A few more episodes in, and I’m noticing another thing I like about the Diplomat. It’s got a variation of the sassy-but-serious dialogue I liked about West Wing, but without the two things I strongly disliked about that show-- the sanctimoniousness, and (much worse) the sense that nearly every character’s voice was coming from the same writer.
Thank you—I never thought of that “same writer” thing—but you’re so right. It makes so many shows so tiresome, like being stuck at dinner with one person who drones on and on. This is something that would be worth writing about. I also , like you, appreciate how non-preachy The Diplomat is. It even gives us Hal’s perspective on things, as well as Hal as seen through Kate’s eyes, as well as the “objective” eye that wonders just how narcissistic he is.
I read something William Burroughs wrote about Hemingway, where he said all his characters talk like Hemingway. That observation made me more aware of that sort of thing. I think it’s a flaw that doesn’t have to keep someone from being a great writer (and Hemingway certainly has other flaws, too), but it does tend to make me feel that a TV writer like Aaron Sorkin is overpraised.
I have seen it, and yes, I love that film! I’m way behind on Allen’s “recent” work, but I’m always pleased to find another winner like that one. I don’t usually love movies where famous historical figures pop in and out, but he did it really amusingly in that movie.
An aside. I’m in the tiny camp that pays attention to his storytelling techniques and not just his dialogue and themes, and typically his films that are just modest achievements overall are still masterful in the way he uses visuals to convey information.
He’s one of the best in film history at this, I think, and it never gets discussed, for obvious reasons but also for a less obvious one-- American film critics tend to focus on themes and not on the nuts and bolts of the medium.
I’ve finally seen the first episode of the Diplomat. This show started me thinking-- I’m not really, generally, a fan of tv dramas. There are some primo exceptions, for sure, and I assume there are many good ones that I’ll miss without realizing how good they were.
But watching this show, on your recommendation, I noticed something interesting.
Forgetting about the various issues about stereotypes and unwritten rules about what women characters should or shouldn’t do, just for a moment-- and I am in fact fascinated with all that, and I agree it’s important--
I noticed that almost every second of that show, there was some kind of tension either being introduced about Kate’s job, or some payoff to tension introduced in a previous scene, or her having to grin and bear it during some indignity, or the surfacing of some unpleasant revelation.
There was enough drama to remind me of shows where I started rolling my eyes about all the fucked-up stuff going on. It can sometimes feel contrived when a family or group of friends attracts so much drama each week. Even a strong show can fall into that trap sometimes; I think it’s the nature of episodic drama that too many episodes can lead to this problem.
But with this show, it felt believable. And from a detached perspective, I found myself impressed by how much tension was packed into the script without it ever feeling gratuitous. I love how that’s partly because of the craziness of the world of government, but it’s at least as much because of just how much damage a spouse can do in a world where the personal and professional are intertwined, and where there’s a lot of pressure for the other spouse to show a brave face publicly. And nice to see that for once the husband was the lesser light of the marriage, sowing chaos all around his wife and getting away with it, as opposed to a sinister Lady Macbeth character. (Though I love those characters too, much of the time.) And then the fascinating wrinkle of it not being entirely clear to us why she puts up with it, though she doesn’t seem to be in any kind of denial about it.
In short, maybe stuff like this happens on a lot of drama shows, but it seems fresh to me. A strong example of how to write a show where the dramatic tension is almost like a horror or suspense film.
I agree that the unusual relationship of Kate and husband has something to do with it. But maybe it’s just the fact of having a relationship—any relationship—share central stage with the “macro” action (finding the murderer, political suspense—not to mention car chases) “Happy Valley” is like that too. And in general the Brits are better at fusing character and action than we are. We tend to go overboard with the action (like the current “Jack Ryan,” which has almost totally forgotten that Ryan was once an interesting character) and I have no patience at all for sorting out plot if there’s no character-payoff. (That’s why the Bourne series was so good—lots of action, but the story of Jason was at the center of it all.)
Normally, as my wife will tell you, I’m always complaining about police procedurals where we get too much information about the personal lives of the cops. But I’m not sure that’s any kind of informed or reasonable position. The Diplomat does something I’ve never seen, where the two levels are wrapped around each other like an octopus. And their relationship has a kind of suspense quality about it. And the gradual revelation of details about it is really fascinating. It makes me think that maybe my beef isn’t with the idea of giving us the personal lives, but rather with the glib soap opera type execution of it that TV often gives us. Even a decent show can tip that way, maybe.
A funny coincidence, but I just got a free haircut because the barber was an apprentice, and the shop owner gave the guy a master class on beard shaping. I was amazed at how much beard jargon there is. So now my beard’s strokability quotient is at a lifetime high.
I need to go back and have them maintain it that way, in preparation for turtleneck season, so I can get that sophisticated intellectual beard/turtleneck look.
I haven’t seen anything with Keri since I watched the first few episodes of Felicity years ago. (I liked her and the show, but I got busy or something.) And now I read this and think two things:
1. I need to start watching another Keri Russell show. It’s been too long.
2. Wasn’t Keri’s hair the subject of cultural debate back then too?
I would suggest The Americans as a great example of Keri Russell since Felicity. Funny enough, I didn't really watch Felicity but I've enjoyed some of her work since then.
A few more episodes in, and I’m noticing another thing I like about the Diplomat. It’s got a variation of the sassy-but-serious dialogue I liked about West Wing, but without the two things I strongly disliked about that show-- the sanctimoniousness, and (much worse) the sense that nearly every character’s voice was coming from the same writer.
