Skip to main content

Life is like a box of timelines. You feel me?

Russian Doll
Season One

(SPOILERS) It feels like loading the dice to proclaim something necessarily better because it’s female-driven, but that’s the tack The Hollywood Reporter took with its effusive review of Russian Doll, suggesting “although Nadia goes on a similar journey of self-discovery to Bill Murray’s hackneyed reporter in Groundhog Day, the fact that the show was created, written by and stars women means that it offers up a different, less exploitative and far more thoughtful angle” (than the predominately male-centric entries in the sub-genre). Which rather sounds like Rosie Knight changing the facts to fit her argument. And ironic, given star Natasha Lyonne has gone out of her way to stress the show’s inclusive message. Russian Doll is good, but the suggestion that “unlike its predecessors (it) provides a thoughtfulness, authenticity and honesty which makes it inevitable end (sic) all the more powerful” is cobblers.

Cindy: So, you think you were hit by a car while you were chasing your cat and now you’re reliving your birthday?

If you’re bringing such a pejorative agenda to your critique, though, you’re going to end up picking fault in material for the sake of it (and if About Time is on your list, that’s very easy to do), so the likes of Edge of Tomorrow, Groundhog Day, or The X-FilesMonday (the latter unmentioned, probably unseen by the reviewer) are ripe for receiving unearned flack (while Happy Death Day is honourably excused).

In her efforts to extol Russian Doll, Knight makes inaccurate assertions (that Amy never uses what she learns to manipulate others; she very clearly manipulates her ex at various points) and reaches dubious conclusions. I’m unconvinced the serialised runtime actually helps the show, and that we gain insights into its core characters that we couldn’t if was two-and-a-half rather than three-and-a-half hours. Series creators Natasha Lyonne (who plays Nadia) and Amy Poehler and Lesley Headland have three seasons (at least) planned with Netflix, but they’re going to need to accentuate the “bonkers”, as Lyonne puts it, if they’re going to sustain it.

Nadia: Oh man, it’s never gonna be Thursday again! It’s just always gonna be this party. And were just gonna keep coming back.

With all such time loop narratives, one of the fundamentals is “Why is this happening to me?” and in the cases of Nadia, who keeps waking at the same party, and Alan (Charlie Barnett), likewise in front of his bathroom mirror, it ends up boiling down to a slightly shrug-worthy learning/ acceptance/ realisation/ forgiveness angle that’s only thrown into relief by a spanner in the multiverse in the last episode, one that offers an effective underlining of all the learning they’ve done over the previous seven episodes.

There’s a lot to like in this first season, most obviously Lyonne’s patented whip-smart, cooler-than-thou New Yorker humour, which marbles the entire production (it’s only a surprise when characters don’t speak in hard-boiled quips). Nadia’s not actually doing a whole lot different to Nicky in Orange is the New Black (and various of that show’s alumni pop up here), to the extent you have to recognise that Lyonne playing another druggy basket case is a brand of comedian’s confessional shtick, but she does it so well and so casually that it matters little (“a very tough lady who looks like if Andrew Dice Clay and the little girl from Brave made a baby”).

Nadia: I’ve got a couple of theories that I’m working on. Us being the same person is my current favourite.

She, Headland and Poehler haven’t come up with anything enormously different in terms of how these repeats unfold, except that in all cases (at least initially, barring the one we don’t know about) they’re random accidents. There’s also the way the expectation of a next day reset doesn’t hold true; both protagonists make it to the following day at various points, only for an unfortunate occurrence(s) to intervene.

Nadia: This is Alan. He’s basically a child who the universe has tasked me with babysitting. Would you say that’s a fair assessment?
Alan: Sure.

Knight’s right to suggest that the inclusion of co-experiencer opens up the canvas, but Alan’s been rather schematically much designed as the OCD, obsessive, borderline pathological flip side to Nadia’s gregarious off-handedness, with the entailing problem that he’s only ever a secondary figure even when attention is entirely on him; more crucially, he never makes the leap to someone you’d actually want to spend time with and follow their story, other than reluctantly, which is a failure of connecting to the viewer (or maybe just this viewer) on some level.

