Skip to main content

It turns out it’s not all Cabbage Patch Kids and cocaine.

Russian Doll
Season 2

(SPOILERS) Russian Doll’s first season started off going great guns, before failing to stick the landing. This unnecessary – in as much as nothing about the original demanded more, beyond it proving something of a hit for Netflix, not least critically – second run doesn’t have that problem, mostly because it never even clears the runway.

Nadia: Well, inexplicable things happening is my entire modus operandi.

If in doubt, revert to a Quantum Leap/Back to the Future time-travel premise, by way of… er, that Nicholas Lyndhurst series (Goodnight, Sweetheart). This time, Nadia (Natasha Lyonne) and Alan (Charlie Barnett) find themselves travelling back in time via the New York subway’s 6 Train. Nadia first visits 1982, then 1962, and then further back still, to 1944, as she takes generational leaps in attempts to solve her own familial disorders (this may also reflect, partially, Dark as an influence). Alan, meanwhile, spends most of his time in 1962 East Berlin, inhabiting his grandmother’s body as she dates a man called Lenny (who plans to burrow under the Berlin Wall… I know).

Alan: How, with all the time-travel stories about people accidentally obliterating themselves, do you find a way to make yourself double?

Alan has grown a moustache, which gives him a little more presence this time out, but not a lot; he’s in absolutely no danger of stealing the limelight from Nadia. Indeed, Carolyn Michelle Smith makes a significantly greater impression during her limited appearances as his alter/gran (Chloë Sevigny has no chance stealing the limelight from Lyonne in her comparable role, though). Further, Alan’s barely in the season until the fourth episode, such that you probably correctly get the impression that, like the first season, the character’s inclusion was more about filler than genuinely investing in him and having a story to tell.

Not that Nadia’s is hugely persuasive either, this time. Perhaps I’m a little fatigued with Lyonne, as a little of her schtick – like Joan Rivers chugging gravel – goes a long way. Season One sustained itself as long as it did thanks to a degree of WTF. There’s no such luck here, as it’s immediately evidently this is about coming to terms with one’s heritage/parentage (and extended parentage) that never engages beyond a passing interest, if that.

Heavily pregnant 1982 mom is a slapper, addicted to drugs and creeps (Sharlto Copley cast to type as a sleazoid). Drawing on both her actual grandparentage and Hollywood’s number one favourite staple – the Holocaust – much of Nadia’s efforts go towards attempting to ensure the family inheritance of gold Krugerrands doesn’t go astray. Inevitably, this being a causal time-travel plot, rather than allowing divergent timelines, anything she does – barring bringing herself back to the present – simply causes the events she knows.

At one point, Nadia comments – amid pithy Schindler’s List references – that she will “celebrate my birth by going back to where all my people died”; I mean, sheesh. Raiding the Holocaust for a plot is exactly as sincere and uncynical as that sounds. And not at all lazy. Having made all that show of her roots, Lyonne then delivers a fantasy-land World War II in 5: Exquisite Corpse, like she’s been taking notes on verisimilitude from Chris Carter’s Triangle X-Files episode.

The proceedings are replete with ’80s New York tropes – Guardian Angels, punks, scummy streets and graffiti-plastered subways – and music (much of it also to be found in Atomic Blonde). I guess you can give it the credit of a certain grimy sheen.

Lyonne and her collaborators are ever keen to show their smarts, so not only are the episodes littered with pop culture references, to time travel and period, they’re also full of conceptual and literary allusions. Nadia references epigenetics as a potential justification for her foibles but knowingly caveats that its proponent Francis Galton was the father of eugenics. The Crazy Eddie employee (Malachi Nimmons) tells her he contributes to a fanzine on the subject of commodity fetishism and the Debordian Spectacle (a Marxist philosophical treatise that real life has been replaced by the representation thereof); you can’t get more materialist than the streets of NYC. And just to reassure us the crazy encounters and goings-on she experiences are entirely humanist in nature, the employee asks Nadia “You’re not a creationist, are you?” She replies to the affirmative (“Wouldn’t it be nice to have someone to blame?”)

Russian Doll is a show that wears hedonism on its chin – for all that it might be seen as a warning of unchecked debauchery, let’s not kid ourselves that, with its hard-drinking, chain-smoking, substance abuse to a giddy, montage-inspiring soundtrack, it isn’t embracing the same wholeheartedly. Lyonne knows a thing or two about excess, obviously, and you’re left wondering about a range of the remarks, imputations and dialogue here. She was, after all, a child actress, and she’d later comment “… it’s kind of a wacky idea to put your child in business at six years old”.

Hence, we are told of Nadia’s experiences “Trauma is a topographical map written on the child, and it takes a lifetime to read”. We’re presumably invited to read further into the statement. At one point, “Hungarian god” Kristof holds forth on the origins of acid, while observing “We weren’t allowed to study LSD, as it was deigned too dangerous for a communist country”. You mean, the KGB weren’t running their own equivalent of MKUltra with it, unlike the CIA? Trauma, trauma. At another juncture, Nadia tells us the Nazis were broke and drug-addicted speed freaks – she read a book about it (I’m assuming this is referring to Norman Ohler’s Blitzed).

