I have only seen the first two episodes back-to-back so far, and am just about to dive into the third. Before I do that, I feel the need to clarify some things that I've noticed in other reviews.
First of all, you don't have to listen to the nay-sayers. They don't know everything. The fact that this title rates at only 7.5 shows there are a lot of them. This series is, like many others, possibly to subtle in its intelligence to be understood honourably by many. Here are my main points, with my sole wish to you: keep your mind open, see this for yourself, and try to *pay attention*:
1. The acting is phenomenal. This has been said before. Cate Blanchett, and most of the other actresses, sustain a show that, while slow-moving to some, is enchanting at every minute. Blanchett, like always, claims the whole show, and portrays from the depths of her soul a woman who, while sincere, was very much understood superficially, perhaps. This is something the whole debate illustrates:
2. In episode 2, you can see one of the feminists claim something along the lines of, "we are against housewives." As in, acknowledging that the whole movement, meant to empower women, stands against a vast majority of women they claim to want to "free." NO one has ever obtained freedom by suppressing the experience of an entire group. This show, I think, might just be built around this ONE point, which i see repeat itself in every single movement we are seeing today: Claiming to stand for some "valid," "enlightened," "progressive" idealistic view, movements suppress the voices of people they supposedly desire to help, accusing them of ignorance and devilishness. This is not so. This series brings the point home so far, and I can't wait to see how the message unfolds.
3. If you read articles and watch videos of, say, Gloria Steinem, from the '80s all the way to the 2010's, you will catch this same ignorant bias in her interviews. Claiming to be for women's liberation, she abruptly and self-righteously criticises women whom she does not deem as "liberated," only because they have chosen another way of life. She puts down and looks down on women who do not conform to her "liberated" view. And I ask you, how liberating is any view, if it is built on the spine of the continually oppressed, the ones whose experience is nullified and deemed invalid?
4. Lastly, the cinematography is gorgeous. Well crafted and immersive. So are the costumes. The dialogue is sharp and reveals subtleties in relationships between women. THIS is what we must look for.
If you have read so far, I kindly hope you will keep these ideas in mind. So far, they seem to be the "philosophical" core of the series, though I could be wrong. Do not listen to those who think they know more than they do, criticising the pacing of the movie or other such aspects. Everything is subjective. I pray that people will not look at the rating for this one, as it is undeservedly low.
Try it for yourself. Keep your mind open. You will learn much if you do.
First of all, you don't have to listen to the nay-sayers. They don't know everything. The fact that this title rates at only 7.5 shows there are a lot of them. This series is, like many others, possibly to subtle in its intelligence to be understood honourably by many. Here are my main points, with my sole wish to you: keep your mind open, see this for yourself, and try to *pay attention*:
1. The acting is phenomenal. This has been said before. Cate Blanchett, and most of the other actresses, sustain a show that, while slow-moving to some, is enchanting at every minute. Blanchett, like always, claims the whole show, and portrays from the depths of her soul a woman who, while sincere, was very much understood superficially, perhaps. This is something the whole debate illustrates:
2. In episode 2, you can see one of the feminists claim something along the lines of, "we are against housewives." As in, acknowledging that the whole movement, meant to empower women, stands against a vast majority of women they claim to want to "free." NO one has ever obtained freedom by suppressing the experience of an entire group. This show, I think, might just be built around this ONE point, which i see repeat itself in every single movement we are seeing today: Claiming to stand for some "valid," "enlightened," "progressive" idealistic view, movements suppress the voices of people they supposedly desire to help, accusing them of ignorance and devilishness. This is not so. This series brings the point home so far, and I can't wait to see how the message unfolds.
3. If you read articles and watch videos of, say, Gloria Steinem, from the '80s all the way to the 2010's, you will catch this same ignorant bias in her interviews. Claiming to be for women's liberation, she abruptly and self-righteously criticises women whom she does not deem as "liberated," only because they have chosen another way of life. She puts down and looks down on women who do not conform to her "liberated" view. And I ask you, how liberating is any view, if it is built on the spine of the continually oppressed, the ones whose experience is nullified and deemed invalid?
4. Lastly, the cinematography is gorgeous. Well crafted and immersive. So are the costumes. The dialogue is sharp and reveals subtleties in relationships between women. THIS is what we must look for.
If you have read so far, I kindly hope you will keep these ideas in mind. So far, they seem to be the "philosophical" core of the series, though I could be wrong. Do not listen to those who think they know more than they do, criticising the pacing of the movie or other such aspects. Everything is subjective. I pray that people will not look at the rating for this one, as it is undeservedly low.
Try it for yourself. Keep your mind open. You will learn much if you do.