FX’s “The Americans” and the Issue of Assimilation


628x471A couple of months ago, on the subway, I looked to my left and glimpsed an article that a person next to me was reading.  My eye caught a headline – it was a review of the first season of FX's new show The Americans, which I haven't seen at that point.  

Do you know that our eyes scan a text much faster than our brains can register the information we see, yet the familiar data will always stand out?  I looked at the page for no more than 10 seconds, but I could've sworn that I saw a mentioning of Homeland there.  So, I allowed myself to look again (I actually consider it rude when people read over each other's shoulders in public transportation, but couldn't resist in this case).  My eyes returned me to the right place and I've read a verbose sentence, which amounted pretty much to the critic's opinion that, as far as spies-vs.-federal-agents shows go,  in some ways The Americans was better than Homeland.

Being a devoted fan of Carrie Mathison's completely fucked up character, I decided to check out the FX's (co-produced by Steven Spielberg/Kathleen Kennedy's Amblin Entertainment) period piece (it's set during one of the Cold War's coldest periods, the 80s) about two KGB officers, who have been implanted into American suburbs as a married couple, Elizabeth and Phillip Jennings, sometimes in the 1960s.  So, I watched (and enjoyed) the first 4 episodes of the show.  

Alas, it's not Homeland (oh, the "professional" critics!): the intensity of the storytelling, the multi-layered subtlety of every single character of the Showtime's hit series – they are not there.  I mean, the fact that I was able to stop after 4 episodes and indefinitely postpone watching the rest speaks for itself.  I wouldn't be able to do it with Homeland.  But it's definitely a very well-made, higher-quality entertainment.  It succeeds in tricking the audience into the same fucked up experience of not wanting the main characters, clearly enemies and murderers, to get caught.  I definitely plan to watch the rest at some point.

But it's uncanny how a human mind functions – its associative powers work in mysterious ways.  The most persistent train of thought The Americans evoked in me had nothing to do with the spydom shenanigans; it was about the intricacies of social and cultural assimilation. 

You see, the series' main characters, even though pretend to be US-born, are essentially a first-generation immigrant couple transplanted onto American soil, flawless and accentless English notwithstanding.  No matter how intensive their training was back in Russia, it could not have prepared them for the lifestyle and social conditions so acutely different from their homeland.  There is a flashback in one of the first episodes that takes us back to "the Jennings'" supposedly first night in America: They enter some motel room and marvel at the cool air coming out of the conditioning unit in the window.  That's it.  And there is nothing else needed to accentuate the dramatic shift - even the KGB generals, who blessed their clandestine future, didn't have air conditioners in their offices at the time.

Fifteen years later, at the show's "present" time,  they don't marvel at the household conveniences anymore – people get used to comforts very quickly.  However, their socio-psychological adaptation to American life is a completely different matter. 

Phillip/Mischa (Matthew Rhys, an immensely talented and versatile Welsh actor, who himself is obviously assimilating quite well in Hollywood what with five years of playing Sally Field's gay son on Brothers & Sisters and now this series)  has completely embraced the American culture and lifestyle.  He obviously considers this suburb, this house, this cover business truly his own.  For him, it feels like home here.  He listens to the same music his very American kids do and speaks their lingo.  He even annoys his teenage daughter at the mall in a goofy, American-dad kind of way: He tries on cowboy boots and does a bit of a country dancing to the music playing on the overhead system.  He's assimilated to the point that the idea of defecting to FBI is not just plausible, it's desirable and he proposes it to his wife practically in the second episode.   

This suggestion is met by Elizabeth/Nadezhda (a convincing Keri Russell, whose severe appearance effectively helps you to forget her soft and fuzzy Felicity past) with a scorn that goes way beyond the slighted sense of duty and reverence for the higher purpose of the "brighter future" she believes she serves.  It's not just the ideology talking – you can feel that she LOVES Mother-Russia and still treats her life in America as an assignment.

