MovieChat Forums > Mercy Street (2016) Discussion > The time period's betrayed by the writin...

The time period's betrayed by the writing...

posted 9 years ago by EveryDayFriend
5 replies | jump to latest

They had to grab me right away. That's what y'gotta do to keep me (a viewer).

They didn't.

I only watched "New Nurse" -- but the script's contemporary spin is irksome; annoying. But when I learned the head writer was show runner of "ER," it all made sense! Only problem? It's 1862, y'all. Repeating the formula of Dr. Doug Ross and Nurse Hathaway can't be slapped on us so ham-handedly. Society of the time wouldn't allow it.

Really misses the mark in portrayals.

Great lighting and camera work. A very "nice to look at" show, with set design/execution very good. Crazy corset-wearing. And then? There's the writing. Ugh. Hugely flawed -- and gotta think that's because of the skin-crawling proposition of being authentic for creator Zable. (Dave, you can't change history, brah...) Characters would be citing God, Christ, the Bible...uttering the "N" word, not "contrabands"...the women of 200 years ago could never get by being so defiant, which opens it up for the storyline to amaze us with the nurses' resourcefulness and scheming to get care for their injured men. Didn't happen. And hospitals weren't havens of healing -- but horrific places; feared. Expected the stifled rawness of a madhouse -- instead, a place with lots of time on its hands. I couldn't "buy" the luxuriously long moments for pondering. There'd be no time to do anything, there were too many injured, dying, dead. The quick emotional investment and intimacy moments? Not socially appropriate for the time. The ending? The bugle? Hard to take this seriously. I felt like a b*stardized version of US History was being shoved down my throat. In the Civil War, ANY able-bodied man was fighting...not lingering in a parlor.

Awwww...SUCH a disappointment.

Unless something changes, and they certainly have "watching-by-default" on their side...but it's pretty darn BALLSY to suggest this as the Downton Abbey replacement.

[–] rianna98 9 years ago

I was disappointed in it too. It looked promising, but then I found the whole thing boring. I couldn't stand the doctor, the actor just seems so wrong for this role. Then the whole thing with the hero black "doctor" is just too much. Nothing flowed naturally, I felt like some characters were just kids of sitting around doing nothing, it all seemed so contrived and with horrible dialogue.

[–] redbrioche 9 years ago

Wow, I am not aware the Civil War was 200 years ago? The War of 1812 was just over, in 1815, but I know, I know, dates don't mean anything, but ignorant indifference made me give up teaching US history. And, BTW, has anyone ever read or heard about the conditions in the textile mills in New England at that time, the home of the abolitionists?

[–] Ithilfaen 9 years ago

Well, you certainly know your stuff. How old were you during the Civil War, if I may ask?

Also, you actually complain about the writing and praise a soap opera like Downton Abbey... in the same post?  Kinda lost your credibility there, loser.

For every lie I unlearn I learn something new - Ani Difranco

[–] redbrioche 9 years ago

I´m an historian, especially of that era. If you have any questions, don´t hesitate to ask. One does not need to have been living at a certain time to know about it. Downton Abbey, BTW, was interesting for more than just plot. If you are bored, go watch Game of Thrones or Tolkien´s silliness and try to find their historical bases. Perhaps a friendly dragon will be able to answer your queries.

[–] redbrioche 9 years ago