Masters of Sex
- Thread starter LOG
- Start date
- Joined
- Jun 8, 2011
- Messages
- 13,319
- Reaction score
- 2,720
I think it's a good show. I've been watching it on Showtime. Kinda felt prompted to, since I'm sorta studying their findings for a course. I like it so far. It's not 24/7 sex on the show, which is good. Characters are developing and it's nice to see society's feelings on the subject in the '40-'50s compared to nowadays. The research of Masters is quite interesting.
- Joined
- Jul 1, 2010
- Messages
- 3,057
- Reaction score
- 574
- Location
- The Swamplands
- Website
- www.galehaut.com
I think I'm up to date on the most recent episodes for this one. I won't spoil anything specific for you here, but I do have some opinions. lol
I find myself being overly critical of the show as I'm constantly wanting to compare it to Mad Men. The tone and setting are very similar, and the themes already have begun to cross in certain ways. There is sort of a depraved pleasure that the viewer gets from seeing how cultural assumptions are a primary conflict for these characters, assumptions that we've already conquered of course. In this case, the culture change is a direct result of the work that the Bill and Virginia are engaged in.
Unfortunately, I feel like many significant scenes have been off point. Other than Bill Masters and Virginia Johnson, at times the other characters come across as background props or fluff to hold us off from what we really want to know about, which is their story and their research. Often, the dialogue lacks subtlety. Whenever Bill Masters' mother is in a scene, you might as well start hitting yourself in the head with a hammer, because the dialogue becomes cliche and overly telling. The undignified elephant in the room is not the actress playing his mother, she does her job well, it really is the dialogue.
I was also disappointed that the show took unnecessary liberties with facts to create tangential drama. For example, the reality seems a lot more interesting to me. The sex study was actually anonymous and the participants wore paper bags over their heads. In this version of events they are mostly coworkers who could second as professional models. They of course recognize each other from the studies and have virtually no respect for anonymity. Masters even exploits the participants' confidentiality on more than one occasion, which is unsurprising though I'd really like to know if it's true.
That said, Lizzy Caplan is amazing in this role. I also see some serious potential for longevity if they can work out the kinks. I'd like to see Bill Masters introverted character deal with the stardom that follows their controversial studies, and it could be interesting to see if the show lasts long enough for it to tackle some of their later group studies on homosexuality and the cultural impact of AIDS in the 80s.
I find myself being overly critical of the show as I'm constantly wanting to compare it to Mad Men. The tone and setting are very similar, and the themes already have begun to cross in certain ways. There is sort of a depraved pleasure that the viewer gets from seeing how cultural assumptions are a primary conflict for these characters, assumptions that we've already conquered of course. In this case, the culture change is a direct result of the work that the Bill and Virginia are engaged in.
Unfortunately, I feel like many significant scenes have been off point. Other than Bill Masters and Virginia Johnson, at times the other characters come across as background props or fluff to hold us off from what we really want to know about, which is their story and their research. Often, the dialogue lacks subtlety. Whenever Bill Masters' mother is in a scene, you might as well start hitting yourself in the head with a hammer, because the dialogue becomes cliche and overly telling. The undignified elephant in the room is not the actress playing his mother, she does her job well, it really is the dialogue.
I was also disappointed that the show took unnecessary liberties with facts to create tangential drama. For example, the reality seems a lot more interesting to me. The sex study was actually anonymous and the participants wore paper bags over their heads. In this version of events they are mostly coworkers who could second as professional models. They of course recognize each other from the studies and have virtually no respect for anonymity. Masters even exploits the participants' confidentiality on more than one occasion, which is unsurprising though I'd really like to know if it's true.
That said, Lizzy Caplan is amazing in this role. I also see some serious potential for longevity if they can work out the kinks. I'd like to see Bill Masters introverted character deal with the stardom that follows their controversial studies, and it could be interesting to see if the show lasts long enough for it to tackle some of their later group studies on homosexuality and the cultural impact of AIDS in the 80s.
- Joined
- Mar 31, 2009
- Messages
- 4,484
- Reaction score
- 437
- Location
- Atlanta, Georgia
- Website
- donnetowntoday.blogspot.com
I figured it was okay to bring back this thread, since a second season of the show has been announced. Also, I just started watching it on DVD (since I don't have Showtime).
I like the show a lot; have no idea how accurate it is. But I am bothered by some anachronisms in people's speech. For instance, saying "HR" instead of "Personnel". The term "Human Resources" was around in 1956, but I don't think it was used much in the workplace. Or the word "clueless" being used as it's used now.
And there was what now is a common error -- I've been hearing it a lot the past few years -- that I don't think an educated person in the 1950s would make. In a job evaluation that praises a researcher's performance, there's the phrase "her commitment to the study cannot be underestimated." No -- that should be "cannot be overestimated". (I'm baffled why people started getting that wrong recently, saying the opposite of what they mean.)
I like the show a lot; have no idea how accurate it is. But I am bothered by some anachronisms in people's speech. For instance, saying "HR" instead of "Personnel". The term "Human Resources" was around in 1956, but I don't think it was used much in the workplace. Or the word "clueless" being used as it's used now.
And there was what now is a common error -- I've been hearing it a lot the past few years -- that I don't think an educated person in the 1950s would make. In a job evaluation that praises a researcher's performance, there's the phrase "her commitment to the study cannot be underestimated." No -- that should be "cannot be overestimated". (I'm baffled why people started getting that wrong recently, saying the opposite of what they mean.)
I haven't seen it yet, but heard good things. It has yet another successful graduate of Freaks and Geeks.
- Joined
- Mar 31, 2009
- Messages
- 4,484
- Reaction score
- 437
- Location
- Atlanta, Georgia
- Website
- donnetowntoday.blogspot.com
I'll be darned; totally forgot she was in Freaks and Geeks -- even though I already associated her with Martin Starr because of Party Down. (Starr's great in Silicon Valley on HBO.)
I'd give Masters of Sex an 8.5/10 for its interesting premise and good acting, but I find the pacing a little too slow.