Total Posts:3|Showing Posts:1-3
Jump to topic:

Political Animals

DanT
Posts: 5,693
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/26/2012 11:43:44 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
I know Sigourney Weaver said her character is not Hillary, but honestly. With all those similarities it's obvious that the miniseries is pro-Hillary propaganda.

Elaine Barrish was first lady in the 1990's, to a "popular" president who's political career ended with a sex scandal. After her husband left office she became Secretary of State, and after that she became president. She is a democrat, but the narratives try to portray her as being liked by both parties.

This is obviously pro-Hillary propaganda.
"Chemical weapons are no different than any other types of weapons."~Lordknukle
YYW
Posts: 36,282
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/27/2012 6:04:55 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/26/2012 11:43:44 PM, DanT wrote:
I know Sigourney Weaver said her character is not Hillary, but honestly. With all those similarities it's obvious that the miniseries is pro-Hillary propaganda.

Elaine Barrish was first lady in the 1990's, to a "popular" president who's political career ended with a sex scandal. After her husband left office she became Secretary of State, and after that she became president. She is a democrat, but the narratives try to portray her as being liked by both parties.

This is obviously pro-Hillary propaganda.

There are some differences, but I don't see why her -more than realistic- character is necessarily a bad thing. I don't think Sigourney Weaver is perhaps the best actress (Meryl Streep would have done a better job, although she is way above a USA television series) for the role, but she surprised me nevertheless. And it's obvious that her character is based on Clinton. She has to deny it for professional courtesy (and for legal/political implications), but I do think that -regardless- hers is the best character on the show.

Political Animals is probably the best TV series that Greg Berlanti is capable of producing though. Brothers and Sisters was awful, Eli Stone showed potential but ultimately was too quirky to make it on broadcast and Dirty Sexy Money (while hilariously entertaining) left much wanting. For his sake, I'm glad Berlanti has grown up (sort of).

The problem I have with political animals is that he demonstrates -and ostentatiously so- his unwillingness to let old habits die hard. His characters are too prone to extremes. Think about Bud: the "geopolitical genius" who just knew that Elaine would send him to Turkey to negotiate with Iran. The problem is that his "brilliance" was too obvious. Anyone who has watched the news and seen a map of the middle east would have come to the same conclusion. It's cheap theatrics (which if anything showcases the ignorance of the writing staff).

And then? Elaine, who speaks 14 languages? The scene where she tells the Russian minister that she will "f*** his s*** up" in Russian was cool, but then to not know what a turkish bathhouse was -or for her son to utter that line (which is really what I take issue with)- was just absurd. That, and her character is too emotionally unstable.

Berlanti did the same thing with Dirty Sexy Money. The basic premise is that a family richer than the Rockefeller, Vanderbilt and Carnage families ever could hope to have been, live in New York and this is a show about their lives. It's too shallow, and too overdone to be believable -even though it was clear that "believable" was what he was going for (by showing that the characters have "real people" problems). I liked Dirty Sexy Money (as background noise) but no more. It's on Netflix if anyone would wish to watch it. Brothers and Sisters was like watching a Lifetime special if it were written by John Cheever. It just didn't work. But then again, nothing ABC has done since Boston Legal worked.
Tsar of DDO