रूढ़िवादी कार्यकर्ता फ़ीलियस श्लाफ़्लाए 1970 के दशक के दौरान समान अधिकार संशोधन आंदोलन के खिलाफ एक अप्रत्याशित लड़ाई का नेतृत्व करती है.रूढ़िवादी कार्यकर्ता फ़ीलियस श्लाफ़्लाए 1970 के दशक के दौरान समान अधिकार संशोधन आंदोलन के खिलाफ एक अप्रत्याशित लड़ाई का नेतृत्व करती है.रूढ़िवादी कार्यकर्ता फ़ीलियस श्लाफ़्लाए 1970 के दशक के दौरान समान अधिकार संशोधन आंदोलन के खिलाफ एक अप्रत्याशित लड़ाई का नेतृत्व करती है.
- 1 प्राइमटाइम एमी जीते
- 11 जीत और कुल 65 नामांकन
एपिसोड ब्राउज़ करें
फ़ीचर्ड समीक्षाएं
I always want to like Cate Blanchett. She's an amazing actress that chooses strong rolls. This is no different, except that I disagree with everything this character stands for. She is strong and straightforward and stands out in her time, in ALL THE WAYS I DISAGREE WITH. That being said it is amazing, stunning, unprecedented acting. She is THE BEST front runner for intelligence and ignorance at the same time! Maybe ignorance is not correct but blind faith in an outdated and unacceptable view is better said. While I aggressively disagree with her views As a character, the acting is undeniably phenomenal. The rest of the cast is also amazing and emotional, but none of them hold a candle to Blanchett. She true is the force that runs this emotional, controversial program. Agree or disagree (hopefully disagree) politically, it is an amazing piece of work. I hope the dissension is what they planned to evoke and if so... WELL DONE.
Phyllis Schlafly was a staunch conservative who stood in the way of women's rights as well as other civil movements like gay rights.
She is not the hero of this story and that's what makes the series so compelling. You get the story from many sides and each actress portrays their part with amazing talent that leaves you wanting to learn more.
I suppose the strong performances could be why some users like Liberius mistake the portrayal of individuals like Phyllis Schlafly as supporters of female empowerment when in reality she stood in the way of progress, not with facts but through charisma alone.
She is not the hero of this story and that's what makes the series so compelling. You get the story from many sides and each actress portrays their part with amazing talent that leaves you wanting to learn more.
I suppose the strong performances could be why some users like Liberius mistake the portrayal of individuals like Phyllis Schlafly as supporters of female empowerment when in reality she stood in the way of progress, not with facts but through charisma alone.
As a woman who is old enough to remember the events in this series, I can say most of it is true. And as a New Yorker, it brings back memories. Despite a few reviewers who claim this is a 'disgusting' and false portrayal of the early 70s women's movement, sorry, they are wrong. And if they look at Wikipedia's entry of Phyllis Schlafly, they will learn.
This is a very entertaining and important series, don't miss it.
This was a typically well done and entertaining FX miniseries with no dull, time extending filler. The cast is top notch. My one issue was the twisting of the truth in regards to the Tom Snyder interview. I found it unnecessary and irresponsible. I am definitely pro women's rights and equality and I feel the cause is so worthy there is no need to twist the facts.
Sophisticated look at multiple perspectives on women's rights. Still relevant today.
क्या आपको पता है
- ट्रिवियाAndrew 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.
- कनेक्शनFeatured in Jeremy Vine: एपिसोड #3.137 (2020)
टॉप पसंद
रेटिंग देने के लिए साइन-इन करें और वैयक्तिकृत सुझावों के लिए वॉचलिस्ट करें
विवरण
इस पेज में योगदान दें
किसी बदलाव का सुझाव दें या अनुपलब्ध कॉन्टेंट जोड़ें