I agree, but these days, spending an entire season to build up to the thing everybody knows is how so many shows operate, that I can’t fully blame Perry Mason for doing the same. I think their fatal mistake is a lot more fundamental, and ironically, Rhys lays it out as praise:
Mothy
mothkinja
Perry Mason, which just concluded its brilliant second season in April.
To be fair it only took like 5 episodes for him to be a lawyer. And the route they took to get there was pretty entertaining, and laid the foundation for his relationship with every other character for the show. Personally, I think the biggest mistake they made was the entire evangelical storyline of the first season.…
I can’t say I’m surprised, but I am really saddened by the news. It was a great show that friends and family of mine were all invested in and enjoying as a really uncommon pleasure. It was one of the best looking shows on TV and had GREAT writing and acting to go with it. But, since there was no great ‘watercooler’…
“I survey the room carefully, then RACK FOCUS to TRUMAN calling me a ‘cry-baby’ to my face. Deeply insulted, I SMASH CUT to myself, crying like a baby.”
He doesnt elicit the same craziness from his followers, but hes not as dumb and might be able to get even more fucked up shit done.
wtf are you even talking about? Being against desantis is being “woke”?
He’s doing fine. He’s not in the mainstream media spotlight anymore but still tours to sold out shows. Its not like he had to go get a job at McDs.
he’s just as evil and not as dumb, he probably has a better chance of actually getting shit done.
This seems like a weird downplaying of what’s happening in Florida where the First Amendment is being cheerfully demolished. DeSantis has done a lot more successful work destroying his state than Trump ever did to your country in his four years of office.
this. Nanette was unwatchable but I’m not going to write a think piece on how it wasn’t for me
Granted that I’ve only got the surface treatment of the issue that the AV Club’s summary of someone else’s article provides, but to me the philosophy seems to be “Pablo Picasso, the reason I have your attention, doesn’t deserve your attention! Women artists do. Here are some women artists to pay attention to instead.”
I agree with the curators’ assessment that this painting emblematizes Picasso’s brutal tendencies. I only wish it wasn’t paired with this quote from Gadsby: “If PETA can’t cancel Picasso . . . no one can.”
It’s interesting how in the span of only a few years, Gadsby’s whole shtick (once thought by critics to be cutting-edge) now just seems like a hopelessly outdated relic of the previous decade. Their “TED Talk about trauma disguised as a stand-up routine” approach was never going to be the future of comedy, as overly…
I’ll admit, I’d watch a show about John Mulaney doing coke, having affairs, and generally fucking up his life.
Left out of this article but very much discussed in the NYT piece is the fact that the Picassos obtained for the exhibition are pretty much whatever random stuff they could get. There’s no effort to find pieces that demonstrate Picasso’s misogyny or his cultural impact. It’s just “here’s some Picassos!”
As with so many of these things one wonders precisely who it is for.
If the thing most worth talking about with regards to Picasso’s art is the misogyny of the artist it ought not be displayed in the first place. If you wanted to discuss the misogyny in relation to his art’s immense cultural impact that ought to have…
It’s the same way that I absolutely love Curbed, but I just can not binge it. Maybe two episodes at the most but usually just one. Watching fictional Larry David make an ass of himself just makes my second-hand cringe meter go off.
I really like Gadsby and Nanette, but if the criticism cited here is accurate, then yea the exhibit sounds lazy and flat out bad. Which is a shame for obvious reasons, but also because I don’t want to be put on the same side of an issue as Gadsby’s critics, who up until now have mostly just been terrible people.