Quick preface: to my knowledge, this is the last new Andrew Rannells project until Black Monday hits in January (I am so here for that,) so we'll be settling back into The New Normal next week.
Andrew
Rannells does some nice work in his episode of this anthology series, although
the episode itself isn’t very good. It
wouldn’t be the first time he’s been better than the project that he’s in, but
unfortunately, the situation here goes deeper than that for multiple reasons
(premise spoilers, for both the series as a whole and this particular episode.)
Like I
said, The Romanoffs is an anthology
series, and each episode features a different cast of big-name actors playing
separate characters. From what I can
tell, the only major connector is that each episode feature characters who
claim to be Romanoff descendents; based on the episode I saw, that doesn’t
actually factor into the story all that much, though. “Bright and High Circle” follows Katherine
(the supposed Romanoff) as she struggles with a plan of action upon learning
that a complaint against her sons’ piano teacher has been brought to the
police. Knowing only that the police are
making inquiries about potential “inappropriate misconduct” involving a minor,
Katherine attempts to broach the subject with her three boys, wrestles with
whether or not she should warn other parents (the police have told her not to
say anything,) and tries to work out if she believes the piano teacher might
have done what she thinks he may have been accused of doing.
On a
basic level, this episode is quite unimpressive. Despite a strong cast that includes Diane
Lane as Katherine and Ron Livingston as her husband, pretty much everyone is
saddle with shallowly-written characters who don’t talk all that much like
human beings and who don’t seem to act with any kind of coherency. Characters believe or don’t believe the
non-specified accusations seemingly at random, changing their minds with little
preamble. There are places in the
dialogue where someone will drop a line that’s just so conspicuously written that it pulls me right out of
the proceedings, and the episode has a pervading sense of feeling stilted, with
weird pauses and wonky pacing that stop the momentum at unexpected moments.
But
beyond that, it’s impossible to ignore the fact that this is a story that
focuses on sexual misconduct allegations (again, the characters are largely
kept in the dark about what the accusations actually are, but sexual misconduct
is the assumption Katherine and her husband run with) that involves a climactic
speech about how “bearing false witness” is the “worst crime” a person could
commit, “anyone can say anything,” and a person’s life “is ruined” by the hint
of a false accuation. It’s also written
by Matthew Weiner, the creator of Mad Men,
who was accused by a Mad Men writer
that he made sexually-harassing comments to her at work and later fired her.
To be
fair, there are some ways in which this doesn’t feel like a typical “#MeToo” story. The fact that we don’t know what the allegations are is a big factor – rather than
believing or disbelieving someone’s specific claim, it’s about characters
parsing the likelihood of whether what they imagine
the allegations might be could’ve
happened, with lots of rumor and supposition and no one actually claiming
anything. There’s also the fact that the
piano teacher is gay, and there’s something to be said about an eagerness to
assume that a gay man’s intentions around the children he teaches are
malicious. With a much more careful hand
and under different circumstances, this might’ve been a story you could compare
to something like Doubt (although, of
course, Doubt sits differently these
days as well.)
However,
whatever the mitigating factors that make this story seem potentially different
than the ones that have filled the news for the past year, it’s impossible to
ignore the cultural context in which they exist, or the elephant in the room
that is the allegation against Weiner.
Even if the way things play out is different, it’s impossible not to see
that grand speech about false accusations as Weiner using one of his characters
as his mouthpiece, and that makes the episode leave me with really unpleasant
feelings. (Side note: while I don’t know the specifics of the
episode’s conception, the announcement of Rannells’s casting predated the
allegation against Weiner coming out, so the script must have existed prior to
that – prior to the Harvey Weinstein story that kickstarted the modern
conversation about sexual harassment and assault, in fact. But even if it was written “in a different
time,” it’s coming out in this one, and that can’t be ignored – plus, I would
need time-stamped visual evidence to believe the false-accusation speech wasn’t
added in after the allegation broke about Weiner, and I’d still be skeptical.)
As such,
obviously, I’m disappointed about Rannells’s involvement in this. I get that he was already attached to the
project, that none of these allegations (including the one against Weiner) had
come out yet, and that this script probably read pretty differently in
mid-2017. But this isn’t a good
association to have. I read an interview
with him where a PR person literally stepped in to shut down questions about
Weiner, and while it’s understandable that Rannells wouldn’t want to wade into
those waters, that’s kind of where he’s wound up being, and it’s a bummer to
see him essentially plead the Fifth when someone asks about the very specific
context in which we find this episode.
Rannells
plays David, the piano teacher in question.
I should point out that one of the most interesting parts of the episode’s
actual construction is that we don’t see David at all in the context of the
police inquiry. In fact, we largely don’t
see Katherine interacting with him once she’s learned that a complaint was made
against him. Although he’s still very
present in the episode, it’s almost entirely through flashbacks, as Katherine
examines some of her past encounters with him and listens to stories brought
forth by other characters.
Thinking
about it, David is probably the most layered character in the piece. He’s introduced as the beloved piano teacher,
but right away (and continuing through the flashbacks,) we see different facets
of him, both good and bad. He nurtures
the musical talent of Katherine’s middle son at a time when the boy is
struggling and really needs someone to nurture him (though, of course, no
amount of talent, as either a pianist or a teacher, would be “worth”
potentially harming children or teenagers – it’s sad that I feel obligated to
point that out, but, you know, Roman Polanski.)
He’s also a social climber who’s been known to exaggerate his own
experiences to make himself seem more
interesting/mysterious/impressive/pitiable/whatever, he may or may not milk
others’ generosity, and he can be equal parts judgy and bitchy (none of which,
though, has any real bearing on whether he did what Katherine thinks he might
have been accused of.) It’s an
admittedly interesting character, a guy who definitely has good and bad parts
to him, but without a clear answer as to whether or not he’s “a bad guy.”
It’s not
a surprise that Rannells plays it well.
He isn’t entirely immune to the episode’s questionable overall quality,
but he seems to have fewer stilted/forced moments, and he comes admirably close
to selling a few “no human being would say that” lines. By and large, his David feels like a person
in a way that most of the other characters don’t, and while he gets more
dimensions to work with, I feel like a lot of that is still down to Rannells’s
performance. He’s played plenty of
characters who are deeply flawed and seem unlikable on the surface but are
still fun and compelling to watch, and in a vacuum, David would fit that
description. Rannells nails the various
aspects of David: the easy charm that
draws some people in, the cattiness that alienates others, the whiff of
desperation that can make him seem suspect, and even the corny humor that’s not
as successful as he thinks it is (there is an honest-to-God Jar-Jar Binks
impression in here.) Also, he looks
surprisingly good fake-playing the piano.
I keep
thinking about Doubt, and I feel
like, if this were a few years ago and the writing was stronger, this might have
come off as a fascinating character in an interesting story. But the present climate makes this is much
more fraught story to tell to begin with, the specific circumstances with
Weiner makes it immediately feel like a bad idea, and the ultimate execution
isn’t nearly up to the task that would’ve been required to try to pull this
off.
Recommend?
In
General
– No. Even if it weren’t for all the
deeply uncomfortable stuff, the quality isn’t really enough to recommend it,
but as it stands, very definitely not.
Andrew
Rannells
– I don’t know. Rannells does do some really
nice work here, but it’s a good performance within something pretty unpleasant. I lean toward no.
Warnings
Strong
thematic elements (including discussion of child sexual abuse,) language, and
drinking.
No comments:
Post a Comment