Another element that successfully embellishes the standard Groundhog mix is the encroaching entropy we begin to notice around the end of the second episode, first signified by wilting flowers but soon also by decaying fruit (still ripe on the inside), and disappearing mirrors, the viability of their universe diminishing and so presenting its own ticking clock (I wondered at points how influenced the makers were by Happy Death Day, particularly when Nadia begins spontaneously dying on sight of her younger self or she and Alan get nose bleeds, as it reminded me of Tree’s progressively worsening health as her death count piled up). The final awakening at the party (prior to the successful reset) is especially effective, Nadia emerging to find Maxine (Greta Lee) dancing on her own in the apartment and demurring from joining her on her mission.

Nadia: I’m having a very hard never-ending night!

Unfortunately, I don’t think Lyonne’s inclusive message (“When we dismiss each other as people and choose to pretend others aren’t impacted by our actions or don’t reach out to each other, we’re all at a risk of not making it”), as commendable as it is, is that compelling or distinctive compared to any other movie or series offering similar sentiments.

With regard to its length, the season sags fairly early on before regaining its tempo – I found my attention waning during the third and fourth episodes, with not-that-interesting red herrings (the homeless guy, although I liked the gag with his grooming kit) and the introduction proper of Alan failing to bolster the narrative sufficiently (because, per above, you don’t really want to spend time with him). Elsewhere, some subplots, such as Nadia’s parent figure/shrink Ruth (Elizabeth Ashley) never quite stick; indeed that thread feels particularly rote, even though it relates directly into the realisations of how to resolve their loop.

Nadia: Let’s fuck this party in the mouth!

Structurally, the season is solid, however; it isn’t until episode six that we learn Alan doesn’t recall how he died. And then in the seventh that Nadia comes to the realisation she needs to forgive herself for rejecting her mother (Chloe Sevigny), while Alan needs to let go of losing Bea (Dascha Polanco). The problem here is that, after all the build-up – that vital extended running time a series can offer – this can’t help but feel slightly underwhelming, emotionally underpinned or not – they both need to save each other; people and connections are important; the difference between a lonely life and death and a fully engaged positive embrace of the same – as it’s exactly the kind of thing you’d expect to be the case. Nevertheless, the Sliding Doors, missing-the-right-person finale is well done, Nadia and Alan having to truly exert themselves to ensure the oblivious other is safe, and the final merging of selves under the bridge, amid the procession, is about as good an ending as you could hope for from the material.

Nadia: What do love and morality have in common? Relativity. They’re both relative to your experience.

There’s a sense that Russian Doll could have been bolstered by Damon Lindelof-style theoretical intrigue or diversions on the plot side – The Leftovers is the high water mark for character-focussed storytelling with a genre twist – that might have fuelled the plot more adroitly (as it is, Lyonne is the principle motor); getting excited by Emily of the New Moon is the kind of thing Lindelof of Nic Pizzolatto would throw in to their work, but ultimately it lacks earth-shattering significance or mystique (it’s no Yellow King). Likewise, falling back on computer language to describe their universe (which, after all, is everyone’s favourite means of describing the matrix/ projection/ hologram/ simulation currently) feels very familiar at this point, with Nadia being a programmer an obvious convenience to enable the discussion.

Alan: Do you think we’re dying at the same time?

On the other hand, certain choices definitely aid the flow; keeping the episodes down to a direct 25-30 minutes characterises the show as more of a straightforward, punchy sitcom than the dramedy it is. And that comic touch is very reliable throughout. The humorous deaths are nothing new (even Edge of Tomorrow has them), but continually falling down the same flight of stairs or into an open sidewalk cellar, or into the East River, provides solid slapstick yuks. Occasionally, you think a line is over-written (“Nobody chooses me. I’m an asshole where a choice should be”), only for a later retake to reveal that Mike (Jeremy Lowell Bobb) has self-scripted it for suitable occasions, so of course it is.

