Taboo Reviews Thread

This message has been deleted by the poster

This message has been deleted by the poster

This review also shares a concern with the supernatural:

https://www.bostonglobe.com/arts/television/2017/01/04/tom-hardy-scene-grime-taboo/Uqdm16lMq0tXUU1bWEB0GM/story.html


''I was fascinated by the first three episodes of “Taboo.” Some of the storytelling is muddled, which may well be intentional, and the hints of the supernatural are at times distracting. But still, if you like your historical fiction grim and your cobblestones dirt-caked, if you don’t mind looking into some of humanity’s bleaker facets, this one’s for you''

This review however, is the most detailed and most comprehensive yet:

http://collider.com/taboo-review-tom-hardy/

''But unlike Bastard Executioner, Taboo feels like a polished BBC production (the BBC co-produced it, naturally), one with a clear sense of itself and its purpose, with a pace that may be a little slow to start for some, but where an investment seems wise''


''Yet so farTaboo — despite its name — is mostly, perhaps mercifully, restrained. It’s weird and occasionally overwrought, but violence is effectively minimal (particularly a scene where James fights off an attacker and adds a flourish at the end I won’t spoil), and sex is mostly suggested rather than shown, even though a great deal of time is spent in brothels. The show is smart, but not beyond comprehension, and it layers a foundation of adventure, mystery, and solid drama that is ambitious but never boring. Despite its desire to show the dark and gritty aspects of Georgian London, it also has a style to it that is all its own''

A negative review:

http://lasvegasweekly.com/ae/film/2017/jan/05/tv-review-taboo-tom-hardy-fx/

It's me, or do the US reviewers have real difficulties in handling even minimal plot complexity?:

But after a slow setup, Taboo fails to deliver on its vague promises of criminal conspiracies and underworld battles. At least in the three episodes provided for review, the show spends far more time on paperwork: wills, treaties, marriage licenses, deeds...The complex negotiations among the various parties are drawn-out and tedious, and James spends most of his time wandering around the streets of London..

Is it as if some of these reviewers have the attention span of a 7 year old. I may well imagine that ''paperwork'' and ''treaties'' may be tedious to many but then the author undermines his point by lauding Dickens at the show expense. Which is strange because Dickens work includes lots and lots of ''treaties, wills, marriages and paperwork''...:

''Hardy and his collaborators have tapped into some of the atmosphere of Dickens, but at this point they fall short of his characterization and storytelling abilities.''

How many ''financial negotiations, marriages, wills and paperwork'' are featured in such novels as David Cooperfield for instance? A lot. So what is exactly the point that the reviewer is trying to make? That he finds Dickens novels ''tedious'' but is afraid of admitting so?

And then there is this gem:

''depicted via clichéd images of scary-looking natives....also the birthplace of James’ Native American mother, another dramatic device of questionable cultural sensitivity''

The empty political correctness and absurdity of this statement aside, the reviewer has forgotten that Dickens did never display any cultural sensitivity either. Dickens ''characterization'' of ''natives'' is non-existent (when it is not unabashedly racist). Moreover, Dickens characterizations for many of his characters are schematic by essence and by design (Agnes and Heep are for instance, stereotypical and schematic). So the reviewer once again undermines the points he is trying to make. I wonder at this point if he is familiar with Dickens' work at all.

A much more positive review, but once again, complexity and incomplete disclosure seem to puzzle US reviewers. It is a trend :

http://www.ign.com/articles/2017/01/05/taboo-episode-1-review

''Taboo looks beautiful and has talented people in front of and behind the camera, but its premiere episode is a challenging watch as it's better consumed as part of the season's longform storytelling. Taken on its own, the premiere is often inscrutable, but within the context of later chapters of the story, it becomes much more comprehensible. On the first go-around, this could prove to be the weakest installment of an otherwise engaging TV experience, but on repeat viewings (with the added context of later episodes) its quality greatly improves and it becomes a solid hour of television.''

