a review
https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/review/why-women-kill-review-1232215
shareI don't particularly disagree with the core of this review, which I would say is that
Ultimately, the cliched characterizations weaken Why Women Kill far more than its antic hijinks.
However, it seems like the reviewer hasn't watched the show in its entirety. Sure, it has a lot of problems, but it does change over the course of the 10 episodes and I would give it a little more credit in terms of the complaints the author has. For example, the reason women kill in this show is actually more nuanced than infidelity - infidelity actually happens to be the least of all three women's issues with the men in their lives.
As for failing to achieve any feminist message, just going by the title, you can probably tell that that's not the aim of this show at all. Just because a show is led by women doesn't automatically mean that show is feminist; Desperate Housewives is proof of that. Still, I think the real issue with Why Women Kill is probably classism over sexism. The women, despite being caricatures, do have layers. The message that poor people aren't to be trusted - that didn't escape my notice. share
First rule of make believe is to " suspend disbelief", put preconceived beliefs aside. The hollywoodreporter reviewer and hownos failed to do that simple thing and thereby missed the gem of WWK. Warning*** if you come to this show with ANY preconceptions of marriage, infidelity or women murderers, please check them at the door*** or you will miss the show COMPLETELY! I too almost never watched it because I felt I knew what it was going to be about, before I saw it. I was very pleasantly surprised. First, between comedy and tragedy, this show has a blended tone all of its own, that works great! Within the same episode the viewer would be in stitches over farce; nervous about pending spousal abuse or humiliation; and touched almost to tears at the demonstration of genuine affection.
Second, unlike Desperate Housewives or Sex and the City two other tv shows to which is was compared, you don't get the chance to be bored with any overwrought drama or incredible norms of female sexuality. If the characters in WWK are stereotypical, they are realistic. If we see the modern "throuple"; or the 60's 'beaten', 'cheated on' and 'controlling' housewives; or the 80s 'fake' couple as stereotypes, it may be because they represent a biting commentary on each period's wrecking of the marital estate. Don't blame the characters, blame the society they are representing.
Third, I have NEVER seem anything as innovative on tv in a long, long time. The seamless transitions between periods with the house serving as main backdrop is clever use of film and the amazing finale showing all 3 murders within the same area of the house at once is a cinematic triumph! apparently breaking the fourth wall. Fourth, if you suspend your disbelief long enough you will realize that in addition to marriage, infidelity and murder, WWK deals thoughtfully and emotionally with many other themes like: AIDS, infanticide, societal pressure, societal ostracizing, drug addiction, wealth corruption and parental abuse... to name a few.
I fear many people will come to a conclusion about this series before watching the first frame!
Spoiler: in WWK no wife kills strictly because of infidelity!
I don't know if I would call it a cinematic triumph, but I agree that there is definitely more to this show than meets the eye at first glance. People should give it more of a chance before they make their minds up about it.
shareWell, maybe they filmed all three scenes separately and used a computer to place all the characters together in one continuous shot. If not, that scene would be a herculean task to shoot. Either way I know I have never seen ANYTHING quite like that on TV before and I found it very effective. This is why I like directors like David Lynch who use film in innovative ways!
Judging by the other 'mindless' comments I have read about this series so far, it is possible, the show itself will be become a statement about the knee jerk, jump to our side, thoughtless nature of contemporary society.
Poor people aren't to be trusted? The show ripped the rich people pretty well too.
shareI agree that everyone looked bad all round, but I think the poor people in particular were villainized.
Jade and Duke were psychotic criminals with no real redemptive features, for example. In regards to the affair, the show painted both April as the worser guy and and Beth Ann as a potential bad guy while still trying to get us to sympathize with Robert for a while. Even Robert's secretary is a bad guy in the story.
And when you think of who the good guy is in each story, or the least worst person, it usually happens to always be the richest person, the one with the most money, etc. Breadwinner Taylor is more morally good than Eli. Wealthy socialites Simone and Carl are both "good" deep down. Only Beth Ann, out of the three lead women, is the "poor" good guy, but given her talent for the piano, I'm assuming she didn't grow up poor and thus married well as a result.