![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
cjlasky7Okay, I think I've caught up enough to comment...
1. No, Not the Led Zeppelin Song
In the period around World War Two, there were a lot of movies about people dying "before their time" and petitioning Heaven for a second chance at life. Usually, it was the screwup of an apprentice angel who wasn't good at his job, and our hero would take his case to the celestial courts and win his second chance. (My favorite of these movies is 1946's "A Matter of Life and Death," better known in the states as "Stairway to Heaven.")
I guess in that tumultuous era, people needed to know that the universe still made sense, that even if there was a glitch, there were reasonable beings who could sort things out to everyone's satisfaction.
I see "The Good Place" as the spiritual heir to these classic fantasies, but with one crucial difference: the cosmic system determining our heroes' fate never worked right in the first place.
2. The Fork in the Road
I haven't been watching since the beginning, so I didn't have the pleasure of getting hit with the big switcheroo at the end of Season 1. But in the end, that startling revelation didn't change the game that much. Either way, Eleanor and company were frightened of eternal damnation; and either way, we in the audience didn't think our heroes belonged in that neighborhood, be it Heaven or Hell.
Yes, in life, Eleanor was a selfish asshole; Tahani was a shallow, name-dropping celebutante, Chidi a vacillating stick-in-the-mud and Jason a clod. But none of these people seemed to be evil enough for Hell or truly good enough for Heaven. The point system for entry into the Good Place is a shockingly superficial and inadequate means of determining someone's eternal fate. Just like bureaucracies here on Earth, The Good Place's celestial spheres are ruled by functionaries who have lost touch with the needs of their constituents.
If the only roads available to the recently deceased don't lead to an appropriate destination, then a new path is needed. That's where Michael's experiment comes in.
3. "Le Paradis est Les Autres"
Michael's revolutionary experiment in torture isn't so revolutionary; Jean Paul Sartre did the same thing in "No Exit"--set up a select group of mismatched personalities, trap them in a closed environment, watch them drive each other nuts.... forever. What was utterly diabolical about Michael's neighborhood is that it's almost pleasant. You feel you could be happy there, even with these irritating people, but you also feel it isn't quite right. It's like wearing the most beautiful clothes, but having a slight itch under your skin.... forever.
But what Michael didn't anticipate (and this is the interesting reversal the series throws in) is that if Hell is other people, Heaven can be other people, too. It's no coincidence that all of the other people in the Bad Place are being tortured in isolation. Alone, cut off from any contact with others, they are frozen as they were in life, unable to react to another person, unable to change. Michael's neighborhood allows the residents to interact and introduces the possibility of change. Almost immediately, the interaction among our four protagonists begins to produce small, positive changes in their behavior. Over the course of two seasons, these small changes snowball into (after)life-altering transformations for every character (well, maybe not Jason).
Eleanor learns that the raw deal she had growing up isn't an excuse for her crappy behavior, and by the end of S2 she is willing to give up the Good Place for her friends. Chidi realizes that his Kantian moral absolutism has been his way of avoiding decisions. (Kissing Eleanor was probably his first spontaneous action as an adult.) Tahani finally realizes that her rivalry with her sister poisoned every aspect of her life. (Jason?...um, let's say he's a work in progress.)
But that's nothing compared to the changes in our resident celestial beings. Janet evolves from a quasi-sentient Siri-like automaton into a delightful, one-of-a-kind multidimensional being, capable of kindness, compassion and love. And Michael? In the space of six(!) episodes, he changes from a cackling demonic overlord into a cosmic rebel, ready to overturn the system he served for untold millennia.
I don't know if Michael Schur intended it, but in a way, the show's frame of reference has shifted from a Western viewpoint to something closer to Eastern philosophy. The universe of The Good Place is not static and unchanging; it is in a state of constant change, with everyone in it a part of that change. (Each person is part of the whole, and the whole is embodied in each person. Heaven and Hell are both contained within.) And with our scrappy quartet returning to their earthly bodies--literally "re-incarnated"--the shift becomes obvious.
4. I (Don't) Have a Theory
The internet is buzzing with theories about the series' next moves and its endgame, and some of these are beauties: what if all of this is a test for Michael, with the other four as instruments of his evolution? Is Janet just Michael's loyal assistant and (sniff) BFF, or is she a higher Higher Power overseeing the whole operation? Is all of this Eleanor's delusion brought on by neurological dysfunction (which would kind of bring it back to "Stairway to Heaven")?