Thank you—I never thought of that “same writer” thing—but you’re so right. It makes so many shows so tiresome, like being stuck at dinner with one person who drones on and on. This is something that would be worth writing about. I also , like you, appreciate how non-preachy The Diplomat is. It even gives us Hal’s perspective on things, as well as Hal as seen through Kate’s eyes, as well as the “objective” eye that wonders just how narcissistic he is.
I read something William Burroughs wrote about Hemingway, where he said all his characters talk like Hemingway. That observation made me more aware of that sort of thing. I think it’s a flaw that doesn’t have to keep someone from being a great writer (and Hemingway certainly has other flaws, too), but it does tend to make me feel that a TV writer like Aaron Sorkin is overpraised.
Hemingway: If you haven’t seen Woody Allen’s “Midnight in Paris,” rent it immediately!
I have seen it, and yes, I love that film! I’m way behind on Allen’s “recent” work, but I’m always pleased to find another winner like that one. I don’t usually love movies where famous historical figures pop in and out, but he did it really amusingly in that movie.
An aside. I’m in the tiny camp that pays attention to his storytelling techniques and not just his dialogue and themes, and typically his films that are just modest achievements overall are still masterful in the way he uses visuals to convey information.
He’s one of the best in film history at this, I think, and it never gets discussed, for obvious reasons but also for a less obvious one-- American film critics tend to focus on themes and not on the nuts and bolts of the medium.
What’s the point of having arms if you’re not going to wave them around?
Haha. Maybe to write a lot of deconstructionist jargon on the blackboard? To stroke ones beard?
I’ve finally seen the first episode of the Diplomat. This show started me thinking-- I’m not really, generally, a fan of tv dramas. There are some primo exceptions, for sure, and I assume there are many good ones that I’ll miss without realizing how good they were.
But watching this show, on your recommendation, I noticed something interesting.
Forgetting about the various issues about stereotypes and unwritten rules about what women characters should or shouldn’t do, just for a moment-- and I am in fact fascinated with all that, and I agree it’s important--
I noticed that almost every second of that show, there was some kind of tension either being introduced about Kate’s job, or some payoff to tension introduced in a previous scene, or her having to grin and bear it during some indignity, or the surfacing of some unpleasant revelation.
There was enough drama to remind me of shows where I started rolling my eyes about all the fucked-up stuff going on. It can sometimes feel contrived when a family or group of friends attracts so much drama each week. Even a strong show can fall into that trap sometimes; I think it’s the nature of episodic drama that too many episodes can lead to this problem.
But with this show, it felt believable. And from a detached perspective, I found myself impressed by how much tension was packed into the script without it ever feeling gratuitous. I love how that’s partly because of the craziness of the world of government, but it’s at least as much because of just how much damage a spouse can do in a world where the personal and professional are intertwined, and where there’s a lot of pressure for the other spouse to show a brave face publicly. And nice to see that for once the husband was the lesser light of the marriage, sowing chaos all around his wife and getting away with it, as opposed to a sinister Lady Macbeth character. (Though I love those characters too, much of the time.) And then the fascinating wrinkle of it not being entirely clear to us why she puts up with it, though she doesn’t seem to be in any kind of denial about it.
In short, maybe stuff like this happens on a lot of drama shows, but it seems fresh to me. A strong example of how to write a show where the dramatic tension is almost like a horror or suspense film.
I agree that the unusual relationship of Kate and husband has something to do with it. But maybe it’s just the fact of having a relationship—any relationship—share central stage with the “macro” action (finding the murderer, political suspense—not to mention car chases) “Happy Valley” is like that too. And in general the Brits are better at fusing character and action than we are. We tend to go overboard with the action (like the current “Jack Ryan,” which has almost totally forgotten that Ryan was once an interesting character) and I have no patience at all for sorting out plot if there’s no character-payoff. (That’s why the Bourne series was so good—lots of action, but the story of Jason was at the center of it all.)
Normally, as my wife will tell you, I’m always complaining about police procedurals where we get too much information about the personal lives of the cops. But I’m not sure that’s any kind of informed or reasonable position. The Diplomat does something I’ve never seen, where the two levels are wrapped around each other like an octopus. And their relationship has a kind of suspense quality about it. And the gradual revelation of details about it is really fascinating. It makes me think that maybe my beef isn’t with the idea of giving us the personal lives, but rather with the glib soap opera type execution of it that TV often gives us. Even a decent show can tip that way, maybe.
I’ve had a beard for years, but I’ve never really taken advantage of its strokability.
It’s never too late.
A funny coincidence, but I just got a free haircut because the barber was an apprentice, and the shop owner gave the guy a master class on beard shaping. I was amazed at how much beard jargon there is. So now my beard’s strokability quotient is at a lifetime high.
I need to go back and have them maintain it that way, in preparation for turtleneck season, so I can get that sophisticated intellectual beard/turtleneck look.
I'm quite a fan of The Diplomat as a series at the moment. Keri Russell is awesome in the role.
Haha. Maybe to write a lot of deconstructionist jargon on the blackboard? To stroke ones beard?
Whoops, replied to wrong person with this comment. Meant for Karl Straub. And I think Keri is awesome too.
I haven’t seen anything with Keri since I watched the first few episodes of Felicity years ago. (I liked her and the show, but I got busy or something.) And now I read this and think two things:
1. I need to start watching another Keri Russell show. It’s been too long.
2. Wasn’t Keri’s hair the subject of cultural debate back then too?
I would suggest The Americans as a great example of Keri Russell since Felicity. Funny enough, I didn't really watch Felicity but I've enjoyed some of her work since then.
Thanks, I’ll look for this!
The Diplomat is obviously good too but it's only got 1 season so far. The Americans is finished and has 6 seasons. There's more to dig into obviously.