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 writes Twilight fan fiction.

Vampire Academy (2014)
My willingness to give writer Daniel Waters some slack on the grounds of early glories sometimes pays off (Sex and Death 101) and sometimes, as with this messy and indistinct Young Adult adaptation, it doesn’t. If Vampire Academy plods along as a less than innovative smart-mouthed Buffy rip-off that might be because, if you added vampires to Heathers, you would probably get something not so far from the world of Joss Whedon. Unfortunately inspiration is a low ebb throughout, not helped any by tepid direction from Daniel’s sometimes-reliable brother Mark and a couple of hopelessly plankish leads who do their best to dampen down any wit that occasionally attempts to surface.

I can only presume there’s a never-ending pile of Young Adult fiction poised for big screen failure, all of it comprising multi-novel storylines just begging for a moment in the Sun. Every time an adaptation crashes and burns (and the odds are that they will) another one rises, hydra-like, hoping…

Our very strength incites challenge. Challenge incites conflict. And conflict... breeds catastrophe.

The MCU Ranked Worst to Best

Why would I turn into a filing cabinet?

Captain Marvel (2019)
(SPOILERS) All superhero movies are formulaic to a greater or lesser degree. Mostly greater. The key to an actually great one – or just a pretty good one – is making that a virtue, rather than something you’re conscious of limiting the whole exercise. The irony of the last two stand-alone MCU pictures is that, while attempting to bring somewhat down-the-line progressive cachet to the series, they’ve delivered rather pedestrian results. Of course, that didn’t dim Black Panther’s cultural cachet (and what do I know, swathes of people also profess to loving it), and Captain Marvel has hit half a billion in its first few days – it seems that, unless you’re poor unloved Ant-Man, an easy $1bn is the new $700m for the MCU – but neither’s protagonist really made that all-important iconic impact.

Can you float through the air when you smell a delicious pie?

Spider-Man: Into the Spider-Verse (2018)
(SPOILERS) Ironically, given the source material, think I probably fell into the category of many who weren't overly disposed to give this big screen Spider-Man a go on the grounds that it was an animation. After all, if it wasn’t "good enough" for live-action, why should I give it my time? Not even Phil Lord and Christopher Miller's pedigree wholly persuaded me; they'd had their stumble of late, although admittedly in that live-action arena. As such, it was only the near-unanimous critics' approval that swayed me, suggesting I'd have been missing out. They – not always the most reliable arbiters of such populist fare, which made the vote of confidence all the more notable – were right. Spider-Man: Into the Spider-Verse is not only a first-rate Spider-Man movie, it's a fresh, playful and (perhaps) surprisingly heartfelt origins story.

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…

Only an idiot sees the simple beauty of life.

Forrest Gump (1994)
(SPOILERS) There was a time when I’d have made a case for, if not greatness, then Forrest Gump’s unjust dismissal from conversations regarding its merits. To an extent, I still would. Just not nearly so fervently. There’s simply too much going on in the picture to conclude that the manner in which it has generally been received is the end of the story. Tarantino, magnanimous in the face of Oscar defeat, wasn’t entirely wrong when he suggested to Robert Zemeckis that his was a, effectively, subversive movie. Its problem, however, is that it wants to have its cake and eat it.

Basically, you’re saying marriage is just a way of getting out of an embarrassing pause in conversation?

Four Weddings and a Funeral (1994)
(SPOILERS) There can be a cumulative effect from revisiting a movie where one glaring element does not fit, however well-judged or integrated everything else is; the error is only magnified, and seems even more of a miscalculation. With Groundhog Day, there’s a workaround to the romance not working, which is that the central conceit of reliving your day works like a charm and the love story is ultimately inessential to the picture’s success. In the case of Four Weddings and a Funeral, if the romance doesn’t work… Well, you’ve still got three other weddings, and you’ve got a funeral. But our hero’s entire purpose is to find that perfect match, and what he winds up with is Andie McDowell. One can’t help thinking he’d have been better off with Duck Face (Anna Chancellor).

Stupid adult hands!

Shazam! (2019)
(SPOILERS) Shazam! is exactly the kind of movie I hoped it would be, funny, scary (for kids, at least), smart and delightfully dumb… until the final act. What takes place there isn’t a complete bummer, but right now, it does pretty much kill any interest I have in a sequel.

Rejoice! The broken are the more evolved. Rejoice.

Split (2016)
(SPOILERS) M Night Shyamalan went from the toast of twist-based filmmaking to a one-trick pony to the object of abject ridicule in the space of only a couple of pictures: quite a feat. Along the way, I’ve managed to miss several of his pictures, including his last, The Visit, regarded as something of a re-locating of his footing in the low budget horror arena. Split continues that genre readjustment, another Blumhouse production, one that also manages to bridge the gap with the fare that made him famous. But it’s a thematically uneasy film, marrying shlock and serious subject matter in ways that don’t always quite gel.

Shyamalan has seized on a horror staple – nubile teenage girls in peril, prey to a psychotic antagonist – and, no doubt with the best intentions, attempted to warp it. But, in so doing, he has dragged in themes and threads from other, more meritable fare, with the consequence that, in the end, the conflicting positions rather subvert his attempts at subversion…

Do not mention the Tiptoe Man ever again.

Glass (2019)
(SPOILERS) If nothing else, one has to admire M Night Shyamalan’s willingness to plough ahead regardless with his straight-faced storytelling, taking him into areas that encourage outright rejection or merciless ridicule, with all the concomitant charges of hubris. Reactions to Glass have been mixed at best, but mostly more characteristic of the period he plummeted from his must-see, twist-master pedestal (during the period of The Village and The Happening), which is to say quite scornful. And yet, this is very clearly the story he wanted to tell, so if he undercuts audience expectations and leaves them dissatisfied, it’s most definitely not a result of miscalculation on his part. For my part, while I’d been prepared for a disappointment on the basis of the critical response, I came away very much enjoying the movie, by and large.