Skip to main content

Disclaiming Disclaimer

 I am watching a series on Apple TV that I do not recommend, but I am finding it hard to stop watching. I won’t say “I can’t stop watching.” That is both defeatist and non-Christian. And when I say I don’t recommend it, I would just warn that there is some (a lot) pretty graphic, in my book pornograpic sex that you must skip through. It starts in a restaurant seduction scene and goes on for quite a while.

Yet, there are some interesting thematic and narrative aspects of it that 1. make me want to think through them and 2. make me want to read the novel it is based on.

There is an important but overlookable scene at the very beginning of the “show” which is, I think, six episodes and produced and directed by Alphonse Cuaron, a filmmaker I have admired in the past for Gravity, Roma, and Children of Men. In this opening scene, Christiane Amanpour (which is breaking the line between reality and fiction) is announcing an award for the main character, Catherine Ravenscroft, as well known journalist and documentarian. Catherine is played by Cate Blanchett as a middle-aged woman and by Leila George as a younger woman.

That choice helps us not have to deal with Cate being de-aged electronically. I also wonder if Cate didn’t want to do the graphic sex scenes with a much younger actress. I don’t understand how these actors can be stark naked and roll around on each other in front of others anyway. Do they want their children to see that stuff? Do they just disassociate themselves, like victims do?

In Amanpour’s speech, I think we see the complexity of the film and our response to it. Catherine is being lauded for her unflinching portrayal of truth that cuts through power structures and powerful charismatic leaders, and these portrayals, Amanpour says, expose ourselves. Soon we are introduced to a narrative through different sets of eyes, notably Catherine’s, her husband’s, and a third character, her adversary. In fact, there is a voice-over, the same voice for all of them, but it is expressing their thoughts at various times.

Actually, I should say that the film starts with two young people on a train in Italy having sex and being disturbed by the conductor to see their passports. Then we hear from Amanpour, and then we are switched to an elderly British man reflecting on how he was let go from his teaching job after fifty years for being old school. This person is played by Kevin Kline, whom I didn’t recognize and whose British accent is serviceable.

And the story unfolds as to how these people are related; the young man on the train is the son of the teacher, twenty-five years before. And so it goes. I won’t give it away. If you do watch it, you’ll want to enjoy it yourself, and if you don’t, it won’t matter much to you. Suffice to say that Catherine did something very, very bad 25 years before and her secrets are going to be disclosed to the adoring journalistic world.

Yet whose version of the story are we really seeing? The father’s? His wife, who wrote a book about it based on some lurid photos she found? Catherine, who has tried to conceal the truth? It struck me the other night when I watched the breathtaking scene where her crime takes place, whose version are we being asked to trust? And what does it say about us? Who is the good guy here? Is the crime’s victim really a victim? (I say this because he’s a pretty obnoxious late teenager, a voyeur (taking photos without permission), an adulterer, and he cheats on his girlfriend (within a day of being separated from her), yet he tries to do something heroic because….we’re not sure why. He’s cipher on whom you can impress our ideas, as Amanpour says.

Is it possible that the book written by the mother (who has long since died in this story) is a fiction within a fiction, rather than a trustworthy narrative within a fiction, and we are being manipulated by it? Is it possible that all storytelling is manipulative? We used to use the term “slice of life” fiction, but all of it is slice of human experience, just a slice that defies an easy knife cut.

There are at least two more episodes; we will see what happens to Catherine the suppose truth-teller who lives lies, or at least lives by concealing her own. More to think about. I just hope I don’t have to fast forward through the writhing naked bodies.

(The acting is very good in this series.)

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Birdwatching

 Whose world is this, anyway? My husband came out to the deck where I was reading, thinking, and taking long pauses to listen to birds and watch them visit the feeders. Nala and Butter were keeping the the squirrels away. The cardinals, like kings, were making sure they were fed first but wrens, sparrows, finches, robins, swifts sat in the trees calling and cackling. My Cornell Labs app has identified 18 in 18 minutes, some new ones included. “How interesting that God made all the birds have distinctive calls,” I said. “But I guess they are calling to their own kind, their mate and children.” “Do you think they are talking to each other?” he said. “Not like we do, no communicating, but signaling.” “I thought they were singing for us.” We laughed about that; our human-centric, self-centered view of things takes over. “They sing and make noises when we are not here, so it’s not for us. If they are singing for anyone, it’s God.” I had read Samuel’s speech to the nation in I Samuel 12,...

Keeping Up Appearances? David's Surprise Anointing to Be King

  Have you ever watched the show, Keeping Up Appearances? What it is. A comedy about a British woman who wants to be thought of as very high class even though her family is low class. Her name is Hyacinth Bucket but she pronounces it Bouquet. She wants everything perfect but her family works against her, and her neighbors run from her. We all know someone who wants to keep up appearances, and sometimes we do. In our everyday life, we depend on our eyes and we automatically trust them, at least at first, and we often don’t look closely or below the surface. Like puzzles. But we know that appearances can be deceiving, even though they catch us. So I wanted to show this video I saw recently because it’s disturbing but informative. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FERa1AI2EK8 AI has gotten far better on making these deep fakes—videos that are not of anyone but totally generated by the software. Even though they look like someone, they are not. Of course, it is stealing fro...