MovieChat Forums > Smash (2012) Discussion > Removing the rivalry between Karen + Ivy...

Removing the rivalry between Karen + Ivy killed the show for me


One of the things I loved about this show was the up and down, semi-odd friendship that Karen and Ivy shared. It was this stiff competition with brief moments of friendliness towards each other.

At the end of Season 1, Ivy mysteriously sleeps with Karen's boyfriend and this changes the whole dynamic of the show. Ivy for the remainder of Season 2 is this constantly sad puppy.

I have never seen a show that had two lead actresses that I liked equally (although I really loved Ivy a bit more) but they both had their good and bad moments. You understood Ivy, and you understood Karen.

I'm not going to lie, Season 1 had some odd moments like the adoption storyline, but this Ivy/Karen was the most enticing part of the show. When Season 2 came out and it changed this dynamic even Jennifer Hudson couldn't save it.

Fact: 31.5% of IMDb users wanted Avatar to win Best Picture.
Fact: 31.5% of IMDb users are idiots.

reply

I completely agree. I didn't like it because it was "cat fight" sort of stuff, I never would have watched the show if it just about two girls fighting. It was deeper than that. They were both very talented women in competition for a role that could change their lives. And yes, you could initially side with both of them. They were both likeable, friendly, ambitious and striving to prove themselves. I don't know why but it's obvious that one of the big shake ups in the writers room was to change this dynamic because the audience somehow had to root for Karen. So Ivy became a horrible bitch, was rude, insulting and very unprofessional. People can argue that Karen was out of line by trying to upstage Ivy in rehearsals but Ivy brought that on herself with having her friends spy on Karen, make her feel unwelcome in the rehearsal room when she had no friends and then that snarky "well I'm singing it now"...all before they even began. Then she was having Karen removed and cut from numbers because she felt threatened by her. So yeah, Ivy became very, very dislikeable and Karen remained very likeable.

In season 2, Ivy was by far the nicest, least self-serving, obnoxious character on the show and oddly enough, Karen started behaving and acting in questionable ways. But removing both characters from each others worlds and having Ivy live on Broadway and Karen away down town, their lack of interaction/competition/rivalry really changed a dynamic of the show.

Season 1 had some odd moments like the adoption storyline

That was introduced because Theresa Rebeck based the character of Julia on herself and needed her to have a storyline outside of Bombshell so that Debra Messing would be more identifiable as the shows leading character. I hated that storyline and having Julia living in her own universe. If it wasn't for how talented Messing is as an actor, I would not have paid attention to her adoption/family troubles.

Here's an idea: next time, instead of being late, just *beep* on my face-Emma Stone

reply

You need a re-watch. Ivy never "had" her friends spy on Karen, Dennis signed on voluntarily, and informed Ivy after the fact. The ensemble were unwelcoming to Karen because they saw her as an upstart, and a wanna-be threat to their friend and colleague - Ivy did not instigate that, either.

Nor did Ivy "have" Karen removed from any numbers - that was done by the director, because Karen was disruptive to the work and wouldn't take directions to tone it down. Did Ivy object to having a green chorine upstage and distract her (from her job)? Sure she did - rightfully.

And this extraordinarily unprofessional behavior of Karen's would have gotten her fired the first day, it was her own fault, she was repeatedly reprimanded, and still insisted on her "right" to upstage the leading lady. Because, of course, in Karen's world, anything not about Karen is a terrible injustice.

Yes, Ivy's insecurities caused some witchy behavior, but Karen's was infinitely more egregious, professionally speaking, and, again, would have gotten her a$$ canned speedily. Ivy did nothing which would have resulted in her losing a job, in the real theatre world, and that includes the "Heaven and Earth" instance, as was much dissected at the time.

Oh, right. So, she secretly trained a flock of sandflies.

reply

Wooooord. I'm forever a little concerned our beloved smg brings this sort of thing up given (er, she? he? apologies) notes they've had training but yet:

Alas this is a massive writing problem. I completely understood all of these things. Just as I completely understood what a major diss it is to have Karen not understand where Stage Left is. I don't even consider myself a theatre person, I just worked on some plays in college. But I talk to my mum, who is intelligent and well-educated, who has flown places to see things I've worked on (mostly to visit me, but the timing was theatre-dependent) actually watched that episode and didn't know Stage Left is like remedial basic.