Other positives (once again, they come from the US:

http://www.sfgate.com/tv/article/The-prodigal-returns-and-he-s-out-for-10837960.php

It is refreshing to see that not all are concerned by ''slowness'' and ''muddled plots''. And at least, I'm happy to see some appreciation for not laying out everything and for retaining a bit of mystery:

''As engaging as the story is, it’s the characters who seal the deal — not just the ones whose allegiances and desires we know, like Strange, but even more the enigmatic characters.And no one is more of an enigma than James Delaney. His body is heavily tattooed and he’s given to horrifying and disturbing flashes of memory that suggest that his time in Africa was not consumed with viewing the wildlife from a distance. Hardy has a way of seething every one of his lines, making his character even more disturbing and compelling''

And also:

http://www.tampabay.com/features/media/winter-tv-preview-from-the-young-pope-to-riverdale-to-24-legacy-17-shows/2308288

Another ''bad'' review:

http://variety.com/2017/tv/reviews/review-taboo-tom-hardy-fx-1201949054/

This show seems to induce quite divisive reactions. 


That said, I find these kinds of reviews strangely devoid of any focus, mainly because they are guilty of the inconsistencies they attempt to criticize. So for instance, Mrs Saraya (whose best shows of 2016 involve painfully vapid outings such as ''Lemonade'' and ''the Girlfriend Experience'' ) laments the fact that Africa is mentioned as an undifferentiated continent in the series because while it may reflect the assumption of this period, it is no longer acceptable since ''it is no longer 1814''. In the same breath, she muses that the Delaney's character ''with his tortured passion, apparent abolitionist beliefs, angst regarding his father, and threatening swagger, he’s just too slick all around — a character that seems too perfect, modern, and badass to be a real man in 1814''. So on the one hand, she criticizes the show for being historically correct while on other hand, she is blaming a character for not being historically true enough. This is a lose-lose situation which betrays Mrs Saraya lack of insight into the period as most of the characteristics she mentioned were alive and kicking in the early 1800ies:

-''Tortured passion'': cough Byron cough (1788-1824)
-''Apparent abolitionist beliefs'': erm, abolitionist leanings may have not been so rare in 1814-after all, because the Abolition of Slave Trade Act was voted in 1807. So I do not see what is so extraordinary about Delaney holding some of the abolitionist beliefs. 
-''Angst regarding his father'': Because ''father's angst'' is something only modern people experience . (BTW, Byron seems to have had a variations of mother's angst...)
-And apparently, only people in the ''modern'' period are ''badass'' 

Don't get me wrong, I may end up not liking Taboo at all. But the preachy, overwrought and superficial discourses on serious issues such as identity representations and race are the worst thing which has happened to artistic expression in general, and arts criticism in particular:

''But the attempts to make James sympathetic or admirable flatten him into caricature. And, most uncomfortably, the efforts specifically fall apart when it comes to race... this story beat also means that Hardy, a white man, is supposed to be playing a character who is mixed-race. Furthermore, James’ decade in Africa is given a kind of hand-waving occult power. James speaks a tribal language, seems familiar with a set of symbols from some kind of ritual or worship, and according to the rumors of others, engaged in some kind of cannibalism. But without the grounding specifics, these are lazily sketched signifiers about “dark magic''..But given that “Taboo” excels at creating the texture and nuance of London at this time, the vagueness around “Africa” is even more pronounced..''

This has more to do with virtue signaling than with reviewing. And it is plenty of BS too.

1) I didn't know that making someone a canibalistic monster, responsible for many death back in Africa (and possibly the sinking of a whole ship with slaves inside) is supposed to render a character ''admirable''. Good to know. . Also suggesting that giving a character a ''mixed-raced'' heritage makes him automatically more ''sympathetic'' is at best culturally myopic and at worst, borderline racist.

2) The notion that ''mix-raced'' characters should only be played by ''mix-raced'' actors is both bigoted and short sighted. Plus, not any ''mixed-raced'' combination will do. If one objects to a an actor of Afro-American-Indian descent playing Delaney (who is supposed to be of Irish-Nootka descent), does it warrant accusations of racism? And should one look for an actor of Nootka-Irish descent regardless of his talent?

3) We on the Taboo IMDB boards, have identified some of the symbols displayed in Delaney's lair (i.e. Adinkra symbols). So they are perfectly concrete and specific. I do not know what this reviewers means with her ''grounding specifics'' but given her review, it clearly seems that she has no idea either. Maybe she wanted a documentary on West African (or more specifically yoruba) spirituality? Then why reviewing Taboo at all?

Sorry for the rambling, but I strongly dislike preachy and entitled reviews even if they concern movies and works I strongly dislike.