I don't buy any of these (for various reasons) and I'm not interested in keeping one step ahead of the writers, anyway. For one thing, Schur, Drew Goddard and their staff have been great at concealing their twists and you can hurt your brain trying to outguess them. But mostly, now that I'm here, I want to sit back and enjoy the ride without worrying about spoilers. (I guess I learned my lesson from Buffy.)
5. Random Notes
* With all this deeeep philosophizing, you can almost forget how forking funny this show is. Michael's initial solution to the Trolley Problem (complete with diagram) had me laughing for a solid minute. And, of course, watching Chidi get splashed with gore will never NOT be funny.
* Then, a few episodes later, Michael tells Eleanor the real solution to the Trolley Problem, and I'm awed by the callback and choked up at the same time. Well done, show.
* In case you hadn't guessed from the rest of this essay, I'm not into Manny Jacinto's Jason as much as the rest of the characters. Why is he catnip to Tahani and Janet? Is it a "Being There" thing, where the women project their desires onto his near-total emptiness?
* I never saw the "Derek" episodes. Were they good? I found Jason Mantzoukas almost impossible to take on Brooklyn Nine Nine and I wonder if he was any better here.
* Season Three starts in six days. I think they've barely scratched the surface of these characters. They have plenty of room to grow. Can't wait.
1. No, Not the Led Zeppelin Song
In the period around World War Two, there were a lot of movies about people dying "before their time" and petitioning Heaven for a second chance at life. Usually, it was the screwup of an apprentice angel who wasn't good at his job, and our hero would take his case to the celestial courts and win his second chance. (My favorite of these movies is 1946's "A Matter of Life and Death," better known in the states as "Stairway to Heaven.")
I guess in that tumultuous era, people needed to know that the universe still made sense, that even if there was a glitch, there were reasonable beings who could sort things out to everyone's satisfaction.
I see "The Good Place" as the spiritual heir to these classic fantasies, but with one crucial difference: the cosmic system determining our heroes' fate never worked right in the first place.
2. The Fork in the Road
I haven't been watching since the beginning, so I didn't have the pleasure of getting hit with the big switcheroo at the end of Season 1. But in the end, that startling revelation didn't change the game that much. Either way, Eleanor and company were frightened of eternal damnation; and either way, we in the audience didn't think our heroes belonged in that neighborhood, be it Heaven or Hell.
Yes, in life, Eleanor was a selfish asshole; Tahani was a shallow, name-dropping celebutante, Chidi a vacillating stick-in-the-mud and Jason a clod. But none of these people seemed to be evil enough for Hell or truly good enough for Heaven. The point system for entry into the Good Place is a shockingly superficial and inadequate means of determining someone's eternal fate. Just like bureaucracies here on Earth, The Good Place's celestial spheres are ruled by functionaries who have lost touch with the needs of their constituents.
If the only roads available to the recently deceased don't lead to an appropriate destination, then a new path is needed. That's where Michael's experiment comes in.
3. "Le Paradis est Les Autres"
Michael's revolutionary experiment in torture isn't so revolutionary; Jean Paul Sartre did the same thing in "No Exit"--set up a select group of mismatched personalities, trap them in a closed environment, watch them drive each other nuts.... forever. What was utterly diabolical about Michael's neighborhood is that it's almost pleasant. You feel you could be happy there, even with these irritating people, but you also feel it isn't quite right. It's like wearing the most beautiful clothes, but having a slight itch under your skin.... forever.
But what Michael didn't anticipate (and this is the interesting reversal the series throws in) is that if Hell is other people, Heaven can be other people, too. It's no coincidence that all of the other people in the Bad Place are being tortured in isolation. Alone, cut off from any contact with others, they are frozen as they were in life, unable to react to another person, unable to change. Michael's neighborhood allows the residents to interact and introduces the possibility of change. Almost immediately, the interaction among our four protagonists begins to produce small, positive changes in their behavior. Over the course of two seasons, these small changes snowball into (after)life-altering transformations for every character (well, maybe not Jason).
Eleanor learns that the raw deal she had growing up isn't an excuse for her crappy behavior, and by the end of S2 she is willing to give up the Good Place for her friends. Chidi realizes that his Kantian moral absolutism has been his way of avoiding decisions. (Kissing Eleanor was probably his first spontaneous action as an adult.) Tahani finally realizes that her rivalry with her sister poisoned every aspect of her life. (Jason?...um, let's say he's a work in progress.)
But that's nothing compared to the changes in our resident celestial beings. Janet evolves from a quasi-sentient Siri-like automaton into a delightful, one-of-a-kind multidimensional being, capable of kindness, compassion and love. And Michael? In the space of six(!) episodes, he changes from a cackling demonic overlord into a cosmic rebel, ready to overturn the system he served for untold millennia.