The rest is just ridiculous. The scripts are rife with double standards. From which Karen always comes out the victor. Yet those same double standards are the ones which have for decades oppressed women and are the things feminists have been pushing against.

I'm still pissed off about "That's Life." I can't listen to it. That little riff with Karen claiming Ivy "stepped on her dream, IVY" aside is so not an appropriate thing to put in the official recording. The show? Sure. The thing you want me to buy? *beep* Off. It doesn't make any sense, it's untrue, it's offensive. Who like, didn't cut that out of the final recording? Are they Nutty?

I'm also going to point out: odds are the age difference between Karen and Ivy is probably similar to the real life age difference. Ie, a very few years. People like to pretend Karen is like this naive little 18 year old, but textually, she went to college and has been in New York doing... nothing... for 2 years. She's solidly 23-24 by the time she starts.

What we know about Ivy is she's been working for 10 years. Given her background and drive, do we really think she went to college? Do we really think she didn't land a chorus gig first year out? (Note Karen isn't even auditioning for anything less than lead.) Season 1 she's probably 28. Maybe even less, she's a prime candidate for graduating early. The notion she's "washed up" is because she's been trying yet working for so long without a break. Meanwhile we SHOULD be concerned that Karen can't support herself after 2 years, and needs a man.

reply

Yes, it's all been spelled out, repeatedly, with specifics and the knowledge to back it up, to smg, and yet he repeats it over and over. It's flabbergasting how people just continue with completely disproven fallacies. Maybe "Smash" needs a "Snopes" page.

Oh, it was such a trainwreck, the writing. I'll say it again, it made me wonder whether the writers threw all their meds into a bowl, grabbed random handfuls, and set to work when the effects made themselves know. Perhaps, given the non-Greenblatt NBC bigwigs' and Spielberg's insisting on being blind and deaf to the critics, let alone dramatic logic or, um, facts, the poor writers might somewhat excusable in feeling the need.

Oh, I so, so, sooo, agree. I haven't revisited "That's Life." even when I have re-watched the episode, I skip. Just blecherous. Karen cannot be removed from "Bombshell" except by her own agency, despite being 1) the utterly wrong choice, and 2) in breach of her contract, yet she still gets to accuse Ivy of that? Bad words. Very bad words. Yosemite Sam epithets.

Karen is definitely 24, she says so. I had had the same though as you, Ivy as 28-ish, and was extremely annoyed to find they'd made her 30, according to the NBC "bio," or so I was told by several. Still. She's been working.

But it is unrealistic to think that Karen should have been supporting herself as an actress within 2 years. There are very, very few Megan Hiltys, or Ivy Lynns.

Oh, right. So, she secretly trained a flock of sandflies.

reply

IKR? I feel really bad for Greenblatt actually, I think he was really trying to do this big thing and he had all the right reasons and goals and expectations and then all these egos got in the way and despite being willing to put everything on the line it was never going to work and he was never going to be able to save it.

On the bright side the whole show really is a nice "how not to do it" for anyone wanting to write for TV or be a showrunner. If I wasn't in love with a few of the characters and dynamics I'd be overall quite enthusiastic. Darnnit for great actors ruining my life :(

It's not that I think Karen should be self-supporting and doing well, it's just that 2 years in the city and as far as we know she'd done NOTHING, not because she was being overlooked, or wasn't quite fitting in to choruses, but because she wouldn't consider anything but a star turn. That's the problem. They set up the chorus as the bottom-o-the-barrel, yet simultaneously then as the thing *anyone* could get - even though they really presented the chorus offer to Karen as a favour, we're meant to consider her taking it as simply being destined for the main role so she'll demean herself. Yet even so it's so foreign for her she simply cannot handle doing anything but that!

Rawr this show enrages me. It just makes absolutely no sense! ... Though even at 30 an actress is certainly not over the hill, no man would be considered so, WHY THE FUGIT did McPhee win a femnist award for the first season finale, could we please use these terms with a bit of respect instead of promoting the very rationale backlash? (I'm similarly still eternally scarred by the ending of In Plain Sight, which was on USA which is owned by NBC Network. WTF was that dudes? "Your massive once-in-a-lifetime crisis with far reaching consequence is offensive to my girlfriend yet I love you so much I will always help you so please never ask me for help again even though I shall be your boss and lolz we can still be friends.) *repeatedHEADDESK*

reply

Greenblatt, yes, I feel for him also. He truly loves musical theatre, having produced, IIRC, "Nine to Five" with Hilty. I think as you do, but too many cooks, they couldn't agree that you don't put massive amounts of saccharine into paella.

