GD Hayes

Reviews and other content aren't verified by Google

Based on a watch of the first couple of episodes of season 1 and Ep 1 of season two (although I'm wondering how I even sat through that many minutes of this show), even with the creative brains behind Ted Lasso and several talented and experienced actors in this production, Shrinking rings inconsistent in purpose, is really shallow, and is possibly a bad influence on a naive public. I wanted to be able to take each of the characters seriously in the beginning and see a melding of comedy and drama as successful as in Lasso; but that's so rare and hard to do apparently. Gaby and Liz for example play at the same nervous hysterical pace the entire show, explaining to viewers "ok this is what I'm going to do next" instead of just acting it out. The result is a serious irritation with both characters. Much larger problems with the show include its indelicate and often absurd handling of the serious topics of suicide, child predation, budding teen sexuality, and murder. Its unfamiliarity with the basic tenets of modern therapy practice--eg, absolutely no acknowledgement of and adherence to client-patient confidentiality and therefore, inappropriate and misleading portrayal of therapy, is borderline dangerous. You can be creative around therapy in fiction, but you do not break the trust between patient and therapist.

Shrinking

13 likes

A really shallow book, perhaps attempting to be a serious sociological novel by touching on violence against women and abuse by men in the workplace? But none of this is effective if the characters aren’t believable. I do not know where the positive reviews come from. I’m not a chemist so wouldn’t know how accurate the chemistry research was for the book. I do know the author had little idea how Nobel Prizes are won. The lab colleagues sit around during lunch gossiping about Zott’s significant other being “nominated for a Nobel.” How would they know? The process isn’t open. Anyone can write a letter to Stockholm. That doesn’t guarantee a “nomination.” The narration is abhorrent, with the primary narrator clearly not having done their pronunciation homework. (Yes, it’s spelled like it should be pronounced La—lahhn, as in Kahn, but Jack himself introduced himself as La-lane, with a long a in the second syllable.) Finally, someone on GoodReads said the book was hilariously funny. Again, how is this even possible with the lack of character development, the skeleton story line and serious social issues. A good writer would be hard pressed to create much intelligent humor in this story alongside the rape and other abuse that pops up and then is tossed aside like, as one NY Times book reviewer casually wrote, the “frustrations” women endured in the 1960s. And might I say, continue to endure in 2023.

Lessons in Chemistry

22 likes

Absolutely adore this show. It’s enough that Hollander and Coleman lead the cast; yet it’s the perfect balance of escape, humor and a not so subtle calling on the carpet of the Anglican Church (plenty of such unloving intolerance going on in the church here in the states as well). I’ve been watching British TV since the 60s and don’t know what we’d do without its many extraordinary writers and actors.

Rev.

5 likes