mmaggiano

The hamhanded writing and generalized acting of episode 1.4 are enough of a failure that I'm not sure what the goal was. However this episode was supposed to play off of film noir resulted in failure. Goldberg, Huyck and Rogan's interaction with the genre is neither homage nor lampooning nor deconstruction nor update. It's not even a middle finger at the genre. It's maybe a kind of tiktokification where for a few seconds here and there, it checks off the top superficial tropes of noir (trenchcoat, hat, venetian blinds) and meanwhile chops through plot. Given how lovingly episodes 1-3 of The Studio played with other film styles, some kind of laziness or disinterest or rank overconfidence must have been at work in episode 4.

There are a few moments where the visuals join in on the failure, from shot sequences to lighting and color grade (namely the exterior night shot of Matt and Sal driving).

The scenes and bits don't work, neither comedically nor to ground the episode. We are left with a plot that must be gotten through. Several forced bits stand out: getting Matt into a trenchcoat and hat, characters narrating to themselves, the furtive exchange with PA Fred, and the big reveal with Olivia Wilde.

Episodes 1-3 were a pleasant surprise for someone who doesn't think much of the creative talents of Rogen and Goldberg. They won me over.

Episode 4 doesn't bode well for the rest of the series.

The writers of this show have haphazardly mixed anachronistic dialogue and character sensibilities into nearly every scene. If deliberate, nothing about its use seems to be an artistic device of one kind or another, like the playful anachronism of Marie Antoinette or Bridgerton, or the retro-remix dialogue of Brick. If the writers had been more ambitious they would have found a way to take 1950s parlance and sensibility and bring it to the understanding of modern audiences. Fear of losing the audience won out over the courage and diligence that better dialogue would have required.

As for the messaging, I wonder if it serves any purpose. I see from other user reviews that those of us who agree with the values behind the messaging are still taxed by the sententiousness of it, while those who disagree with said values would hardly watch a show with this premise. So we're doing all this messaging all the time for the thin slice of viewers who are some combination of a) fence-sitters and b) persuadable by the kind of ham messaging that would receive eyerolls from most teenagers? If this kind of messaging is supposed to be preaching to the choir, there are a lot of us in the choir who would like more sophistication.

It was neither the glamorization of a mid-level drug dealer, or the lame attemps to garner audience sympathy for the "I wish I was him" macho main character that was the final straw for me with this show. Maybe it should have been, as neither was done with much style.

The final straw was when the first episode created a plea deal double cross that does not exist in real life, and did it for apparently no other reason than 'heightening' the drama.

The level of pandering to the "guy's guy" demographic that this show is attempting should be revolting to any actual grown man. I guess Apple TV needed a "guy show".