IIRC, Karen had done a few minor shows in the boroughs, they said later, yes, "principals only," if not necessarily starring roles.

And, yes, again, "Smash" is so incoherent . . . and many actors LIKE being in the ensemble, as many like being supporting players. Keeps you in the theatre and far less pressure, in-cast and in life.

The "Plain Sight" end (I've not seen it) sounds fascinatingly confused. I must check it out.



Oh, right. So, she secretly trained a flock of sandflies.

reply

The "Plain Sight" end (I've not seen it) sounds fascinatingly confused. I must check it out.


I would not check out the ending it was stupid. And frustrating. But if you come across any of the other bits it is a lovely show (from USA) with a great cast who clearly had a ball working together. Mary McCormack is lead, the whole point is the female anti-hero-lead and the concept of the witness protection program has a lot of juice. Worse thing I can say about it is McCormack's married to Michael Morris so I feel his McPhee scandal particularly keenly (her RL pregnancy is featured in the last season, down to her steadfast portrayal of "real" post-pregnancy bodies.)

IIRC, Karen had done a few minor shows in the boroughs, they said later, yes, "principals only,"


What's super odd is they took pains to point out that non-principal roles can be ripe. Maybe the effect was no one took Ivy and her bit in Liason's seriously (they actually forgot to establish if there WAS a female lead, so it's arguable.) I just don't get it because again anything ensemble/non-95%-of-everything-lead is being thrown away.

Michael Cerveris is my all time favourite love him Broadway Actor. For hilariously unrelated reasons but w/e, I think they were trying to pull the same trick by having Karen score in Hollywood. W/e. So he did Titanic. Which I love. But he has like 2 solos and a couple of non-solos songs. I bought the album anyway and adore it still and fell in love with a voice I later found out was Brian d'Arcy James, who is brilliant, but the point is excuse you why is Karen the only VOICE because there is no THE VOICE and theatre is 100% about multiplicity but also the thing those two guys have in common is recognizability and storytelling and Karen doesn't on either front...

And YES Rent2 only was nomm'd because Kyle died (and because Rent was brilliant and if anyone is getting Rent and Rent2 confused, look. RENT is about a specific time and place and situation. 90s New York artistic community during AIDS crisis. RENT2 is about... Someone who wants to be a pop star. ... It is not the same thing or even remotely comparable and I cringe that RENT actors participated in Smash and only hope they got a good paycheck. RENT is part of my childhood and this RENT2 rubbish offends me, which I try not to say because I know I was derivative at the time and if this generation finds RENT2 a viable substitute I just need to go cry in a corner because idekwtf.)

Also I find McPhee's line read when she bursts in on Derek/Ivy alley convo offensive. And I always will. It was bad. It was B-movie bad.

*stops having personal "nutty"*

reply

Oh, Cecile is definitely a principal role. Principal =/= lead; it does mean a significant contribution to the plot. The female lead in "Liaisons" would have been Merteiul, but we never even know who she is. Silly, such an interesting concept, almost completely thrown away. We didn't even get all of "Letter from Cecile," sheesh.

You are totally right about there never being a "THE" in theatre. How can that even be an idea, especially now, when we have Megan Hilty, Idina Menzel, Stephanie K. Block, Sutton Foster, Laura Osnes, Audra MacDonald, Kristen Chenoweth, et al just on the distaff side.

Yeah, the notion that "Hit List" had anything real in common with "Rent" is offensive. So offensive to me that, mixing it with Karen's supposed "THE-ONE-NESS," I hated every second spent on it, despite some terrific songs and Jeremy Jordan's fine delivery.

There was a "Rent" spoof in "Slings & Arrows," with a wide-eyed lissome brunette in the lead. "A triple threat," she is called, and the girl playing Cordelia in "Lear" snarks, "what, cute, sexy and bendy?" Sarah Polley plays the latter, she's quite good.

