Farewell, Rectify. Please watch Abigail Spencer's new series Timeless. - Rectify (2013) Discussion

[–] ToHelenBackAgain 8 years ago

Nah.

"Oh, I'll be polite. Right up until I'm rude."

reply

[–] punchallwhitewomen 8 years ago

Why not?

What shows are you into these days? I literally feel like I am in a drought of good shows.

reply

[–] ToHelenBackAgain 8 years ago

Tried it, didn't like it. She was partly why I didn't like it, but it wouldn't have made a difference if they'd had a better actress. I just thought it was a dumb show. Sorry.

"Oh, I'll be polite. Right up until I'm rude."

reply

[–] punchallwhitewomen 8 years ago

You don't think Spencer is a good actress?

reply

[–] ToHelenBackAgain 8 years ago

Mixed bag. She was better here IMO. Different directors? I don't know. Rectify seemed to get great performances out of everyone. On Timeless, I found her monumentally unconvincing, but it didn't really matter much since the writing made me want to slap all the characters anyway.

"Oh, I'll be polite. Right up until I'm rude."

reply

[–] prairie-16766 8 years ago

Loved her in her brief turn on Mad Men as Sally Draper's teacher.

reply

[–] Jackie68 8 years ago

I like the actress and I'm enjoying Timeless. Just some daft fun to watch.

reply

[–] elocs1 8 years ago

Tried it, didn't like it. She was partly why I didn't like it, but it wouldn't have made a difference if they'd had a better actress. I just thought it was a dumb show. Sorry.

Agreed. I thought the same.

reply

[–] prairie-16766 8 years ago

I'm recording it.

reply

[–] ldj-20912 8 years ago

Timeless is a fun family show that every age can watch.

reply

[–] Whatlarks 8 years ago

Eeew.

"You must not judge what I know by what I find words for." - Marilynne Robinson

reply

[–] ToHelenBackAgain 8 years ago



"Oh, I'll be polite. Right up until I'm rude."

reply

[–] ldj-20912 8 years ago

What is wrong with a show you can watch with your children?

reply

[–] TamPalm 8 years ago

I tried Timeless for a millisecond and got disinterested. But I'm sure it's a great show for people who enjoy that genre.

On the other hand, I DVR Clayne Crawford's new show "Lethal Weapon" and like it a lot. Not as an earth-shattering unforgettable experience as "Rectify" was, but just as a light-hearted, fun show with good acting (Clayne's lol.)

"If it doesn't make sense, it's not true." -- Judge Judy

reply

[–] ToHelenBackAgain 8 years ago

But I'm sure it's a great show for people who enjoy that genre.

I enjoy that genre. It isn't. It's as if they watched everything that was good about the sadly short-lived Seven Days, then carefully and thoroughly omitted all of those elements.

Lethal Weapon is fun though? That is not a genre I generally like, but Crawford is so good... might get a kick out of seeing him doing something with a comedic slant. I'll give it a go!

"Oh, I'll be polite. Right up until I'm rude."

reply

[–] izzybee3 8 years ago

I tried Timeless for a millisecond and got disinterested. But I'm sure it's a great show for people who enjoy that genre.

On the other hand, I DVR Clayne Crawford's new show "Lethal Weapon" and like it a lot. Not as an earth-shattering unforgettable experience as "Rectify" was, but just as a light-hearted, fun show with good acting (Clayne's lol.)

I feel exactly the same on both counts. Clayne Crawford is a newly found treasure.

*****************************************
Look - Spartacus draws blood. ~ Lucretia

reply

[–] inyoface415 8 years ago

Why should I support Abigail Spencer? She was on a show I liked. She wasn't so incredible that I must follow everything she does. The Wire and Breaking Bad were amazing tv shows, but I didn't follow everything everyone from those shows did. The only actor that has reached that level for me is Walton Goggins. He earned that. He wasn't just on a show I liked.

reply

[–] Makarov-324 8 years ago

Yep. I'm watching Timeless and as a sci fi / time travel fan it's a fun show. Clearly not meant to be super serious. It reminds me of BTTF the animated series a little bit and I'm glad there's something like that on TV. Lethal weapon is no different in being lighter fare, it's an episodic cop show but also good.

reply

[–] Eva_Marrie 8 years ago

Abigail is a pathetically bad dramatic actress. She's talented in deadpan comedy. She was always the one misfire in the Rectify cast in almost all her dramatic scenes. She's too mainstream Hollywood for this show, frankly.

