Reviews

I expected much more when it comes to depicting the reality of media conglomerate family and its dealing with management, corporate financing and ruling over other bussinessess and people. In everyday life,people are pretty much familiarized with, how the particular media (from CNN, FOX news etc.) works from within, e.g. its hierarchical structure (from CEO, executive director to editors and journalists). However, what we do not get to see is another, superior realm of media, that is dynamics of global media corporations and its competition and/or monopoly and who gets he biggest piece of media pie and can control other sectors (from politics, NGOs to private sector). What we get to see is just a glimpse of family dynamics and a individual greed of family members to occupy a position of power to gain a monopoly over others. What is lacking in the show is the bussiness aspect of how the media corporations have a power over the people and public opinion. In other words, if the show is presenting the most powerful family which has a monopoly in media bussiness, it does not focus on structure of capitalism and politics. Although the show revolves around important topic, which is actual in our concrete reality, it does not (or cannot) take a further step to disclose the reality of media corporations, its financial and corporate actions with other bussinesses and its ideological influence over people ( what we get to see, nonetheless, is that the family is far-right positioned in political ideological spectrum). The basis of show's popularity is, without a doubt, media bussiness sector. However, the content is under-developed without any substantial story. The only thing what si left is the story of bourgeois family within which its members are fighting around the master-slave circle. However, this depiction of family dynamics, its corruption and conflicts, is nothing new and original in Hollywood.

I haven't seen for a long time such a horrible show since Sex and the city movies. Although it started well, from episode to episode it lost every aspect of quality; cliches, stereotypes of arrogant americans, poor acting are just few of the things that one has struggle watching the show till the end. However, if there is one thing which is worth watching, is Paris and the french landscape. So, if the wiever cannot go to Paris, at least he can see what he is missing.

I've been a fan of the show mainly because it entertwines the pragmatism of everyday political life and the political ideas which are worth fighting for. It shows, on a daily basics, that the ideas od democracy, freedom and human rights are always at a position of negation, even by the politicians who are suppossed to fighting for them. The show is making that explicit in every episode. However, till the final season, the show, in a one way or another, tells the narrative that the foundation of democracy is still unshakeable and something the people can rely on. It almost always concludes with the ideals of the rule of law and justice for all. Final season, however, goes at its extreemes. It revolves around the only motive of winning, no matter what it takes. The shows cynicism and pessimism goes to its extreemes. It's about individual take on power and on sacrifices she made to coming to, so as a consequence she must deserve it. And she (officialy) did. Maybe the real american politics sure influenced the show, in a post-Trump era. Nevertheless, it definitely gives the wrong message. It shows that the checks and balances are no longer in function and that there is some sort of anarchy in politics itself, and we should all except it. This extreeme cynicism of politics that the final season represents I find dangerous, especially in our global situation. It basically tells us that nothing is worth fighting for and gives us the reason to stay apolitical - that the important issues, such as economic equality, the 99%, the workers rights, the self-determination of the people etc., are not something we can have influence. All that is left are minor issues at hand in which we can dwell, and out of boredom we can mobilize ourselves for (animal rights issues, veganism, etc). To conclude briefly, I defnitely expected more from the last season!, because the final overall message has definitely important impact on the audience.

So dissapointed with the show ... the actors / characters 10 years older are trying to fit in those 10 years younger ... there is sort of uneasyness in watching the show ... not only that the stories are unrealistic, even are too theatrical as though they are playing in theater and not on television ... maybe the reason is that the show is live infront of the audience but they could sure speed up with what they are speaking .... ... but the biggest dissapontment is, for those who remember the previous season, that the new episodes are repeating the old ones .... In short, characters are playing themselves as if the world has not changed and nor have they ... ans the stories in episodes are somewhat like you are watching the movie Groundhog day

After first couple of episodes I find the show very out of touch with reality. The show concerns a psychotherapist (Naomi Watts) who gets entangled in the private lives of her patients. She basically wants to know, at least in the beginning, if their patients are honest; she wants to know the truth. Here is the first problem; psychotherapist is and should never be interested or analyze the truth about their patients. It is the experiences and feelings of the patients and the narrative in which they are brought out of that are important for analysis and not whether it is the truth - no experiential narrative is truthful, but it is always a retroactive fantasy precisely because it is subjective - a subjective perspective of our own lives. Naomi Watts basically breaks all standard ethical rules of a psychotherapist. Although I don't have practical experience in therapy, I just hope that real life therapies are nothing like that. The other thing that is also highly problematic in the series is sexual identity. The show takes the sexual identity of a child at 8 years old as something which should not be questioned and taken into account but should evolve in a natural way, whatever the path will take. This is typical ideology of our times, of letting things take its natural course with children; in other words, parents shouldn't get involved, so even the word parenting looses its meaning. Apart from that, it is nevertheless watchable.