L'attivista conservatrice Phyllis Schlafly conduce una lotta inaspettata contro il movimento per la modifica della parità dei diritti durante gli anni '70.L'attivista conservatrice Phyllis Schlafly conduce una lotta inaspettata contro il movimento per la modifica della parità dei diritti durante gli anni '70.L'attivista conservatrice Phyllis Schlafly conduce una lotta inaspettata contro il movimento per la modifica della parità dei diritti durante gli anni '70.
- Vincitore di 1 Primetime Emmy
- 15 vittorie e 68 candidature totali
Sfoglia gli episodi
Trama
Lo sapevi?
- QuizAndrew Schlafly, the son of Phyllis Schlafly, spoke out against this show through his website Conservapedia, labeling it as fake and nothing more than left wing propaganda. Not all of the program's critics are politically on the right, however: Gloria Steinem, played by Rose Byrne, called it "hopelessly wrong... factually, historically wrong", stating that it was mainly corporate lobbying which slowed the ratification of the Equal Rights Amendment.
- ConnessioniFeatured in Jeremy Vine: Episodio #3.137 (2020)
Recensione in evidenza
In most political tv-dramas ala West Wing there are the good sympathetic side, the pragmatic middle-ground and the evil/greedy/malicious adversaries. Not here. You will at times feel sympathy for both Cate Blanchetts complex portrayal of Shaftlys campaign against the women's liberation movement and disgust at the Pro-ERA proponents that ignore, undermine and fragment themselves in the fight for true equality between the sexes. The conversations are realistic "-Have you read Xs new unamed book? -No. I hear it is boring. -She is always a bore -". Events that we tend to think were front and center in the 70s are not dominating the narrative. Watergate, Vietnam and hippies are not shown to be the centre of the world like in Forrest Gump, rather they are mentioned briefly in passing conversations. Things that were way more discussed then but nearly forgotten today, like SALT and the awkward situation with the political parties in mid-shift is prominent. The conservatives and liberals are not synonyms to the respective parties. We meet the progressive republicans and the chauvinistic democrats. Kudos for showing that. Roe vs Wade is not shown to be the giant battle we think it was today, but rather we are treated to the more bipartisan support it enjoyed. ERA is not shown to be a life or death struggle with a small group of women standing up for it, rather a manifestation of a beginning culture war. There are no heroes, no easy answers or giant victories. This could have been a Wicked witch Shcaffly vs Saint Steinem series. It is not. We see Steinem avoiding picking sides, pedantic infighting, racial unspoken tension, the emergence of lgbtq-struggle, a wide range of christian views from the new evangelicals to the practical pragmatic Catholic mother who shield her gay son in Scafflys case. I love it. Because it does not try to dumb a complicated era down, rather we are shown an era were having a mailing list of 30 000 people was considered a major political asset... and where by-then-standard progressive women still considered it their duty to drive the daughters to tennis-lessons so their husbands could succeed... Where married women debating without their husbands present on television was strange. I am captivated( and also a man), in a way I have not been since Rome was premiering on HBO.
- arne-54177
- 5 mag 2020
- Permalink
I più visti
Accedi per valutare e creare un elenco di titoli salvati per ottenere consigli personalizzati
Dettagli
Contribuisci a questa pagina
Suggerisci una modifica o aggiungi i contenuti mancanti
Divario superiore
What was the official certification given to Mrs. America (2020) in Australia?
Rispondi