I don't know if Michael Schur intended it, but in a way, the show's frame of reference has shifted from a Western viewpoint to something closer to Eastern philosophy. The universe of The Good Place is not static and unchanging; it is in a state of constant change, with everyone in it a part of that change. (Each person is part of the whole, and the whole is embodied in each person. Heaven and Hell are both contained within.) And with our scrappy quartet returning to their earthly bodies--literally "re-incarnated"--the shift becomes obvious.
4. I (Don't) Have a Theory
The internet is buzzing with theories about the series' next moves and its endgame, and some of these are beauties: what if all of this is a test for Michael, with the other four as instruments of his evolution? Is Janet just Michael's loyal assistant and (sniff) BFF, or is she a higher Higher Power overseeing the whole operation? Is all of this Eleanor's delusion brought on by neurological dysfunction (which would kind of bring it back to "Stairway to Heaven")?
I don't buy any of these (for various reasons) and I'm not interested in keeping one step ahead of the writers, anyway. For one thing, Schur, Drew Goddard and their staff have been great at concealing their twists and you can hurt your brain trying to outguess them. But mostly, now that I'm here, I want to sit back and enjoy the ride without worrying about spoilers. (I guess I learned my lesson from Buffy.)
5. Random Notes
* With all this deeeep philosophizing, you can almost forget how forking funny this show is. Michael's initial solution to the Trolley Problem (complete with diagram) had me laughing for a solid minute. And, of course, watching Chidi get splashed with gore will never NOT be funny.
* Then, a few episodes later, Michael tells Eleanor the real solution to the Trolley Problem, and I'm awed by the callback and choked up at the same time. Well done, show.
* In case you hadn't guessed from the rest of this essay, I'm not into Manny Jacinto's Jason as much as the rest of the characters. Why is he catnip to Tahani and Janet? Is it a "Being There" thing, where the women project their desires onto his near-total emptiness?
* I never saw the "Derek" episodes. Were they good? I found Jason Mantzoukas almost impossible to take on Brooklyn Nine Nine and I wonder if he was any better here.
* Season Three starts in six days. I think they've barely scratched the surface of these characters. They have plenty of room to grow. Can't wait.
no subject
Date: 2018-09-21 11:03 pm (UTC)Also reality television shows and social psychology experiments have co-opted this approach. Such as Big Brother. The only draw-back? It's as torturous for the viewer to watch as it is for the participants. For a while a thought the Good Place was basically that set up, and just a one-joke take on heaven not being that great (and jumped ship or gave up). Then...I read a review of the entire first season and watched it from where I left off...and went, whoa.
That's actually kind of brilliant. But then I thought, okay is S2 just going to be about the gang constantly trying to foil Michael, because that's going to get old fast? And was shocked by episode 1. Which had me laughing my head off for most of the episode.
With all this deeeep philosophizing, you can almost forget how forking funny this show is. Michael's initial solution to the Trolley Problem (complete with diagram) had me laughing for a solid minute. And, of course, watching Chidi get splashed with gore will never NOT be funny.
Thank you. I was beginning to think I'm the only one with an incredibly dark sense of humor. I laughed through most of that episode, so hard, I was coughing. It's brilliant -- and a great way of "Showing" not "telling" why Chidi ended up in hell. Michael brilliantly demonstrates the flaw in his Kantian Absolutism. By not making a choice -- everyone dies.
In case you hadn't guessed from the rest of this essay, I'm not into Manny Jacinto's Jason as much as the rest of the characters. Why is he catnip to Tahani and Janet? Is it a "Being There" thing, where the women project their desires onto his near-total emptiness?
No clue. I find the character irritating. Grates on my nerves. There's a few funny bits though -- when they are in the Bad Place -- he has a few hilarious bits. But mostly, Jason's sort of a one-joke wonder. I think it was dlgood who pointed out that Jason was unfortunately a Michael Schur standby of "the dumb character" used for jokes...but never really developed. I'd agree. I have zero tolerance for this type of character in comedy and it is one of my difficulties with Michael Schur's series. Stupidity isn't funny to me, it's just painfully pathetic and annoying. Crazy Ex also has this dumb character trope -- Jason Chen, who all the women love, but is dumb and never changes or evolves. The women do, he doesn't. It used to be the dumb ditzy blond...who was in comedies, now it's the dumb muscular guy or ditzy guy. I didn't like the ditzy blond (see Three's Company) - either. But it does appear to be a relied on trope in situation comedies.