I'll check out "In Plain Sight," I saw several episodes and liked it, I've admired McCormack for ages. My husband, though, wasn't crazy about it, but summer doldrums, maybe he can be convinced to give it a visit.

Oh, right. So, she secretly trained a flock of sandflies.

reply

There was a "Rent" spoof in "Slings & Arrows"...

! ! ! ! ! ! !

"It's a beautiful day in East Hastings / To want more / For a whore..."




.

reply

I can't find a link to all the lyrics - if memory serves, the hero starts with:

It's a beautiful day in East Hastings / (something) / It's a beautiful day in East Hastings / To want more

Then, Lulu sings:

It's a beautiful day in East Hastings / I didn't wake up on the floor / It's a beautiful day in East Hastings / For a whore

If I'm wrong, tell me. I need a rewatch of this, the best theatre-set show in history.

Oh, right. So, she secretly trained a flock of sandflies.

reply

I know you'll find me frustrating, but I still blame Ivy for the predicament in "The Cost of Art". I've been trained at college in drama, I studied at a dancing high school, I've never been in a professional musical theatre ensemble on Broadway. I don't sing. So, I'm looking at it from the everyday-person approach who most likely would have watched Smash. From a professional perspective, Karen was distracting Ivy from her job and would have been fired (after warnings, which she was given) for doing so. From the storytelling point of view, Karen is the excited newcomer who wants to prove that she has what it takes to be the star of the production too and amps it up, while the depicted villain sabotages her chances. Even though I understand the unprofessionalism Karen shows, I still lean towards the way the writers executed it.

I like Ivy. She's a great character and ultimately the more deserving for the role of Marilyn. But regardless of whether she was in the right or not, it's her attitude towards it that makes me dislike her for a few episodes. She's so smug and pleased with herself. Karen's reasoning is that she is supposed to "play to the balcony". I don't see that as "the hoe took my role and I'mma show her how I play". I don't believe she was trying to throw Ivy; just trying to justify to herself that she deserves to be there. Ivy doesn't behave in a sympathetic way. At all. I never felt frustrated for her when she was being put off, purely because her face lights up both time she has Karen cut from the number. Yes, Karen was removed by the creative time, but Ivy was pivotal in that happening. It's especially easy for me to see when Karen is moved to the very back of the "Wolf" number and STILL Ivy halts the rehearsal and has her (and Bobby) taken out of it. I think removing Bobby was the writers way of not making it seem too personal a vendetta.

Karen cannot be removed from "Bombshell" except by her own agency, despite being 1) the utterly wrong choice, and 2) in breach of her contract

She was awful here. Even the bathroom, "I wanted to leave, I was so jealous". YOU HAD THE PART, KAREN!

Here's an idea: next time, instead of being late, just *beep* on my face-Emma Stone

reply

It is certainly frustrating when you firmly ignore canon and keep repeating things that didn't actually happen as fact.

From a professional perspective, Karen was distracting Ivy from her job and would have been fired (after warnings, which she was given) for doing so. From the storytelling point of view, Karen is the excited newcomer who wants to prove that she has what it takes to be the star of the production too and amps it up, while the depicted villain sabotages her chances.


Most people know - if, unlike Karen, they have one or two functioning brain cells - that it does not recommend one for promotion to show one's self unable - and pigheadedly unwilling - to do the job one actually has been given, despite repeated remonstrances from all and sundry, (director, choreographer, etc., right down to Dev), to "tone it down, already!" Karen getting a role in the ensemble was a big break for her - she should be keeping her head down and learning as fast as she can, not flatly refusing to do so.

It is highly irregular - really not done - to cast in the ensemble an also-ran for the lead - precisely because one does not want one's lead distracted. Therefore, Ivy's being distracted - and annoyed - by Karen's presence is perfectly natural, and should be expected. Not villainy, normal theatre humanity. And then Karen repeatedly upstages her? Of course she's upset, and of course she wants it to stop. Approaching the creative team about it is respecting the chain of command.

Perhaps the writers want having and eating cake. Remember, canon says (with Bobby) "Ivy's fine. The problem is you, Miss Artichoke Heart . . . you didn't sign on to be champion, you signed on to be Ivy's back-up singer."