Living and working in New York City,  you deal with immigrants practically every single moment you are at work or in public.  And I cannot even begin to tell you what a spectrum of various assimilation degrees one can observe, if one cares to look.  Middle-aged and older people, of course, have more difficult time adjusting.  But I know young people, who came to this country as teenagers from China, India, Pakistan, Russia, Middle East, went to high schools and colleges here, but have no interest in American culture. 

They read only their native-language newspapers, watch only cable channels that show news and movies from their home-countries, even use specific nationally-oriented search engines.  These people usually live in the areas predominately populated by their countrymen and frequently end up working for the businesses ran by them as well.  It is virtually impossible to have a conversation with them about anything that we consider a common knowledge.  They live here for decades, but they give you an impression that they just came from some remote planet.  And the longing for their native land is just astonishing, even if it is the most oppressive place on Earth imaginable! Ok, Elizabeth/Nadezhda was sent here to spy, but why these other people came? For the conditioned air? 

What I realized, after years of dealing with immigrants, was that the ones with higher ability to assimilate are generally more open-minded, more adaptable, and more cultured people.  Those who read Faulkner, watched Coppola, and listened to Jimi Hendrix before they came to the States will continue immersing themselves into American culture.  They are the ones who end up caring about the national politics and the future of their new home.  The other ones - how can we consider them Americans, even if they carry the US passports?           

Quote of the Week: Finally, the Truth Out of a “Professional” Critic


Typical Critic"Critics don't like to admit this, because it makes us seem as herdlike [sic] as civilian TV watchers, but sometimes we decide which shows to take seriously based on on where they air.  Track records mean a lot, and certain channels (HBO, AMC, FX,… Showtime) do have a reputation for arty boldness…

Critics and viewers alike tend to assume works that are mainly interested in laughs, excitement, and beauty are inherently less substantive than shows that rip the scabs off life and leave you feeling wrung out or disturbed.  That assumption partly explains why so few comedies have won the Oscar for Best Picture.  It surely explains why Cary Grant, the most altogether enjoyable leading man in film history, never won an Academy Award for acting:  He gave us pleasure no matter what the story and situation and made it look easy."

                                                    Matt Zoller Seitz

                                                    TV Reviewer for New York magazine

The Frustrated CFO Commentary:

Well, thank you, Mr. Seitz for admitting that "professional" critics (as in those who, for one or another reason, get paid for expressing their opinions in various media) are phonies working off of some preconceived standards instead of assessing the actual quality of the creations they are compensated to review.  No wonder, the quality of their work is just as low as that of the majority of people.

And, what a snob: "as herdlike as civilian TV watchers!"  Aren't you writing for those TV watchers?  So, why are you insulting them?  Or you write just for your own ego-massaging purposes?  And what are you, may I ask, a military TV watcher? 

And the funny part is you still got it all confused, Mr. Unintelligent Snob:  The actual "herd" goes altogether for the Kardashians and the Real Housewives.  If the narrow slew of snooty hipsters, unable to appreciate art and entertainment on their merit and, therefore, resort to selecting what they watch and consume based on the hype generated by the hipster-catering PR, is a "herd" for "critics" like you, I have no fucking clue, what you, people, are  doing in popular media.  Definitely not promoting the open-mindedness. 

These, so-called, taste-makers are the reason, why the quality entertainment like (forgive me for the "old" references) My So-Called Life, Firefly, and, more recently, Prime Suspect get cancelled.  These shows fall in the cracks between the preferences of the masses  and the critically acclaimed (most of them, but not all, deservingly so) dramas.

I pride myself on approaching all arts with an open mind and without prejudice.  And that includes the TV series.  I don't care that The Good Wife airs on CBS and Grimm on NBC.  They proved to be quality entertainment with unexpected layers, and I will continue watching them along with Game of ThronesAmerican Horror Story, and Homeland.

Hell, I even gave Breaking Bad a fair chance: diligently watched 5 first episodes of it – only to find out that the critics who go nuts about it apparently smoke the very meth that Walter White cooks.            