It’s admirable to have a positive message floating your time loop narrative – after all, the reigning champ Groundhog Day is the king of that – but if you’re going to tackle this subgenre you really need to arm yourself with something else besides. Bill Murray is the bitter pill that helps the sentiment go down in that movie, without adverse side effects. The most recent notables managed it (Edge of Tomorrow, Happy Death Day) by having a keen take on their particular principle genres (SF and horror respectively), but ultimately, I don’t think Russian Doll quite manages to set itself apart or has quite enough narrative drive to sustain its length. Maybe season two will propel it into the realm of greatness.



Agree? Disagree? Mildly or vehemently? Let me know in the comments below.

Popular posts from this blog

Your Mickey Mouse is one big stupid dope!

Enemy Mine (1985) (SPOILERS) The essential dynamic of Enemy Mine – sworn enemies overcome their differences to become firm friends – was a well-ploughed one when it was made, such that it led to TV Tropes assuming, since edited, that it took its title from an existing phrase (Barry Longyear, author of the 1979 novella, made it up, inspired by the 1961 David Niven film The Best of Enemies ). The Film Yearbook Volume 5 opined that that Wolfgang Petersen’s picture “ lacks the gritty sauciness of Hell in the Pacific”; John Boorman’s WWII film stranded Lee Marvin and Toshiro Mifune on a desert island and had them first duking it out before becoming reluctant bedfellows. Perhaps germanely, both movies were box office flops.

If I do nothing else, I will convince them that Herbert Stempel knows what won the goddam Academy Award for Best goddam Picture of 1955. That’s what I’m going to accomplish.

Quiz Show (1994) (SPOILERS) Quiz Show perfectly encapsulates a certain brand of Best Picture nominee: the staid, respectable, diligent historical episode, a morality tale in response to which the Academy can nod their heads approvingly and discerningly, feeding as it does their own vainglorious self-image about how times and attitudes have changed, in part thanks to their own virtuousness. Robert Redford’s film about the 1950s Twenty-One quiz show scandals is immaculately made, boasts a notable cast and is guided by a strong screenplay from Paul Attanasio (who, on television, had just created the seminal Homicide: Life on the Streets ), but it lacks that something extra that pushes it into truly memorable territory.

Other monks will meet their deaths here. And they too will have blackened fingers. And blackened tongues.

The Name of the Rose (1986) (SPOILERS) Umberto Eco wasn’t awfully impressed by Jean Jacques-Annaud’s adaptation of his novel – or “ palimpsest of Umberto Eco’s novel ” as the opening titles announce – to the extent that he nixed further movie versions of his work. Later, he amended that view, calling it “ a nice movie ”. He also, for balance, labelled The Name of the Rose his worst novel – “ I hate this book and I hope you hate it too ”. Essentially, he was begrudging its renown at the expense of his later “ superior ” novels. I didn’t hate the novel, although I do prefer the movie, probably because I saw it first and it was everything I wanted from a medieval Sherlock Holmes movie set in a monastery and devoted to forbidden books, knowledge and opinions.

Say hello to the Scream Extractor.

Monsters, Inc. (2001) (SPOILERS) I was never the greatest fan of Monsters, Inc. , even before charges began to be levelled regarding its “true” subtext. I didn’t much care for the characters, and I particularly didn’t like the way Pixar’s directors injected their own parenting/ childhood nostalgia into their plots. Something that just seems to go on with their fare ad infinitum. Which means the Pixars I preferred tended to be the Brad Bird ones. You know, the alleged objectivist. Now, though, we learn Pixar has always been about the adrenochrome, so there’s no going back…

No one can be told what the Matrix is. You have to see it for yourself.

