I agree with this.
It may be a sharp observation along the lines of “you never know about people–they are rarely what they seem to be at first” but I also think that if you want to write a character as complexly duplicitous you need to plant clues that this is so from the beginning, not partways through a plot line.
Not sure it’s necessary to blur spoilers this long after the season finale but just in case, we actually don’t know what the Italian police are going to do. I think the scene of the hotel guests at the airport is either the same day as the bodies are discovered or the next day. I assume their investigation is just getting started. Certainly they may wonder at the connection between the drowned American tourist and the dead bodies on the yacht. As for the similarity in the two seasons with regard to the hotel managers, sure the Italian woman had never had a same-sex experience but my guess is that Armond, the recovering drug addict manager in Hawaii, was more experienced.
I assumed the police, no matter how inept, are going to investigate the husband and his pals when a rich American is killed, which is why i thought the murder plot in both the literary and the practical senses was not very carefully thought out.
Yeah, this was very strange. I believe on Battlestar Galactica back in 2004-2009, they had two complicated characters that ended up more or less being antagonists…who were both gay for no reason other than “look, gay people exist here”. For those who don’t know what I’m referencing, it was:
I can’t remember if I’ve posted my thoughts in this thread so I may be repeating myself, but I’ll offer some support here. I agree with both you and your wife to varying degrees. I enjoy beautifully shot and produced shows starring beautiful people, and The White Lotus was good enough at that to keep me watching for two seasons. It was… fine.
But overall it was dull. The argument that “Well duh, they’re not supposed to be likeable” doesn’t ring with me. There are lots of shows starring unlikeable characters that are nevertheless very entertaining, either through comedy or sheer spectacle. It’s Always Sunny and Seinfeld are huge examples of the former, Sopranos and Barry for the latter. I don’t need to like the characters to have a good time, but I do need to have a good time. And The White Lotus thinks that it’s enough to go through the motions.
I’ll probably watch S3 though.
I was surprised that highbrow magazines like the London Review of Books and the New Yorker were hailing this show as a sophisticated satire of materialism and capitalism.
Critiquing materialist values is easy. The real litmus test is: what values, and what behaviors, does the show actually champion?
And the answer is – not particularly enlightened ones, as Dr. Colossus has pointed out above:
I started this thread and that’s basically my take on it. It lost me after season 1.
Both seasons were darkly humorous enough to keep my attention but I am concerned about the sort of message it sends to the all too many untraveled Americans that might be watching it. It’s basically saying, “Don’t risk visiting exotic places with different customs (not even ones in the United States). The hosts hate you and no good will come of it even if you make it back alive.”
Are the doing third season of this?
Yes, I believe so.
3rd season ends tonight and Inna and I cannot wait.
I’m going to have to watch it tonight because there will be no way to avoid spoilers tomorrow.
I thought the third season was the best. Great story lines well told, great casting and acting*, lovely setting with artistic cinematography (but never too artsy, always to support the characters and story).
Am I the only one that noticed the 2012 Kendrick Lamar song “Swimming Pools” provided the melodic hook underlying much of the music (at least, for a few minutes in each episode)? Appropriately enough – lots of swimming pool shots and scenes throughout.
(*Including Arnold Shwarzenegger and Maria Shriver’s son. At first I wasn’t sure, because his character seemed so repulsively shallow, but later I came to appreciate his acting skills.)
I felt like season 2 was able to differentiate itself enough to be a good watch. 3 was still good and still felt like it was worth making, but it started to have a few odors of formulaism and the need to one-up itself on shock value.
The daughter’s turnaround on Buddhism and asceticism felt a bit too forced, to deliver the political message that the author wanted. Likewise, Belinda’s heel turn for greed seemed out of character and hard to square with everything that we’d been shown before.
It never quite felt like it made sense that Mook would be so hardcore and committed to the idea that Gaitok needs to become a pro-violence hardass. If I felt like she liked him, then I might think that she’s just trying to help him succeed in his career. But it felt more like she wasn’t going to be interested until he changed his personality - in which case, why wasn’t she flirting with the badass bodyguards that were all over?
I felt like they’d done well, in previous seasons, of picking some of the likable characters to spare through to future seasons (e.g. Belinda and Tanya McQuoid). I was expecting them to follow template this season and spare the bunny girl. In a sense, I suppose that it’s good that they didn’t follow the formula too hard but I’d probably have preferred that they spared a good character than upped the ante with fraternal incest. The moral lessons of the show go away if you depart from karma into simple cynicism and fan service.
I liked the season. But I’m hoping that they pull back a little and work the details out a bit better, if they go for a season 4. But, probably, I’d advise them to quit while they’re ahead.
The what now? Isn’t the complete lack of any moral lessons or karmic justice this show’s brand?
I thought this was well-handled myself. Belinda, when she had the chance, did the same to the Thailand guy that Jennifer Coolidge did to her, make promises that she did not intend to keep.
In season 3, yes. Not so much in the early seasons (particularly the first).
It’s been a while since I saw seasons one and two so I don’t want to rehash them, but I definitely remember feeling like their moral compass was more than a little squirrelly.
I haven’t seen season 1 since it aired but my recollection was that McQuoid (Coolidge) was portrayed as an alcoholic flake. A significant amount of Belinda’s qualms of attaching herself to the rich lady was that she didn’t want to get in a position where she’d have quit her job or otherwise stranded herself in an awkward position, just to have the lady not follow through.
McQuoid may have even warned her that she wasn’t a reliable partner.
That’s all internally consistent and in-character for both people portrayed. And, in total, it portrayed Belinda as a person who was both cautious and prudent, not willing to just rush into things all crazy-like or in the name of a sudden, risky cash grab.
Different characters with different personalities and interests shouldn’t copy each others actions.
Likewise, I don’t remember so clearly as to say anything with great confidence. As noted above, I think that McQuoid was portrayed as an unreliable alcoholic. While that could, by accident, lead her to cause problems for others, it isn’t clear that it would be malicious.
I don’t recall any strongly negative behavior on the side of Belinda. I’m not vouching for the lady to have been a saint in the first season, just not a prime target for karmic justice, at least.