Gaslit

Watching Julia Roberts not intentionally play Julia Roberts turns out to be quite refreshing now that she appears to be evolving into more of a character actress. She doesn't resemble the real Martha Mitchell except in conveying her outsized personality in this intriguing account of the Watergate break-in and the detrimental ramifications on the Nixon administration. Director Matt Ross appears to take cues from the Real Housewives in his dramatic treatment as cartoonish moments were mixed in effectively with the hidden events and conversations that really did occur. Under layers of latex, Sean Penn makes for an appropriately coiled John Mitchell, while Dan Steele looks to be on hyperdrive as John Dean. More entertaining than I expected, especially when the fallout gains momentum toward the end of episode 2.

The ads got me and I subscribed to Starz just to see this. How could a cast like this be bad? Well, it can't. I am really happy to say it's off to a great start. The cast is awesome and Martha Mitchell deserved better than she got. I love the photography and the gratuitous nudity. I also like the TV shots. Go Martha. Good luck. Hope it's a big success. This cast can't fail. So far it has a 5.1 rating. Don't believe it. If you don't like this, you just don't get it.

What has grabed me by the collar, in this series, is that I find myself wanting, wishing, needing for the plot to be different for the outcome, the fate, of Martha Mitchell. She saw the truth but her husband was too corrupt, too much into the game, too controling to let her speak. And she was too firmly imbeded into his talons to see a way out.

If what I have seen is all true . . . How sad for our nation! Politics is not for honest people. And if the Nixon administration was this psychologically sick then the situation has only become worse.

Some scenes are very brutal - both psychologically and physically.

This was, overall, a nice watch. Well acted and well written and I'm always a sucker for well designed and appointed period pieces. Julia has enough of the elements to remind me of the actual historical figure she's playing and I bet, coming from Georgia, she's familiar with the type. It feels like it.

But they make a key mistake I have trouble brushing away and, honestly, I don't want to: they whitewash the unpleasant parts of the woman this is about, who had views ranging from unpleasant to outright bigoted that she was just as open and loud about. By rewriting, ignoring, and washing away those parts of her we're denied the honest, complicated, powerful portrait of a flawed woman of her time who did such an important and ultimately honorable thing.

There's no reason to make her a hero to the point when people go to research her they are surprised and put off. The kind of complicated character we're talking about is pure awards-bait for actors and writers. Think of Mare of Easttown, for example, Ray Donovan, even Archie Bunker. A character does not need to be all good or all bad or purely likeable to be compelling and even respectable for the good things they did do. They really missed the boat on that part.

So far so good but big important question: where are John Dean's big hornrimmed glasses?? I am old enough to have been a young adult during this pivotal time in history. What is super ironic to me is how the very "scandalous " events that took down an administration and changed political history back in 1974 are in current times not worthy of even a second thought. It's all pretty much how it's done these days. God help us, we are living in a sad and very scary era 😳