*I never saw the "Derek" episodes. Were they good? I found Jason Mantzoukas almost impossible to take on Brooklyn Nine Nine and I wonder if he was any better here.
Yes and no. There are bits that were rather brilliant here and there. Michael is hilarious in those episodes. He keeps trying to get rid of Derek. But they are largely unmemorable. I don't remember them that well -- except she creates Derek. Derek gets upset because she's obviously more in love with Jason. (Janet has seriously bad taste in men.) And there's a really funny joke in there somewhere..but I can't remember it. (Too much information in my brain, I had to delete a few files.)
I don't buy any of these (for various reasons) and I'm not interested in keeping one step ahead of the writers, anyway. For one thing, Schur, Drew Goddard and their staff have been great at concealing their twists and you can hurt your brain trying to outguess them. But mostly, now that I'm here, I want to sit back and enjoy the ride without worrying about spoilers. (I guess I learned my lesson from Buffy.)
Yeah, I only read spoilers for soap operas (basically GH), because well, soap operas.
I don't for The Good Place -- half the fun of that show is not knowing what will happen next. I did read the EW bit...but I wouldn't call what they provided "spoilers".
You missed one of the big, and rather convoluted theories...which is that they weren't actually sent back in time to Earth, and not really given a second chance at life. But were in reality sent to a dummy dimension. So they are in a fake representation of their previous reality, since it was impossible to bring them back to life again. Because bringing them back to life would screw up the time line back on Earth and everyone else's time lines. So instead they put them in a fake Earth with people playing the roles of the people on Earth.
This is why Michael was able to visit Eleanor in the bar and give her advice.
Etc.
I don't buy this theory. Too convoluted. Also I don't think the writers are that rational and clever. But who knows? A lot of fans did not like the reset button and hope they are just in a different plane, maybe purgatory, reliving what they went through to see if they make different choices.
no subject
Date: 2018-09-22 02:13 am (UTC)********
I don't think it's impossible to pull off an effective bimbo character, even in this day and age. Chris Hemsworth was a great bimbo in "Ghostbusters," and watching Kristen Wiig lose her mind around him was one of the most consistent laughs in the movie. (On the female side, Anna Faris gave great bimbo in "The House Bunny.")
I guess the bimbo needs an interesting personality trait to balance out the stupid. Manny Jacinto and the writers haven't done that with Jason yet. (The "Blake Bortles" crap isn't close to enough.)
*******
Saw that video of Jameela Jamil you posted. Very interesting lady. Hard to believe she never acted before this. I hope they really dig into her character in S3; I think she can handle it.
no subject
Date: 2018-09-22 02:45 am (UTC)2. Haven't seen the new Ghostbusters or House Bunny. (I may check out Ghostbusters, but The House Bunny is the type of comedy that makes wish there were more Darwin Awards.)
It's really hard to pull off bimbos. Sigourney Weaver sort of pulled it off in the first version of Ghost Busters, but that's because they cast against type.
I've seen it done well here and there, but usually because it goes against type. I think they feel they are going against type with Jason, since he's Asian and not being written as the stereotypically smart guy, but instead the bimbo, surfer dude. But it's not working for me.
no subject
Date: 2018-09-24 02:49 am (UTC)Wait, what? Her character is a concert violinist. Most of what that character is, was pretty much created on the spot by Weaver because it Ramis thought "we need to have a love interest" but hadn't really sketched out much of what that would entail.
There are problems with that character, like why would anyone like Peter Venkman, but there's nothing bumbo-y about her.
no subject
Date: 2018-09-24 12:08 pm (UTC)I admittedly forgot the bit about the concert violinist. All I remember from the first movie is that she was gaga for well the Ghostbusters.
no subject
Date: 2018-09-24 02:54 am (UTC)Which makes him more of a plot device and clever way to try to have exposition.
Jason does need development. But he does have one key trait, to explain why people might like him. He's kind. Jason, when not being a skeezy dirtbag (and running Florida man joke) can actually be a very nice person. He is utterly thoughtless, which makes his bad deeds more terrible, but it also reveals his kind actions as more genuine.
no subject
Date: 2018-09-24 12:13 pm (UTC)Good points on Jason. Although not sure it's kindness so much as cluelessness...sometimes. ;-)
It's not simply that he finds stupid people funny. He likes having a character who can say "I don't understand why we're doing this" as a means to force other characters to re-examine and explain why they do things the rest of us all take for granted as logical. But maybe shouldn't.