Nadia: A little respect for the Butterfly Effect.

Elsewhere, being a product of Hollywood 2022, Russian Doll makes sure to muster the requisite progressive allusions. Alan, experiencing an attraction to a man while in the body of Agnes, embodies a quasi-surrogate trans metaphor. “Oh boy” as Sam Beckett would say. There’s a glimmer of interest early in 7: Matryoshka, when Nadia experiences a “fucking time bomb” after returning with her tiny-tot self and multiples of herself and others begin appearing in the same vicinity and time; this Escher-esque recursion briefly musters interest visually, but the proceedings quickly reduce to faux-surrealism, as Nadia and Alan are hit by duelling trains and fall into flooded rooms. Nadia being confronted by the question “If you could choose your mother all over again, would you choose me?” didn’t need seven episodes to resolve. At least they were short.

The other part of the season that stood out was the occult referencing. “We’re Ashkenazi Jews, not wizards” (nor, presumably, Turks). “Why do you disgrace this enchantment?” asks someone, mistranslating (“What is this, the occult?” responds Nadia) “Goodnight, Hail Satan” intone the staff at the pawn shop. Appearing on a TV screen in the Crazy Eddie feedback loop, Nadia dutifully signals the all-seeing eye/eye of Lucifer. Later, at a grave, she appears to be approximating an Illuminati sign as she holds her lapels. In a strangle of mixed metaphors, Alan tells his friend “No Nadia, you cannot uncook that baby”. I’m sure Marina Abramovitch would agree. The season itself ends with the death of Ruth, her funeral/wake taking place on April 30, the beginning of Beltane. Hmmm. Probably all coincidence, right?

Nadia: Basic concepts like time and space are suddenly eluding me.

Mostly, Russian Doll Season Two goes where many other sequels have. They didn’t really sustain a follow up either – Robocop, Die Hard, Shrek, you name it – so they’re left tilting rather hopeless at reheated tricks missing the essential tension of the first go round. Obviously, though, whether or not there’s a Season Three will have nothing to do with quality and everything with how Netflix’s figures – taking a tumble since they’re upping their prices while ridding themselves of Russians, rather than dolls – fare.

Popular posts from this blog

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.

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.

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.

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

I’m just the balloon man.

Copshop (2021) (SPOILERS) A consistent problem with Joe Carnahan’s oeuvre is that, no matter how confidently his movies begin, or how strong his premise, or how adept his direction or compelling the performances he extracts, he ends up blowing it. He blows it with Copshop , a ’70s-inspired variant on Assault on Precinct 13 that is pretty damn good during the first hour, before devolving into his standard mode of sado-nihilistic mayhem.

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.

Twenty dwarves took turns doing handstands on the carpet.

Bugsy (1991) (SPOILERS) Bugsy is very much a Warren Beatty vanity project (aren’t they all, even the ones that don’t seem that way on the surface?), to the extent of his playing a title character a decade and a half younger than him. As such, it makes sense that producer Warren’s choice of director wouldn’t be inclined to overshadow star Warren, but the effect is to end up with a movie that, for all its considerable merits (including a script from James Toback chock full of incident), never really feels quite focussed, that it’s destined to lead anywhere, even if we know where it’s going.

When we have been subtle, then can I kill him?

The Avengers 6.16. Legacy of Death There’s scarcely any crediting the Terry Nation of Noon-Doomsday as the same Terry Nation that wrote this, let alone the Terry Nation churning out a no-frills Dalek story a season for the latter stages of the Jon Pertwee era. Of course, Nation had started out as a comedy writer (for Hancock), and it may be that the kick Brian Clemens gave him up the pants in reaction to the quality of Noon-Doomsday loosened a whole load of gags. Admittedly, a lot of them are well worn, but they come so thick and fast in Legacy of Death , accompanied by an assuredly giddy pace from director Don Chaffey (of Ray Harryhausen’s Jason and the Argonauts ) and a fine ensemble of supporting players, that it would be churlish to complain.

Tippy-toe! Tippy-toe!

Seinfeld 2.7: The Phone Message The Premise George and Jerry both have dates on the same night. Neither goes quite as planned, and in George’s case it results in him leaving an abusive message on his girlfriend’s answerphone. The only solution is to steal the tape before she plays it. Observational Further evidence of the gaping chasm between George and Jerry’s approaches to the world. George neurotically attacks his problems and makes them worse, while Jerry shrugs and lets them go. It’s nice to see the latter’s anal qualities announcing themselves, however; he’s so bothered that his girlfriend likes a terrible TV advert that he’s mostly relieved when she breaks things off (“ To me the dialogue rings true ”). Neither Gretchen German (as Donna, Jerry’s date) nor Tory Polone (as Carol, George’s) make a huge impression, but German has more screen time and better dialogue. The main attraction is Jerry’s reactions, which include trying to impress her with hi