MovieChat Forums > Boardwalk Empire (2010) Discussion > The problem with this show

The problem with this show

posted 8 years ago by Adolphe_Menjou
4 replies | jump to latest

Margaret as a character typifies everything wrong with the show. It didn't know where it was going or wanted to do. One moment she's the moral compass, the next she accepts criminal behavior; the height of hypocrisy. Similarly Boardwalk Empire never found it's focus. Was it an indictment on the American Dream? was it a show about the Drug War? was it just escapist entertainment about a period in history or a progressivist agenda for woman's rights, civil rights, and nonviolence?

I don't know, and I don't think Terence Winter every really knew either. And just as the show kept shifting it's focus, from being the Heir to Tony Sopranos' Character Drama throne in one scene, to being a "The Wire"-esque multiple story arc epic in the next, with Deadwood-like colorful characters, I felt the show was disjointed, plodding, and middle of the road. NO wonder Margaret's storyline fizzled out by the fourth season - The writers had no clue what they wanted to say, how could they know what she was her function to the plotline?

Que Sera Sera

[–] kenny-164 8 years ago

That is a really harsh appraisal, AM.

First of all I think the central theme of the show was rather simple and obvious, while its explication was well done and sophisticated. it essentially concerned sin, redemption, and in Nucky's case original sin. Related themes were loyalty and the absence thereof, family, and of course the conflict between violence and pursuit of the American dream.

I also find inexplicable the extent to which people had trouble with the way the Margaret character was written. She was SUPPOSED to be conflicted and inconsistent. She was in that respect sort of an interpreter of what was going on as viewers would ponder and be pulled back and forth. At times she would work with Nucky, at times against him. This reflected certainly my own view of the character, like when Gyp Rosetti had him on the run I was hoping for him, and at other times found him repellant. In that regard I am certain the writers and directors wanted us to have an ambivalence about the characters, and for that matter the time in which they lived.

In any event I think you have oversold the argument that Margaret was all that changeable. I don't think she was ever without moral consideration even if she would do things that conflicted with her sense of morality. We all do that, don't we? Similarly she may have at times been more and at others less inclined to accept criminal behavior. I thought these turns were supported by the context in which the writers presented the choices.

Having said all that I did like Kelly MacDonald very much as a performer, as I do in other work of hers I am familiar with, and can concede I have a sort of personal crush on her. Heh. So I can say I would have preferred if her character's presence in season 4 did not as you observed decline, although such presence did reappear to great effect in season 5. But my criticism is not the same as yours.

[–] iceveins-10457 8 years ago

Fantastic assessment and couldn't agree with you more. This show zig zagged all over the place. I thought it was poorly written, ever shifting and had an unclear direction. Not to mention it was impossible to connect with any of the characters. I somehow managed to sit through all seasons and regretted doing so, this entire series was forgettable.

[–] MedicJenny 8 years ago

I think Margaret was meant to show us that even moral people can be corrupted by power and money. I think they made a big mistake by killing off Owen Slater so early in the series because he was really the only wild card in Margaret's storyline. Without that, she was an aimless character that they didn't know what to do with. I think they had potential for making her relevant by working for Rothstein with the insider trading storyline, but then they killed Rothstein off screen and dropped that plot. They should have just had Margaret run off with Owen and left it at that.

I think the show suffered from "pulling the rug out" syndrome. It was obvious that most of the storylines they set up where intricate and detailed and required time to tell. They were probably planning on a minimum of seven seasons but were cancelled after five and were forced to wrap everything up in one season. Season 5 was a huge mess, but it wasn't entirely their fault. They did the best they could with the little time they had.

[–] amodestproposal 8 years ago

Look, this show started great, it set up a lot of awesome characters and pieces to move around, and then it seemed like they had problems in the writer's room, because when they didn't know what the hell to do with the plot, they killed a main character. That's boring, formulaic writing that shows like Walking Dead do up to the extreme, but I think the audience of a show like BE didn't react as well.

I mean, they didn't get through two season without having to have a major kill when the bumped off Angela and the Commodore.

If you look at a show like The Sopranos, yes there was regular violence, but it wasn't random and it always meant something. Often the would introduce characters only to have them killed in a few episodes, but they realized that killing main characters would change the flavor of the show and they gave it the necessary weight. Or they would introduce a character for a season and have the season's plot revolve around that character and then much of it is resolved with that character's death by the end of the season. They did it with Ritchie, Ralphie--though I think he was 2 seasons, Tony (Steve Buscemi), etc....

On this show, they killed off Jimmy and acted like the show could just continue on...for me, that was kind of the end of the show. I thought of it as a story about two main characters, Nucky, Jimmy, and Margaret....very interesting, deep, tragic characters...but then they tried to treat Nucky like he was the Tony of this series, and he wasn't.

Then, they embark on Season 3, trying to make Margaret a character less dependent on Nucky in the plot with the whole women's education and hospital sub-plot, so that they can separate the two later and still have the audience care about her, though it doesn't really work. They then proceed to do this with all the characters that were held together by Nucky and Jimmy. The only time it works is with Richard, who was the only one interesting enough to stand on his own.

Without Jimmy, everything with his kid and mother just becomes...taxing, only permitted because it keeps Richard on the screen.

Trying to make us care about "Mr. Mueller" after he runs from the IRS....and try to fold him into the story again as a half-a-gangster...that's something else that feels watered down and half-measured.

And then, of course, they pour on the violence...Babett's, hyper-violent new antagonists....and eh....

I would have rather seen Jimmy survive, maybe leave for New York or Chicago, maybe be damaged somehow but not dead, and have a couple concurrent story lines that would intersect again later. It was such a waste to kill him off.