You took dance lessons, step dancing, IIRC? Did no teacher ever point out the importance of unison, staying in line? Every dance class I took had lots of that. And Karen has been in some musicals, one assumes in college as well as minor outer-borough work. It was lame (as well as late) to say she'd "only played principals" as an excuse for her not knowing that ensembles are supposed to, well, be that. Did no member of the chorus ever step out of line in any show she's worked in, and receive correction? Are we to assume Karen is so stuffed full of herself that she can't be bothered to take note of anyone else in the production, so long as she gets the focus? That she never took dance lessons?

ETA: Karen's awful, period. They tried a different sort of sugar coating in Season 2, it flaked off more, but under the sweet is a nasty taste, always.


Oh, right. So, she secretly trained a flock of sandflies.

reply

that it does not recommend one for promotion to show one's self unable - and pigheadedly unwilling - to do the job one actually has been given


Yeah, where I can't follow is the logic that Ivy "had Karen cut" when Ivy barely starts to speak and Derek moves Karen around and off. It's not until much later in season 1, and not truly until season 2, that Derek EVER inherently respects Ivy. If he cut her, he did it for his own reasons. Now if TOM cut Karen from something, there we have actual textual evidence he did it in deference to Ivy.

It's also Alarming with a capital A that Bernadette Peters has answered questions to the end that she concurs Ivy was irrationally screwed and Karen should and would never have been there. She does some fancy footwork to say this without dissing Smash, but there it is.

And it's not even a dramatic thing. I took Intro Architecture, we had a very specific assignment, I designed a building for it and my professor slaughtered it as an ill-fit for space and situation. "But was it a good design?" I begged? "That's an irrational question" he answered. "It's either good for the job you have or it isn't." I learned a lot that day. For the dim, it maps to the question of whether Karen was doing her job. She was not. PS SUTTON FOSTER was either chorus or bit player before breaking out. And Karen is either meant to be her or maybe a weird Laura Osnes clone but probably not since Osnes was, IIRC, up for the part.

It's also just stupid 'cuz Karen as is can't do an emsemble show. Plus WTF is she going to do if Rent2 doesn't close and someone takes over her role? Have a meltdown if her replacement gets a positive review or any fans? Shoot people if someone else sings her "favourite song" ???

Karen's awful, period. They tried a different sort of sugar coating in Season 2


Here's where I disagree. Honestly I think Safran is such a gay fanboy his only true interests were Rent2.0 and JJ. And maybe a little bit Kyle. His disinterest allows a lot of the sh!tty side of Karen to shine, hence so many people noting that they loved her in season 1 but couldn't stand her in 2. No follow-through though so it fell a bit flat. I kinda suspect season 3 would continue in the vein, with Karen grandfrathering into fame, but the actual stars being dudes. Which is why I hate him because Smash is about the females and he is absolute rubbish at that (WHY was every first cut Eileen scenes when he always every time ran long 'cuz he could never figure out songs take up time?)

reply

It's also Alarming with a capital A that Bernadette Peters has answered questions to the end that she concurs Ivy was irrationally screwed and Karen should and would never have been there. She does some fancy footwork to say this without dissing Smash, but there it is.


Well, she had to go and tapdance around it because Rebeck said that Meron and Zadan told her, when she was writing and asked,, this was what they would do with a Problem Like Karen. “Put her in the chorus to season her up.” (I do note that they didn’t say WHICH chorus, and it’s possible in actuality that said chorus would have been a thoroughly different show than the one she got turned down for, lol.) But said it, they did.

reply

So, I'm looking at it from the everyday-person approach who most likely would have watched Smash.


I quite agree with most of your post but I don't think this is true. Most people don't have your significant dance background, much less college drama training/degree(?) It's maybe closer to the *intended* average viewer, who is statistically older, more highly educated, and earns vastly more than the national average, and thus is more likely to be theatrically sophisticated (ie, they can afford to go to a lot of plays.) The average actual viewer might have a college or associates degree, but certainly not in the arts, and almost certainly does not have formal training in critical analysis. But here's the thing:

But regardless of whether she was in the right or not, it's her attitude towards it that makes me dislike her for a few episodes.


