Post by DeepArcher on Feb 19, 2017 2:05:32 GMT
It's definitely an acting showcase more than anything. I mean, it's Ryan Murphy, so that was expected. The only reason to ever watch AHS is for the acting. Though O.J. isn't a showcase for its whole ensemble so much as it is for Courtney B. Vance and Sterling K. Brown. These dudes were just riveting to watch and they only got better and better as the season went along. They also were probably the two best cast for the characters they portrayed, in terms of how closely the resembled their real-life counterparts.
The rest of the ensemble is fine and there's really no weak link. But, still, it's embarrassing that Sarah Paulson won the Emmy over Kirsten Dunst's all-time great performance, won the SAG over Bryce Dallas Howard's all-time great performance, and also took the Golden Globe. I've never been a fan of hers, but I did think she was better than usual here, probably the best she's ever been. But honestly she wasn't all that impressive. She showed up, did her job, but she never really went above and beyond. Cuba Gooding, Jr. is fine but inconsistent from scene to scene. Travolta and Schwimmer both fit their characters well and actually impressed me. Kenneth Choi and Nathan Lane also did really well.
The storytelling and writing, though, are incredibly problematic. The structure, for one, is just annoying. I hated the way that certain episodes were set aside to focus on a certain set of character(s); it's a strategy oft used in television that's proven effective, but it shouldn't have been done here. It creates the ridiculous sensation that the relevance of certain people and conflicts were contained to a small portion of the trial, and it's always ruinous to the pacing. It would've been better to see each of the threads of the story pulled throughout the duration of the season (I mean, seriously, only introducing the jury in the last episodes of the season?).
Other elements of it felt over-simplified or under-explored. One of the things I adored most about O.J.: Made in America (which, while I have the opportunity, I should mention is infinitely better than this dramatized counterpart) is that it put so much attention into telling the entire story. It dedicates almost three hours of set-up into succinctly and effectively telling O.J.'s backstory and setting the stage for racial relations in the U.S. at the time. The People v. O.J. really never does this. The extent of O.J. Simpson's celebrity and important is never fully explored, and the entire history of racial conflict is condensed into an opening montage (if I recall correctly).
Elsewhere, there's some really bad exposition that seems to think little of its audience's intelligence (i.e., *Bill Clinton appears on the TV* "Oh my god, it's Clinton." "You got the President!"), a cringeworthy depiction of the Kardashian children, and some blatant glossing over of subjects that were incredibly relevant to the case -- barely depicting the defense's case that the police ineptly handled the crime scene, for example. Though the worst offenders were the cheap ploys that were often pulled to make the show "more interesting" (which was not necessary, at all), such as the Marcia/Darden sexual tension that I doubt existed in reality while also falling under the unfortunately common (in scripted media) misconception that a man and a woman cannot work together platonically. It's also no coincidence that the dialogue inside the courtroom is exceptionally better than that which occurs outside of it. In fact, I thought that perhaps the best-written segment of the show was the concluding 15 minutes or so that followed O.J. post-trial; one of the few times the show was subtle, smart, and plausible.
The imperfect script is executed mostly well, though I do question some of its moments of awkward over-stylization. And a lot of the soundtrack choices were really on-the-nose.
Criticisms aside, I thought it was incredibly entertaining. It's just bothersome because it's not nearly as fascinating or insightful as Made in America proved it could have been.
The rest of the ensemble is fine and there's really no weak link. But, still, it's embarrassing that Sarah Paulson won the Emmy over Kirsten Dunst's all-time great performance, won the SAG over Bryce Dallas Howard's all-time great performance, and also took the Golden Globe. I've never been a fan of hers, but I did think she was better than usual here, probably the best she's ever been. But honestly she wasn't all that impressive. She showed up, did her job, but she never really went above and beyond. Cuba Gooding, Jr. is fine but inconsistent from scene to scene. Travolta and Schwimmer both fit their characters well and actually impressed me. Kenneth Choi and Nathan Lane also did really well.
The storytelling and writing, though, are incredibly problematic. The structure, for one, is just annoying. I hated the way that certain episodes were set aside to focus on a certain set of character(s); it's a strategy oft used in television that's proven effective, but it shouldn't have been done here. It creates the ridiculous sensation that the relevance of certain people and conflicts were contained to a small portion of the trial, and it's always ruinous to the pacing. It would've been better to see each of the threads of the story pulled throughout the duration of the season (I mean, seriously, only introducing the jury in the last episodes of the season?).
Other elements of it felt over-simplified or under-explored. One of the things I adored most about O.J.: Made in America (which, while I have the opportunity, I should mention is infinitely better than this dramatized counterpart) is that it put so much attention into telling the entire story. It dedicates almost three hours of set-up into succinctly and effectively telling O.J.'s backstory and setting the stage for racial relations in the U.S. at the time. The People v. O.J. really never does this. The extent of O.J. Simpson's celebrity and important is never fully explored, and the entire history of racial conflict is condensed into an opening montage (if I recall correctly).
Elsewhere, there's some really bad exposition that seems to think little of its audience's intelligence (i.e., *Bill Clinton appears on the TV* "Oh my god, it's Clinton." "You got the President!"), a cringeworthy depiction of the Kardashian children, and some blatant glossing over of subjects that were incredibly relevant to the case -- barely depicting the defense's case that the police ineptly handled the crime scene, for example. Though the worst offenders were the cheap ploys that were often pulled to make the show "more interesting" (which was not necessary, at all), such as the Marcia/Darden sexual tension that I doubt existed in reality while also falling under the unfortunately common (in scripted media) misconception that a man and a woman cannot work together platonically. It's also no coincidence that the dialogue inside the courtroom is exceptionally better than that which occurs outside of it. In fact, I thought that perhaps the best-written segment of the show was the concluding 15 minutes or so that followed O.J. post-trial; one of the few times the show was subtle, smart, and plausible.
The imperfect script is executed mostly well, though I do question some of its moments of awkward over-stylization. And a lot of the soundtrack choices were really on-the-nose.
Criticisms aside, I thought it was incredibly entertaining. It's just bothersome because it's not nearly as fascinating or insightful as Made in America proved it could have been.
. I loved how they took entire episodes to focus on one element of the trial, as I think it gave them greater impact. If we'd seen just five minutes every episode of the jury, I reckon I would never have cared about them, but because they had an episode to themselves mainly, I did. I also think Paulson gave an all-time great performance (I'm a big fan of hers in general). The stunning "Marcia, Marcia, Marcia" episode alone earned her those awards - I just wish she could have tied with Dunst. 
