“An all-star cast head to a resort and unleash their worst, most privileged impulses” .. Rotten Tomatoes
…. But actually it’s the paid staff who make all the trouble. Isn’t it Armando, the resort manager, who pilfers the pharmaceuticals, sexually abuses the lower paid employees, double books a suite as well as a boat ride, and ultimately poops in a guest’s suit case? Isn’t it Kai, the native fire dancer, who beats up two guests and steals their jewelry? Isn’t it Paula, the subsidized college student, who enables and provokes Kai to his misdeed?
Tanya, the heiress, is the only character who is seriously rich. She over dramatizes her unhappiness, but what rules has she broken? She tells her therapist that she may bankroll a private practice. She replaces that offer with an envelope stuffed with cash - but that is hardly a misdeed. She actually didn’t owe her a damn thing.
A fascinating woke ideology often drives conversation at the Mossberger family dinner table - and the adults resist it. When Paula boldly queries “what do you stand for”?, they are silent. But don’t their lives as parents and professionals ( not elaborated in this story) provide an answer in deeds rather than words?
Actually - this fable, charming and beautifully created as it is, comes from a very conservative (patriarchal) place:
Poor Mr. Mossberger and his swollen testicles - redeems his masculinity by physically attacking the non-white native who is assaulting his wife. That native is apprehended and presumably punished severely, but that all happens off stage. His destiny is evidently not worth knowing.
The wealthy heiress, turns away from therapy to find relief from her misery in the arms of a vigorous man who just wants to “ have some fun” At one point, she tells him repeatedly to leave, and he boyishly pouts “no … I want to fuck you” And so he does - with her unspoken consent.
The Mossberger son asserts his manhood by abandoning school and running off with a .crew of strapping young lads who are circumnavigating Polynesia.
The Mossberger daughter shows true love and comfort for her poor half-white friend who had betrayed the generosity of her family and denounced their bond of friendship.
Rachel, the recent bride, who had second thoughts about becoming the trophy wife of a man/boy finally, meekly, accepts that as her future.
Armando, the resentful gay resort manager who cannot control any of his urges for sex, drugs, or revenge, ultimately does something really disgusting and is immediately violently killed by his nemesis, the rich boy heterosexual.
Feminism, socialism, anti- colonialism, gay identity, and racial justice have all been crushed and all ends up right with the world. Wokism lies in ruins.
*******
This reactionary agenda has been hidden in plain sight by the arts of stagecraft. It is not a one dimensional melodrama. That is quite a tribute to Mike White, the auteur and the actors, musicians, and other skilled staff he assembled and coached. Like a silk thread pulled from a cocoon, the narrative carefully unfolds, as the eye, ear, and mind are held tight from one moment to the next. It’s the magic of a mimetic art.
But it’s also hidden because both viewers and reviewers don’t want to see it. They don’t want to admit that underneath the respect for social justice they’re supposed to have, their gut feelings remain patriarchal and xenophobic. That’s why Republicans keep winning elections, despite their egregious faults.
( it reminds me of another show that also turns a theme of patriarchal dominance into a thing of wonder and beauty: Mozart’s Magic Flute)
The role of Belinda, the magical negro, plays no small part in the diversion. This multi talented black woman is the only adult shown doing an important job with competence and compassion. This would be a very different story without Natasha Rothwell being so convincing.
1 comment:
As in season one of the White Lotus this critique is a hit piece. One case in point. "Rachel, the recent bride, who had second thoughts about becoming the trophy wife of a man/boy finally, meekly, accepts that as her future." is a surface treatment of that part of the plot without following the character of the Character. Rachel, did have a crisis of faith when her husband and his mother showed the culture of the Rich and entitled and the idea was revealed that she was expected to be a trophy wife. You can tell from her discussions with the family that she had a more common view of a marriage, that of a couple working together towards a common good within the family and withing life. Her rude awakening to the idea that she had no say, was not valued as a person, more as a possesion. The shock of the courtship turned into a prison was devistating for her. Her husband and mother made her sole very clear. His obsession with not getting his own way to the point of having the Hotel manager fired, showed where his childish ego lived. That was too a shock for her. She moved to a seperate room, and said she was backing out. They had not seen each other for a day or two. The child at the airport, which we saw at the beginning was devistated and did not even have the energy for a reply other than to tell people to leave him alone. That is a complete reversal of character for the rich entitled, I get my way one way or another, person. At the end. Rachel arrived to board the plan, clearly not expecting to see her husband. But when she did, she continued on, but looked again and saw this little boy she loved devistated and in a terrible place. She then saw that what he had displayed was a front, and that his killing the Manager had awakened him to parts of live, reality and himself that made him cross over sadly into the start of adulthood. Rachel saw this plainly and her heart, her maternal instinct came out, as he approached her in need. He made the decision then that she did love him and saw that he needed her and she and he made a real marriage at the point. So much of the other critical comments on the first season I think can be looked at with some of the same cocked head. Like the idea that if someone proposes funding your business (which in a legal sense could be construed as a verbal contract) that the rich lady had no obligation or responsibility for the devistation she caused to the lady that had helped her. This 'the rich can do or say anything and it does not count' was the sad message of that scene. The idea that words have no consiquences is just false. But I think we both enjoyed that season but for different reasons.
Post a Comment