And there's the rub. I'm a post-modernist, every interaction between viewer and subject matter is valid. And I understand why some people find Ivy unsympathetic. I understand why some people find Karen sympathetic. (You cover several points for the prior two statements). I understand why some other people see those same episodes and find Karen unsympathetic. I understand why some people find Ivy sympathetic. (Even easier because I'm one of those people.) I pat myself on the back for exercising one of *my* college majors, which is critically understanding media and the relationship between it and the people who engage with it.

Ivy doesn't behave in a sympathetic way. At all. I never felt frustrated for her


When we move past our own personal emotive reactions, we speak a more common language of analysis. Things are provable, or they're not. Ivy does not behave sympathetically. I concur on this point. She acts smug, she is periodically rude, she is passive aggressive. But why? Textual analysis of the script, which is apparently also a thing actors do, indicate that Ivy is acting in this way because she's incredibly insecure. She acts smug and haughty and treats Karen like a novice because she's absolutely terrified of losing this chance, of finding out she wasn't "waiting" for a break, just getting old on the shelf.

I read this in the show's portrayal. Textually it gives me plenty of evidence for all the underlying psychology of Ivy's behavior. Personally I remember times I've acted smug and haughty when in power because I was scared. I never made friends when I was like this, and I've learned, over the years, to be more open and humble, but the fact remains I know I've been a little sh!t at various points because I misguidedly wanted to prove I deserved what I had.

Then we have Karen, who is getting dumped on unfairly, and is shining as bright as she can. You note that she was sometimes out of line, but got in trouble, which is fair trade (they can't fire her, we'd have no show!) And yes, the idea is she is naive and 110% all the time. There's a bit of a rationale issue where she shouldn't be naive since if YOU know she's out of line, SHE should know: she's had roughly your background, if not more intense. Plus she's been working in NYC for 2 years.

But back to textual analysis. We know how she's acting, what's the psychological reality? She believes she's entitled to it. If one person says she's a star, if she comes that close to the role, she believes no one else can do it, not validly. She believes she doesn't have to fit herself to a role or production, it must meld herself to her. She believes it's the world's responsibility to catch her up if she falls behind. She wants to be a star but thinks the work comes after the reward.

Prove me wrong.

She was awful here. Even the bathroom, "I wanted to leave, I was so jealous". YOU HAD THE PART, KAREN!


IKR? Their defense is that "the Broadway guys say Karen wouldn't ever be fired..." so they rolled with that and made all the characters look worse. My respect for Karen would have instantly spiked if she risked getting fired, got fired, but decided Rent2 was worth it and was thus vindicated by it going to Broadway and winning all sorts of awards. Giant in-your-face to Jerry and thus bond with Eileen, if nothing else. Lovely war story, good for press, shows her characters mettle and passion so much more clearly than turning down the recording contract meeting.

And anyway, like everything else in Smash had been so true to life? Prednisone anyone? PS, my mum currently has a poison ivy situation and her doctor stuck her on prednisone. I asked her, she is not hallucinating.

reply

Karen's reasoning is that she is supposed to "play to the balcony". I don't see that as "the hoe took my role and I'mma show her how I play".


“I should sing to the rafters”, I don’t see how we’re supposed to see that as anything other than “Karen tries to fake-justify outsinging Ivy because Karen is just a natural show-offy snot, or thinks this ought to be her role”. No one needs to tell Karen “you should blend”. There can be almost no universe in which Karen, musically trained Karen, hasn’t heard chorus members being instructed to sing in unison before at some point in her life, in ensemble, as Ivy tries to say pointedly, “as one”. That is the exact opposite of “singing to the rafters”, and if Karen doesn’t know that, she’s either the most disingenuous idiot alive or she’s being Eve Harrington on purpose.

Because “it’s an ensemble”, is not “it’s a competition”. Karen is making it a competition, damn it, whether the producers have already awarded the role or not, she thinks she’ll reopen the discussion and debate by sheer lung power, and have everybody doing what they actually wind up doing - end the season believing that originally, when they chose Ivy, they made the wrong choice.

The intervening whys and wherefores about this, are all window dressing. It almost matters nought what the characters "do", because we know what their (the showrunners') mission is. To make people think Ivy is the dog dung on the producers' shoe, and Karen is the golden child.