Interesting. Whedon did the same thing with Cordelia, then briefly Spike (which didn't quite work), and Anya -- the character that questions what everyone is doing, and is like - okay, we're going to die? Or why are we doing this again?
no subject
Date: 2018-09-24 02:28 pm (UTC)In terms of becoming an engaging character, Jason is gonna be a tougher nut to crack, because he really is that stupid. His basic kindness is a possible way in, but the writers are going to have to figure how this trait reconciles with the more unsavory aspects of his character. I mean, sweet simpletons generally aren't experts on Molotov cocktails.
no subject
Date: 2018-09-24 03:15 pm (UTC)I mean, sweet simpletons generally aren't experts on Molotov cocktails
Oh yes, I forgot...that's the reason I don't think of him as kind. He's kind when it suits him to be kind, which isn't quite the same thing as being kind. He has no problems hurting or injuring others if it suits his aims.
Correct on Anya and Cordelia...neither were written as stupid. Harmony maybe...but she was used as the bimbo, which probably explains why I despised her. (At least I'm consistent, no tolerance for male or female bimbos, apparently.) I also have troubles with dumb characters...Andrew was sort of the equivalent of Jason on BTVS. Neither would I describe as necessarily kind, except when it suited.
no subject
Date: 2018-09-24 04:53 pm (UTC)Andrew was smart, but emotionally stunted in the extreme. For most of S7, he couldn't relate to people outside of his geek boy frame of reference, and to a degree, he saw the damage he inflicted on others as something less than real. When Buffy pretty much rammed reality into his face at the end of Storyteller, it was the hard slap upside the head he needed years ago. (Man, his parents produced a pair of beauties, didn't they?)
no subject
Date: 2018-09-25 02:46 am (UTC)Andrew is book smart, but neither street nor emotionally smart. Which makes him a difficult character to like. He also loves to play the victim. He's definitive trope -- the effeminate nerd. (In the comics, he is gay. But I'd have preferred he remain straight, I've known a lot of effeminate straight nerds. And I'm not fond of the writers going with the stereotype. I found him to be a bit over the top.
I can see why he's in the show -- he works as a good counter-point to Spike, Anya, and Xander and a means of forcing Buffy to look at how others are defining her, and not only question it, but stop it.
no subject
Date: 2018-09-26 03:09 am (UTC)As a sitcom writer, Michael Schur's primary frame of reference is Cheers - and he's talked often about how he loved Coach & Woody. In part for gags because of their dimness. But again, for their use as devices. There's a specificity. Coach isn't book smart, and he's been bonked too many times on the head. Coach, though, is the heart.
Woody is a classic rube, the naive country bumpkin. But who also wants to go along with schemes.
Jason Mendoza is a character who describes his education thusly:
Jason: I went to Lynyrd Skynyrd High School in northeast Jacksonville, which was really just a bunch of tugboats tied together.
Tahani: I’m sorry, didn’t you get sea sick?
Jason: No, they were tied together in a junkyard. It wasn’t a very good school. For most of my classes we just sold dirty magazines door to door.
no subject
Date: 2018-09-26 01:46 pm (UTC)I'm wondering why Coach and Woody worked for me, and Jason doesn't? Maybe because they were really supporting characters and barely used? Or the actors just were extremely good? But I cared what happened to them. I don't with Jason. The gag you provide above is too...on the nose. I mean, I can envision Coach's scenario and Woody, well I've met people like Woody. Some of them are family members. But Jason feels like a cartoon.
no subject
Date: 2018-09-26 02:21 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2018-09-26 04:50 pm (UTC)Possibly the stealing, the maltov cocktails, and the gleeful love of both? No, agree. He has a lot more in common with Andrew wells than Woody.
no subject
Date: 2018-09-26 10:43 pm (UTC)The problem with growing Jason as a character is that he does nothing with thought. Andrew tells himself elaborate stories to justify behavior. Andrew has to confront that his way of life is bullshit.
Jason, so far as I can tell, is just id. How do you work someone through philosophy, who does not think. He strategizes (very badly) but he does not think.
no subject
Date: 2018-09-26 11:51 pm (UTC)Andrew tells himself elaborate stories to justify behavior. Andrew has to confront that his way of life is bullshit.
Jason, so far as I can tell, is just id. How do you work someone through philosophy, who does not think. He strategizes (very badly) but he does not think.
True. And well put. Andrew in that respect was easier to digest and relate to...because at least he thought. He's not purely reactive. My difficulty with Jason is he's almost purely reactive. He doesn't care. He does whatever looks like fun. Play video games all day. It's notable that his challenge was which team to root for on a video game. It's seems a simple and somewhat stupid thing, with no meaning. But it explains Jason. He never looks further than the fun.
Jason's philosophy is "Life is Play" screw the consequences.