The Matrix  (1999) (SPOILERS) Twenty years on, and the articles are on the defining nature of The Matrix are piling up, most of them touching on how its world has become a reality, or maybe always was one. At the time, its premise was engaging enough, but it was the sum total of the package that cast a spell – the bullet time, the fashions, the soundtrack, the comic book-as-live-action framing and styling – not to mention it being probably the first movie to embrace and reflect the burgeoning Internet ( Hackers doesn’t really count), and subsequently to really ride the crest of the DVD boom wave. And now? Now it’s still really, really good.

All the world will be your enemy, Prince with a Thousand Enemies.

Watership Down (1978) (SPOILERS) I only read Watership Down recently, despite having loved the film from the first, and I was immediately impressed with how faithful, albeit inevitably compacted, Martin Rosen’s adaptation is. It manages to translate the lyrical, mythic and metaphysical qualities of Richard Adams’ novel without succumbing to dumbing down or the urge to cater for a broader or younger audience. It may be true that parents are the ones who get most concerned over the more disturbing elements of the picture but, given the maturity of the content, it remains a surprise that, as with 2001: A Space Odyssey (which may on the face of it seem like an odd bedfellow), this doesn’t garner a PG certificate. As the makers noted, Watership Down is at least in part an Exodus story, but the biblical implications extend beyond Hazel merely leading his fluffle to the titular promised land. There is a prevalent spiritual dimension to this rabbit universe, one very much

Piece by piece, the camel enters the couscous.

The Forgiven (2021) (SPOILERS) By this point, the differences between filmmaker John Michael McDonagh and his younger brother, filmmaker and playwright Martin McDonagh, are fairly clearly established. Both wear badges of irreverence and provocation in their writing, and a willingness to tackle – or take pot-shots – at bigger issues, ones that may find them dangling their toes in hot water. But Martin receives the lion’s share of the critical attention, while John is generally recognised as the slightly lesser light. Sure, some might mistake Seven Psychopaths for a John movie, and Calvary for a Martin one, but there’s a more flagrant sense of attention seeking in John’s work, and concomitantly less substance. The Forgiven is clearly aiming more in the expressly substantial vein of John’s earlier Calvary, but it ultimately bears the same kind of issues in delivery.

In a few moments, you will have an experience that will seem completely real. It will be the result of your subconscious fears transformed into your conscious awareness.

Brainstorm (1983) (SPOILERS) Might Brainstorm have been the next big thing – a ground-breaking, game-changing cinematic spectacle that had as far reaching consequences as Star Wars (special effects) or Avatar (3D) – if only Douglas Trumbull had been allowed to persevere with his patented “Showscan” process (70mm film photographed and projected at 60 frames per second)? I suspect not; one only has to look at the not-so-far-removed experiment of Ang Lee with Billy Lynn’s Long Halftime Walk , and how that went down like a bag of cold sick, to doubt that any innovation will necessarily catch on (although Trumbull at least had a narrative hinge on which to turn his “more real than real” imagery, whereas Lee’s pretty much boiled down to “because it was there”). Brainstorm ’s story is, though, like its title, possibly too cerebral, too much concerned with the consciousness and touting too little of the cloyingly affirmative that Bruce Rubin inevitably brings to his screenplays. T

Maybe the dingo ate your baby.

Seinfeld 2.9: The Stranded The Premise George and Elaine are stranded at a party in Long Island, with a disgruntled hostess.

He tasks me. He tasks me, and I shall have him.

Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan (1982) (SPOILERS) I don’t love Star Trek , but I do love Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan . That probably isn’t just me, but a common refrain of many a non-devotee of the series. Although, it used to apply to The Voyage Home (the funny one, with the whales, the Star Trek even the target audience for Three Men and a Baby could enjoy). Unfortunately, its high regard has also become the desperate, self-destructive, song-and-verse, be-all-and-end-all of the overlords of the franchise itself, in whichever iteration, it seems. This is understandable to an extent, as Khan is that rare movie sequel made to transcendent effect on almost every level, and one that stands the test of time every bit as well (better, even) as when it was first unveiled.