And yes, singing louder than other people in a chorus is always distracting. Always. And there will always be someone handy to tell that choral singer to tone it down, because that’s only common sense. What is everyone else supposed to do, all start yelling to match Karen? Then the musical director could really never get a pleasant “in unison” sound. (I ask this because I seem to recall at the time of first season, we actually did have people saying that maybe everyone should step up their game to Karen’s so as not to be outsung including Ivy, lol.)

reply

... not a diss on your mum but just to point out, some things you indeed learn with very minimal experience, because they are just such a part of "The Experience". My mother knew those things Karen finds so puzzling, odd and wrong. And I think if she didn't have the experience herself in a musical in high school, my mother learned "stage left/right" at probably about the same time I did - which is basically, whenever a grownup with some performative experience has to "herd you people on or off", lol. I have to think, though I can't precisely recall, that it at least came up in my preteen ballet class, which would be sensible if so for choreography; and part of me also thinks, because it's so ubiquitous, that it was even drilled into us as early as elementary school band, Because the band director probably thinks in terms of "exit stage right", etc., like breathing, and finds it easier to instruct the small sheeple by explaining the little ditty about literal "stage direction". Herd you onstage for a performing assembly, to back up or work with a guest performer - ditto.

Also silly not to consider it in terms of Karen's high school turn as Maria in "Sound Music", unless Dylan Baker isn't clear and it's set up so that she might just have been in a "high school talent show" (I can't recall at the moment). Even if we forget the fake Playbill bio with all that OB experience for Karen, there's one show.

reply

... not a diss on your mum but just to point out, some things you indeed learn with very minimal experience,


Oh no offense taken, I had a long horrified conversation with her on that very point.

The problem is that blaming your audience isn't a good strategy, and if your audience is having trouble, it's probably your fault. And it really is: part of fiction is that we DO believe what we're told over what we know is true, because if internal narrative consistency didn't take precedence no one but perhaps children could enjoy anything in the fantasy realm, and basically every procedural would be out on its bum.

The real issues here are multifold. They wanted to show that Karen was overwhelmed, but since they also didn't want to show her as in any way lacking or failing, they couldn't indicate textually that she was BEING an idiot. Which is stupid because you could do both by simply showing in previous scenes that she totally knows the term - maybe by having a chorus scene where Derek tells a group to move "Stage Right" and she hops to along with everyone else, or even in those little "training/helping" scenes having her note she doesn't think she's "Stage Left" enough or something to hit her mark. At any rate it's a problem with the writing.

A problem made vastly worse by the very fact that someone in there, and here I think it's actually Rebeck forgoing help, because the problem is being naive about television in the ways it's very different from stage (esp wrt the audience) and writing FOR a TV show is very different from CREATING a TV show, but:

They want Karen to be both the novice and a logical character. But she isn't a novice, nor is she a rational character. Ask an average viewer about the age difference between Karen and Ivy. I think there's a reason we never get their actual ages, and that reason is Karen is perceived as a fresh-faced 20 year old, Ivy is over 30. Where given what we know Karen is at the start of the show solidly 23 and Ivy is probably 28 at the max. They're playing up a lot of really anti-feminist themes, which I still find horrifying, since Karen gets the benefit of college education yet youth, meanwhile Ivy is saddled with obscurity and age. Yet education is ridiculed (clearly didn't teach Karen the "base blue collar" lingo like Stage Directions or if the numbers would stay on stage) and social strengths of making supportive friendships with other chorus members and even writers and composers is some sort of slutty issue to look down on, rather than fundamental and perfectly respected with termed "networking."

ON that note I'm still quite pleased what they did with Ronnie. Having Karen try to "own" Ronnie, yet have Ronnie quite naturally respect Ivy and value her friendship, not despite but BECAUSE of Ivy's rather menial history as a swing, was one of the most organic things we saw on the show.

reply

[deleted]

I agree with you.

I find it telling that I have no problem with McPhee when I've since seen her in other roles. This role made me dislike her so much and I think a lot of that has to do with the fact that it was a nearly impossible part. I don't think she's an amazing actress yet, but this did her no favors and I think she can do well in other opportunities.

reply

I agree as well, but partly because it meant the focus was on Bombshell, and I loved watching their routines (even though Ivy was worlds better). But I liked the balance the writers achieved between making us like and also be disappointed in the characters, at different points.

reply