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.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

She was addicted to Tums for a while.

Marriage Story (2019)
(SPOILERS) I don’t tend to fall heavily for Noah Baumbach fare. He’s undoubtedly a distinctive voice – even if his collaborations with Wes Anderson are the least of that director’s efforts – but his devotion to an exclusive, rarefied New York bubble becomes ever more off-putting with each new project. And ever more identifiable as being a lesser chronicler of the city’s privileged quirks than his now disinherited forbear Woody Allen, who at his peak mastered a balancing act between the insightful, hilarious and self-effacing. Marriage Story finds Baumbach going yet again where Woody went before, this time brushing up against the director’s Ingmar Bergman fixation.

You're not only wrong. You're wrong at the top of your voice.

Bad Day at Black Rock (1955)
I’ve seen comments suggesting that John Sturges’ thriller hasn’t aged well, which I find rather mystifying. Sure, some of the characterisations border on the cardboard, but the director imbues the story with a taut, economical backbone. 

Poor Easy Breezy.

Once Upon a Time… in Hollywood (2019)
(SPOILERS) My initial reaction to Once Upon a Time… in Hollywood was mild disbelief that Tarantino managed to hoodwink studios into coming begging to make it, so wilfully perverse is it in disregarding any standard expectations of narrative or plotting. Then I remembered that studios, or studios that aren’t Disney, are desperate for product, and more especially, product that might guarantee them a hit. Quentin’s latest appears to be that, but whether it’s a sufficient one to justify the expense of his absurd vanity project remains to be seen.

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.

Haven’t you ever heard of the healing power of laughter?

Batman (1989)
(SPOILERS) There’s Jaws, there’s Star Wars, and then there’s Batman in terms of defining the modern blockbuster. Jaws’ success was so profound, it changed the way movies were made and marketed. Batman’s marketing was so profound, it changed the way tentpoles would be perceived: as cash cows. Disney tried to reproduce the effect the following year with Dick Tracy, to markedly less enthusiastic response. None of this places Batman in the company of Jaws as a classic movie sold well, far from it. It just so happened to hit the spot. As Tim Burton put it, it was “more of a cultural phenomenon than a great movie”. It’s difficult to disagree with his verdict that the finished product (for that is what it is) is “mainly boring”.

Now, of course, the Burton bat has been usurped by the Nolan incarnation (and soon the Snyder). They have some things in common. Both take the character seriously and favour a sombre tone, which was much more of shock to the system when Burton did it (even…

My name is Dr. King Schultz, this is my valet, Django, and these are our horses, Fritz, and Tony.

Django Unchained (2012)
(MINOR SPOILERS) Since the painful misstep of Grindhouse/Death Proof, Quentin Tarantino has regained the higher ground like never before. Pulp Fiction, his previous commercial and critical peak, has been at very least equalled by the back-to-back hits of Inglourious Basterds and Django Unchained. Having been underwhelmed by his post Pulp Fiction efforts (albeit, I admired his technical advances as a director in Kill Bill), I was pleasantly surprised by Inglourious Basterds. It was no work of genius (so not Pulp Fiction) by any means, but there was a gleeful irreverence in its treatment of history and even to the nominal heroic status of its titular protagonists. Tonally, it was a good fit for the director’s “cool” aesthetic. As a purveyor of postmodern pastiche, where the surface level is the subtext, in some ways he was operating at his zenith. Django Unchained is a retreat from that position, the director caught in the tug between his all-important aesthetic pr…

Once that first bullet goes past your head, politics and all that shit just goes right out the window.

Black Hawk Down (2001)
(SPOILERS) Black Hawk Down completed a trilogy of hits for Ridley Scott, a run of consistency he’d not seen even a glimmer of hitherto. He was now a brazenly commercial filmmaker, one who could boast big box office under his belt where previously such overt forays had seen mixed results (Black Rain, G.I. Jane). It also saw him strip away the last vestiges of artistic leanings from his persona, leaving behind, it seemed, only technical virtuosity. Scott was now given to the increasingly thick-headed soundbite (“every war movie is an anti-war movie”) in justification for whatever his latest carry-on carried in terms of controversial elements, and more than happy to bed down with the Pentagon (long-standing collaborators with producer Jerry Bruckheimer) to make a movie that, while depictinga less than auspicious intervention by the US military (“Based on an Actual Event” is a marvellous catch-all for wanton fabrication), managed to turn it into a parade of heroes pe…

To defeat the darkness out there, you must defeat the darkness inside yourself.

The Chronicles of Narnia: The Voyage of the Dawn Treader (2010)
Easily the best of the Narnia films, which is maybe damning it with faint praise. 

Michael Apted does a competent job directing (certainly compared to his Bond film - maybe he talked to his second unit this time), Dante Spinotti's cinematography is stunning and the CGI mostly well-integrated with the action. 

Performance-wise, Will Poulter is a stand-out as a tremendously obnoxious little toff, so charismatic you're almost rooting for him. Simon Pegg replaces Eddie Izzard as the voice of Reepicheep and delivers a touching performance.
***

Do you read Sutter Cane?

In the Mouth of Madness (1994)
(SPOILERS) The concluding chapter of John Carpenter’s unofficial Apocalypse Trilogy (preceded by The Thing and Prince of Darkness) is also, sadly, his last great movie. Indeed, it stands apart in the qualitative wilderness that beset him during the ‘90s (not for want of output). Michael De Luca’s screenplay had been doing the rounds since the ‘80s, even turned down by Carpenter at one point, and it proves ideal fodder for the director, bringing out the best in him. Even cinematographer Gary K Kibbe seems inspired enough to rise to the occasion. It could do without the chugging rawk soundtrack, perhaps, but then, that was increasingly where Carpenter’s interests resided (as opposed to making decent movies).

Just when I thought I was out... they pull me back in.