exposure.
It's nicer than the other possibility, which is that they actually thought this would play well with audiences. Look, I'm not saying Murphy has to stick to what he knows. I'm not even saying he has to let women into the writers' room in a show about feminism (though now that I mention it, it doesn't seem like a bad idea). I'm saying that if Murphy insists on doing things his way, and he always does, that he can at least do us a favor and write to the top of his intelligence. Or even the middle of it. Make a genuine effort, Murphy, we're not all morons just because we still like what you put out.
Given his shamelessly campy writing style, which is present even in some of my favorite Murphy works, I thought for a long time about what made this so bad. Even The Politician, which I genuinely enjoyed (I think it's a good show, sue me), had plenty of sassy, cheesy Murphy-isms. This show has more than usual, sure, but it also believes so strongly in its own righteousness. It tactlessly shouts "female empowerment" from the rooftop and condemns male toxicity while openly patting itself on the back. And it does so with a cast of characters who are all so vain, shallow, materialistic, and inane that they're basically every misogynist's ravings come to life.
It almost feels like the writers associate successful women with these stereotypical traits, because every protagonist feels like... well, like a Kardashian. Now that I mention it, Kim K. just tried to pass the California Bar exam (with a little help from ChatGPT, and some encouragement from spirits beyond this earthly realm. You know, normal person stuff.). At the same time, she's playing a highly successful lawyer who has it all but lost her husband. It's a self-insert role in a vanity project with no creative effort where every star is also a producer or EP. It's... it's a tax write-off.
Just kidding! Occam's Razor dictates that a creative partnership between Murphy and Kardashian, clearly fueled by their many industry connections, yielded the exact outcome one would expect. But let's follow this purely hypothetical thread for a moment. Because all these stars are also EPs, they might be able to treat certain production-related costs as business expenses, which could make for a nice tax benefit. Theoretically. The show spends copious amounts of time showcasing designer products and luxury items, all of which could hypothetically be owned by our very wealthy EPs. If these actors personally owned some of these props, which there's no evidence of, they could maybe write off some maintenance and insurance costs as well. If, even more unbelievably, Murphy and other show execs also used their own properties as sets, that combination could decrease production design costs and route some payments back to them at the same time. The execs get paid the big bucks and Disney gets a guaranteed hit with a built-in audience. If All's Fair does underperform, well, maybe Disney claims some loss-related tax benefits for that too.
I'm no accountant, these are all just the speculations of an uninformed blogger. I mean, this isn't Warner Bros. Discovery, who would snap a puppy's neck for a small tax benefit (and then make the puppy unavailable to view or buy on any platform). I'm sure this show has a totally normal percentage of deductible expenses that definitely doesn't disproportionately benefit production higher-ups. After all, I have no hard evidence to prove otherwise. We're just having fun theorizing. And this is Disney we're talking about here, they would never knowingly sacrifice quality in a highly-anticipated project purely for the sake of profit. Their project standards are simply Marvel-ous.
This ended up being way longer than I expected. I guess I wanted to review it a little after all. And maybe someday I'll do a whole synopsis, but American Horror Stories is just so much better. Like, it feels good compared to this. The dialogue is often just as unhinged, the world just as absurd and malleable, but it's so much more charming and it never tries to hide what it is. It's a B-movie-style horror anthology that wishes it had even a tenth of AHS's budget, and it's brutally honest about that. Part of the reason All's Fair falls short is that it has so much to work with and flaunts it so often, it feels like it's trying to present itself as a real drama. It has no self-awareness, and self-awareness is key in campy media. It's so irredeemable, it might actually hurt Murphy's career, and I thought he was impervious.
Anyway, to summarize, I wouldn't recommend it. Watch literally anything else instead. The second episode has a female writer involved, so maybe that one will be better. Maybe. So that's all for now, just a quick little review/update while I work on the new project. If you want something that's kind of thematically similar to All's Fair but is actually good, watch Big Little Lies on HBO Max, it's great. Thanks for reading!
P.S. My buddy Joan Cyrus edited this post and made some significant contributions. Thanks Joan!
No comments:
Post a Comment