As for following actors - Young is the only actor in this cast that I will watch in anything without question. I've combed through almost his entire filmography/TV credits, and I will eventually get to the Australian film archive to pull up his early indie features. The main thing that makes me such a dedicated fan is that he has a completely unique presence - he is completely and utterly un-Hollywood. Unpolished diamond really, and I am thrilled that Ray dug him up.

Crawford is extraordinary too, but it's not enough to make me watch a show completely outside my sphere of interest. I hope to see him again in something else though.

I've seen Adelaide in Parade's End. It was interesting, but I won't seek her out consciously .

reply

[–] 8 years ago

[deleted]

[–] punchallwhitewomen 8 years ago

I think Abigail was the best actress in the show.

reply

[–] Eva_Marrie 8 years ago

Comedically, not dramatically.

reply

[–] Whatlarks 8 years ago

I'm not sure what you mean by "dramatically." In what way did she not serve the character well?

"You must not judge what I know by what I find words for." - Marilynne Robinson

reply

[–] Eva_Marrie 8 years ago

She can't emote naturally.

reply

[–] Whatlarks 8 years ago

Granting that the actress is limited, as I have no exposure to her other than Rectify, it seems to me sensible casting. Perhaps a better actress would have given more nuance to her scenes, showing her fighting her emotions more.

But that doesn't necessarily mean what exists is unnatural to the character. I mean, Amantha/Spencer doesn't seem to have any problem emoting anger, for example. Does her anger seem unnatural to you?

The character isn't an emoter of the "softer" emotions. She deflects. She naturally, or at least habitally, channels those feelings into combat-mode. As she tells Billy, her sarcasm is a bad habit. That's why her response with her mother in the finale, when Janet takes responsibility for abandoning her, is so striking -- the opposite of the angry outburst in the attic. Same pain, different channel. I found that Spencer emoted naturally in that scene - and actually did a good job with nuance: you can see her fighting those "softer" feelings.

"You must not judge what I know by what I find words for." - Marilynne Robinson

reply

[–] Eva_Marrie 8 years ago

OK, she's REALLY limited then. She does well with sarcasm and anger, and being dryly funny, but her attempts at emoting anything else are pitiful. She has never really fitted into the show organically, like every other cast member even in the smallest parts. Hell, even the actress playing Sondra does a better job, and her character is also out of town, so you can't put it down to Amantha's character being a fish out of water in Paulie.

See, after lots of prestige TV experience with acting discussions, I don't buy into the 'it's not the actor/actress' fault, their character just displays limited emotion' argument. Every single time that has happened, the same actress/actor has indeed turned out to be sub-par in terms of talent in other roles. A great performer can always add layers no matter how emotionally repressed the character is written.

reply

[–] Whatlarks 8 years ago

I understand what you're saying in the second paragraph. Well, I understand the first but don't share the feeling she can't emote anything other than anger, etc. Her scene with Janet, with her long-lost friend Jenny, her goodbye to Jon, those worked for me. I think as a character she was naturally awkward, not fitting in organically.

I agree there was a lack of nuance, and I do know that nuance makes a huge difference in terms of how much one can engage with a character. Amantha did come across as one-note, and I think that could have been avoided had Spencer had more reach. What an actor is capable of affects the writing, so there a closed loop situation.

I think of Aaron Paul, how Jesse was going to be killed off in S1 Breaking Bad, but seeing the chemistry with Walt and his nuanced performance, they realized he was a keeper. I can't imagine that series even working without him. Or President Bartlett in The West Wing, who was going to be a peripheral character until Martin Sheen blew them away; then it was impossible not to give him more substance on the page and expand his influence.

"You must not judge what I know by what I find words for." - Marilynne Robinson

reply

[–] Eva_Marrie 8 years ago

Yep, and there are many stories of guest actors or supporting actors that turned out to be so impressive in their work that showrunners wrote them in as regulars, or gave them more substantial story-lines. In fact, I suspect that this is what happened with Clayne Crawford here because the character was written as a very one-note baddie in S1.

Aaron Paul's story is incredible because his presence gave the show a soul and a unique dynamic. It was also his chemistry with Cranston that stopped the character from being killed off. Another happy accident there was the character of Gus being introduced only because Tuco's actor found the part too exhausting to commit to long-term. Both those actors were spectacular as well.

reply

[–] Eva_Marrie 8 years ago

Sign, I love FitzGerald and have defended her profusely multiple times on this board. At least direct this at someone who blamed Chloe's ineffectiveness as a character on the actress (hint: NOT ME).

My idea of an attractive woman on this show is the DA - insanely beautiful eyes.

reply

[–] Mordor_Ork 8 years ago

I watch timeless and its an okay show, not really good tho, but abigails talent is wasted on that show...

reply