Quote of the Week: “Sharknado”? Is It a Real Movie? It Must Be a Joke, Right?


From New York magazine’s mini-interview with Sigourney Weaver at the 15th Annual Broadway Barks animal adoption event:

“NYM: Did you watch Sharknado?

SW: What? Was there a shark attack?

NYM: So you have not heard of Sharknado?

SW: Are they giving away sharks? Do I have to hold one?

NYM: Any ideas what it could possibly be?

SW: N-a-t-o?

NYM: N-a-d-o.

SW: Is it a convention for sharks?

NYM: It’s a made-for-TV movie about shark tornadoes.

SW: Wow.  Thousands of sharks swirling?  Does it happen way out at sea?

NYM: It’s happening on land.

SW: It’s like The Wizard of Oz gone mad?

NYM: Essentially.

SW: People are out of their minds.”

P.S. from The Frustrated CFO:

1. It was me who thought it was a joke.

2. 100% agree with Ms. Weaver’s sentiment.

3.  Yet, according to the social media, Sharknado has become a social-media phenomenon, generating over 5,000 tweets (almost beating Game of Thrones‘ the Red Wedding episode).  And, since the substance of social-media exchanges (as well as of the entertainment itself) doesn’t matter anymore, but only numbers count, Hollywood studios are very jealous of the unprecedented “success,” while Syfy definitely considers a sequel.  Hallelujah!

News Flash #2: Politics of the Patchoulis


In entertainment news, the nominations for the 2013 Primetime Emmy Awards were announced yesterday as well, proving once again that the entire concept of the Hollyweird awards is nothing more than the popularity contest.  Nobody really looks deep and assesses the cultural quality – it’s all about the hype and the industry politics.

The incredibly talented Adam Driver, the single real actor in the entire cast of HBO’s Girls and the only bright spot in every one of the first-season’s 10 episodes, was completely ignored last year by all TV awards organizations, including the Emmys.  

In the second season, his role was significantly curbed: he appeared only in 6 episodes, in some of them very briefly.  Yet, this year he is nominated for the Best Supporting Actor in a Comedy Series.  Why?  Because Lena Dunham singled him out in her Golden Globe acceptance speech.  And people took notice – it’s far more important that the actual artistic achievement.

I’m happy for Adam Driver, but “I hate the Patchoulis” (thank you again, Captain Murphy).         

P.S. to Unpunishable Plagiarism


A few readers expressed strong disapproval of my recent post Warning: Unpunishable Plagiarism.  Not of the subject matter per se – they agree that gorging on other people’s creativity—whether in business, science, or arts—is despicable and the law that doesn’t protect it is fucked up. But they were upset with the examples I’ve chosen to illustrate the idea-snatching in pop-culture. 

Instead of picking on absorption of mythology, folklore, and literary inheritance in the beloved Harry Potter—they say—or making vague allegations about the possible origins of Hannah Horvath, why didn’t you talk about the simultaneous releases of Pixar‘s A Bug’s Life and DreamWorksAntz (both in 1998), or of a superior Chris Nolan’s The Prestige and subpar Neil Burger’s The Illusionist (both 2006)?

The answer is simple: as peculiar and suspicious concurrent developments of very similar ideas by different production companies are, it is practically impossible to uncover the back stories behind these incidents, or make even vague attempts to point a finger at the alleged perpetrators.  So, I wrote about the instances that seemed somewhat obvious and transparent to me.  Otherwise, the post would consist of nothing more than just one anecdote from my own professional life and a non-descriptive list of dubious cultural references.  Maybe it would be more sanitary, but also boring.

Let’s take, for example, The Prestige/The Illusionist case.  What can we dig up?  Well, both screenplays were based on legitimate and independent literary sources.  

The first one is an adaptation of a novel with the same title written by an English novelist and science fiction writer Christopher Priest and published by Gollancz in 1995.  Priest is a well-known  and highly respected writer: the themes of his A Dream of Wessex, for example, were used as a framework for David Cronenberg’s fantastic eXistenZ.  The year The Prestige hit the book stores, it was nominated for four sci-fi and fantasy awards and won two of them.  While the movie differs from the book (the latter being darker and more complex) all the main ingredients and the plot turns were taken from the novel: the characters’ names and descriptions, Priest’s fictional practice of stage illusions (the setup, the performance, and the prestige), the nature of the competing teleportation uber-acts, and even the guest appearance of Nicola Tesla.

Various sources indicate that several Hollywood producers had approached Priest for an adaptation of the novel and it was Valerie Dean of Newmarket Films (they also produced Memento), who told Chris Nolan about the novel in 2000.  After he read it, Newmarket Films purchased the option.  I can see how adapting a novel constructed as shifts between entries of two diaries could be very difficult, especially considering that the work on Insomnia had already began.  Yet, the Nolan brothers had it finished in 2003 and were ready to start filming, but it wasn’t meant to be: Batman Begins production got escalated and The Prestige was postponed.  The pre-production didn’t start until October 2005 and the film was released by Touchstone exactly one year later.

The Illusionist is based on an even earlier short story by Pulitzer Prize winner Steven Millhauser Eisenheim the Illusionist – it was a part of his 1990 collection The Barnum Museum.  The Hollywood mythology has it that, even though Neil Burger’s debut Interview with the Assassin was a terrible flop, its producers desperately wanted to work with the said writer/director again.  In 2002 they asked Neil what would he like to do next and he said, “There is this short story I always wanted to adapt…”  I’m guessing it took a couple of years before the idea could be sold and budgeted (unlike Chris Nolan, Neil Burger had no other projects on his hands), and the movie didn’t go into production until early 2005.  It was released 10 months ahead of The Prestige.     

Thus, on the surface all facts point to the accidental concurrency of these two movies.  However, who the fuck knows how the little impulses that churn the Hollywood machine work?  You see, as soon as any creative property is optioned, the fact becomes a matter of public knowledge.  Ok, let me amend that: I don’t really think that the “general public” is following that kind of information.  But if you are in the trade or have some sort of a vested interest in filmmaking, you can and must know all tinseltown’s moves.                        

I mean, Variety, the oldest American entertainment-trade magazine, had been founded in 1905 (!).  Since then, its been reporting on every single production and celebrity move imaginable.  The Hollywood Reporter joined the action in 1930.  Nowadays, you can have paid subscriptions to both publications online.  However, the Internet access to filmmaking trade news is dominated by DoneDeal Pro ($24 a year), which delivers basically a live feed of every option, screenplay purchase, new project announcement, talent attachment, etc.;  and IMdB Pro ($125 a year) with its remarkable search capabilities allowing you to see what every producer has “in-production” and “in-development.”  And I know for a fact that all production companies and studios have staffers and interns, whose job is to deliver the digests of all these daily news to their bosses.   

So, it is easy to imagine that the knowledge of The Prestige waiting its turn since 2000 could’ve been a pressure point in The Illusionist pitch: “Look, we can beat their timing with our own movie about a magician…”  Is this a qualified example of the unpunishable plagiarism?  I really don’t know.  You decide for yourself.

Some readers also said that my post, by making a case that “everyone steals,” might give unsavory elements a carte blanche for encroaching on others’ creativity.  Well, first of all, I hope I was explicit enough in stating my position on the issue.  Secondly, I honestly don’t think that my two cents have the power to change the situation in either direction.  And finally, I am not Huffington fucking Post – I don’t have that kind of exposure!

Of course, I cannot just end this post without letting the movie critic in me to use this opportunity to make the following comment.  If somebody referred Christopher Nolan to Eisenheim the Illusionist, he wouldn’t care for it.  It’s a story of the “and I will do anything for love” kind, and this writer/director is not interested in that.  Think about his movies (including Man of Steel, which he only co-produced) – they are all about a Man and His Mission, a Hero and His Obsession.  Love, even if it’s present, is just a plot point; it is seated in the last row of the Nolan bus.            

Related articles: