Michael Sheen – Bitch Flicks

How Is The Sex, Masters and Johnson?

But, the biggest question for the show will obviously be, um, what about the sex? Sex is in the title: the opening sequence bathes in it, and every episode features it. As a big proponent of women’s sexuality I’m pretty much all for it, however I desperately hope that Masters doesn’t just become cheap exhibitionism driving up late night ratings; I want to know that Masters of Sex is trying to tell us something in all of the orgasmic moaning (fake or real).

Written by Rachel Redfern

tumblr_mubxz18hbQ1rfpmn4o1_1280 — Provocative, even now

Masters of Sex is Showtime’s newest protégé, a mid-century period piece steeped in desire–a desire for what though? Considering that Masters of Sex is only on the sixth episode, the show is still finding its stride, with its characters and dialogue still evolving.

However, I have high hopes for the show. Lizzie Caplan (Virginia Johnson), chooses provocative projects and usually plays fascinating, complex characters: a sociopathic hippie in True Blood, a relationship-squeamish woman in Save The Date, and an emotionally damaged party girl in Bachelorette. Unfortunately, while we’ve learned a bit about the motivations and back-story for Mr. Masters (Michael Sheen), Johnson remains still undeveloped. The show makes a big deal about Johnson being a unique, sexy, fascinating woman and showing her interest in being a scientist, but I’m still curious as to what’s driving her. But, the show is only beginning, and hopefully her character’s development will begin to grow and we’ll get more of a peek into what’s helped her become such a confident woman, as well as fostering her fascination with scientific studies.

But, the biggest question for the show will obviously be, um, what about the sex? Sex is in the title: the opening sequence bathes in it, and every episode features it. As a big proponent of women’s sexuality I’m pretty much all for it, however I desperately hope that Masters doesn’t just become cheap exhibitionism driving up late night ratings; I want to know that Masters of Sex is trying to tell us something in all of the orgasmic moaning (fake or real).

Episode 101 — Don’t lie, you would have looked too.

One thing I’m loving though, it’s two women picking all the material, which is fantastic for a show that is portraying the way that society’s view on sexuality, especially female sexuality, is changing. And I think that a lot of people were curious, and maybe a bit worried, wondering how Masters of Sex was going to be dealing with sex, women, and stereotypes. There are still so many myths and legends, images and dichotomies, and pop psychology and moral sermonizing that happens anytime women and sex are placed anywhere near each other, that it was very possible for Masters to become another fluffy, giggle-fest of boob shots and phallic jokes.

Masters of Sex showrunner, Michelle Ashford, discussed the staff’s perspectives on the show’s sex scenes, and how much they’ve chosen to include; turns out, they’ve been selective and thoughtful—sifting through hours of scenes, trying to ensure that they’re engaging and fulfilling the narrative, instead of just becoming pornographic. In fact, Ashford admitted that she finds many sex scenes boring without any real relevance to the story; in the case of Masters, they’ve tried to take a different approach: “We knew we had to figure out a new way to do sex so that there was always story pulling through it. And there had to be a point of view to the sex, so it’s either tragic or it’s funny or it’s confusing … but it could never be showing sex just to be sexy.”

masters-of-sex-standard-deviation-michael-sheen — Intimacy tells their story

Are they successful in telling the story of sex in their scenes? I would argue that yes, they are: Masters and his wife, Libby (Caitlin Fitzgerald), have terse, dutiful sex, while Virginia is direct and free-spirited, and the young Dr. Haas (Nicholas D’Agosto) is controlling, searching, experimenting. Each character’s experiences (not necessarily their proclivities) reflect their relationships with each other and themselves. Perhaps, at this point, the sex scenes are where the story is, and it’s where we learn the most about each character.

So what do you think? How is the show evolving? Are the sex scenes merely exhibitionism? Is the show helping the way we think about sex? How do you think it’s portraying sex?

Why You Should Be Watching ‘Masters of Sex’

Masters of Sex is the most compelling period drama I’ve seen in quite some time, and trust me, I watch a lot of period pieces. I will admit that sometimes the stiffness of the dialogue and the character interaction can get a bit dry – the audience understands that social conventions were different in the past, but that doesn’t necessarily mean that everyone was robotic round-the-clock. I feel the writers have a tendency to use era authenticity as a cop-out for lack of emotional depth or creativity. Though it’s only been four episodes, Masters of Sex boldly rips the buttons off of the post-World War II stereotype of prudishness and conservatism. Below are just a few of the reasons why you should give the show a try, if you haven’t already.

Masters of Sex logo.

Written by Erin Tatum.

Masters of Sex is the most compelling period drama I’ve seen in quite some time, and trust me, I watch a lot of period pieces. I will admit that sometimes the stiffness of the dialogue and the character interaction can get a bit dry – the audience understands that social conventions were different in the past, but that doesn’t necessarily mean that everyone was robotic round-the-clock. I feel the writers have a tendency to use era authenticity as a cop-out for lack of emotional depth or creativity. Though it’s only been four episodes, Masters of Sex boldly rips the buttons off of the post-World War II stereotype of prudishness and conservatism. Below are just a few of the reasons why you should give the show a try, if you haven’t already.

1. The show is based on real people.

Bill Masters and Virginia Johnson: fiction vs. reality.

William Masters and Virginia Johnson were a gynecologist and sexologist respectively who pioneered the first study of human sexual response. Their collaboration and the controversy of their subject matter is the basis of the show, which is in turn an adaptation of Master’s biography. Masters and Johnson were later married for 20 years and then divorced. This may or may not be a spoiler for their TV counterparts (played by Michael Sheen and Lizzy Caplan), judging by the rising belligerent sexual tension established between them. Not to mention they are responsible for much of our common sexual knowledge today.

2. Female sexuality literally takes center stage.

The women are a bit skeptical of Bill's contraption. — The women are a bit skeptical of Bill’s contraption.

Masters initially becomes curious about women in his study because he cannot fathom how or why a woman would fake an orgasm. He enlists the help of Betty (Annaleigh Ashford), a prostitute, who convinces the other women in her brothel to take part in the research. His primary goal is to delineate the stages of an orgasm, so he and Johnson spend a lot of time watching women masturbate. Admittedly, you should probably watch this show alone because to the unaware observer, it looks a hell of a lot like softcore porn. Also, there is some kind of giant glass dildo that’s similar to a space probe with a camera to observe physiological changes. Talk about invasive.

Joking aside, there are deeper dynamics at play here. Their time spent at the brothel gives the relatively affluent Masters and Johnson a gritty glimpse at working-class life in the struggle for survival. The myth of the ideal 1950s woman as an innocent, almost Victorian vessel of purity also starts to unravel as more and more women of all backgrounds begin to join the study and seem to know exactly what to do when prompted, albeit not without a little embarrassment.

It’s true that Masters solicits women partially because he thinks that no men would be interested in going solo for the study. However, the women turn out to be a gold mine of scientific revelations and sexual understanding.

3. Queer characters are humanized and perceived as equals worthy of respect.

Betty doesn't have time for your nonsense. — Betty doesn’t have time for your nonsense.

Really, if one more period piece hides behind the excuse of the era and cultural context to get away with another tired “masochistic gay, cue violins” plot I’m going to scream. Luckily for me, the instances of queerness that we do see are pretty bad ass, confident people. Betty happens to be a lesbian, a frank, self-admitted detail that Bill finds perplexing when she asks for the run-of-the-mill Playboy magazines to masturbate to. (Johnson quickly put an end to his grumbling by countering, “Isn’t an orgasm an orgasm?”) Betty even has a lover, although we never see her on screen. She develops a friendship with Johnson and particularly Masters, who both go out of their way to express concern that she isn’t being true to herself or her lover when she starts to contemplate marrying a man for financial stability.

Masters reacts with predictable uneasiness when Betty recruits gay male prostitutes to participate in his study without his knowledge. To his credit, he still doesn’t outright refuse when two of the men offer to “put on a show” for him. He throws a hissy fit about only having data from deviants after his study is repeatedly denied funding, but ultimately rallies to the defense of the everyday men who visit the hustlers, proving that male homosexuality isn’t as deranged as 1950s masculinity would like to believe.

4. The characters are realistically flawed without creating a black-and-white morality.

Bill Masters’ Achilles’ heel is that he’s married to his job and his job is all about sex, which naturally deflates his domestic life and his passion for his wife, Libby (Caitlin FitzGerald). Libby has the air of a fresh-faced Betty Draper before the bitterness and alcoholism took its toll. The main source of strain on their marriage is their struggle with infertility. They genuinely try to make the other happy, although Libby is definitely the stereotypical flower of a trophy wife withering under her husband’s lack of communication and emotional availability. She may appear to be a bauble of a woman, but she’s sensitive and perceptive. You aren’t exactly rooting for Bill to stray from her.

Johnson is a single mother of two who holds her head high despite being twice divorced. She doesn’t shy away from casual sex and she has no tolerance for that whiny friendzoned bullshit. She contemplates Masters’ preposition that they should sleep together “for the study.” On one hand, you want them to sleep together to act on their chemistry, but on the other, you hope Virginia is levelheaded and ethical enough to value her budding friendship with Libby over an exploratory one night stand that would lead to the most cliché collapse of bonds between women.

The narrative consistently confuses you since you find yourself supporting potentially bad decisions on the characters’ behalf because you understand their perspective. Sympathy and empathy with flaws in mind – the cornerstone of strong characterization!

5. Masters of Sex isn’t Mad Men…and that’s a good thing.

Due to the similarity of the time period, some have drawn comparisons between Masters of Sex and Mad Men. Yes, the style is drool-worthy and good ol’ boys club mentality is in full effect, but the comparisons should end there. There are a few formulaic echoes: the hard working introvert stuck in a dead end marriage partners up with the secretary to discover some deeper philosophy about the human experience via their collaboration. However, Masters of Sex isn’t afraid to display the chaos bubbling beneath the surface of the prim and proper pressures that society presents. Instead of having to hyper analyze every single glance or deadpan line of dialogue for hidden meaning, the characters wear their intentions on their sleeves. They’re lost and determined and uncertain and arrogant all at the same time. It’s glorious.

Masters of Sex is a breath of fresh air for the genre. Each episode is a relished, slow drag on a cigarette.

Best Picture Nominee Review Series: Frost/Nixon

Men will be Men: Frost/Nixon

This is a guest post from Stephanie Brown.

Frost/Nixon is a movie about male power as it looked in 1977. Starring Frank Langella as Richard Nixon and Michael Sheen as David Frost, the story recounts the efforts of David Frost, a television talk show host from Great Britain, to interview former president Richard Nixon, then living in disgrace and exile in his “Western White House” in San Clemente, California. The movie is based on a stage play by Peter Morgan, which debuted in 2006 in London; Langella and Sheen were the debut actors in that production. Directed by Ron Howard, Frost/Nixon was a critical and financial success when it was released in 2008, and was nominated for five Academy Awards, including Best Picture, Best Director and Best Actor for Frank Langella’s performance. Frost/Nixon is the story of two men who have lost power and whose lives have become claustrophobic and small. Frost and Nixon have much to gain by using each other—each sorely needs credibility and needs the other’s help to regain it.

The plot of the movie is simple: it recounts Frost’s efforts to obtain an interview with Richard Nixon, who had remained silent and incommunicado after his historic resignation on August 9, 1974, and the short and strange relationship they had while filming the interview. Nixon remains the only American president to resign from office, and did so because of his involvement in the Watergate break-in and cover-up, which revealed the efforts of the Committee to Re-Elect the President (also known as CREEP) to sabotage the efforts of the Democratic Party and its candidate George McGovern. The Watergate scandal also revealed that the President taped all his conversations, that some potentially incriminating conversations were missing from these tapes, and the conversations revealed the president to be a nasty, ruthless, and uncouth person. Many allies and aides in the White House were eventually implicated in the scandal, and the nation watched and read about it as more was revealed every day in newspapers, magazines, and in the televised Watergate hearings.

In Frost/Nixon, David Frost is at a nadir in his career. A formerly popular television talk show host who is fond of parties, power and fame, he is in the process of losing it all. His talk shows in the U.S. and in Australia have been cancelled, and he’s also lost “his table at Sardi’s,” a perk of his fame that he cherishes. A raconteur and jet-setter, he’s considered an intellectual lightweight, even a joke. While in the first class cabin on his flight to the U.S. to meet with Nixon, he encounters Caroline Cushing (Rebecca Hall), a beautiful and beguiling international beauty from Monte Carlo, who lets him know just how much of a punch line he has become. She rattles off several caustic comments that have been made by the press about his career and even his personal style.

After this, however, they are together for the rest of the film, and she is the kind of woman who enters the room softly (looking gorgeous in a series of halter dresses), retreats quietly, knows how to say the right thing in support of him, and makes a presentable companion. The only woman in the movie save for a brief scene with Pat Nixon (Patty McCormack) and the silent presence of Diane Sawyer (Kate Jennings Grant), who was a Nixon team member,Charlotte is a goddess amidst the power-jockeying of the mortal men around her. Upon meeting her, Nixon remarks to Frost that he ought to marry her, not because she’s lovely but because she lives in Monte Carlo and “those people pay no taxes.” Is Nixon trying to be witty here? As played by Langella, he is too much of a galoot, too artless, to try for wit, and it seems wholly believable. Langella captures the awkwardness and oddness of Nixon, in both his speech and stiff, stooped body.

Frost seeks the interviews with Nixon as a way to get back on top with this coup of an interview; the problem is that no one is really interested in financing it, but he proceeds anyway, gambling on the idea that the show will be bought when all is said and done, and he will recoup the considerable amount of money he’s invested in the project, including a check for $200,000 that he’s written to Nixon for the interviews. As played by Michael Sheen, Frost has good manners and plenty of English self-deprecation and modesty, even as he is shown to be a dandy and someone perfectly comfortable in posh surroundings. He flits in and out of the Plaza Hotel in New York and the Beverly Hilton in Los Angeles, after schmoozing on white push-button phones. I remember watching the David Frost Show as a kid, and even I remember him being a little more pompous than he’s portrayed here. Finding himself at a vulnerable time in his life, he’s humbled by failure and from hearing the truth about his reputation, not only from Caroline, but from the two researchers who have come to help him prepare questions for the interview, Bob Zelnick (Oliver Platt) and James Reston, Jr. (Sam Rockwell), who are a PBS journalist and academic, respectively. Each possesses serious bona fides, and risk losing it if they are involved in a bogus and lightweight interview.

Assisted by Frost’s aide John Birt (Matthew Macfadyen), the three are shown working together in a comfortable camaraderie, with Reston agitating for harder attacks on Nixon in the interviews than Frost is comfortable with. Parallel with Birt, Nixon also has an aide de camp and defender, Jack Brennan, who is a true believer in Nixon and defends and protects him. Played somewhat tongue-in-cheek by Kevin Bacon, it’s as if his ROTC character from Animal House, Chip Diller, has grown up and achieved his Young Republican wet dreams. The supporting actors inhabit the characters believably and comfortably. Rockwell as Reston is especially effective in his talking head segments, where he conveys gravitas as well as the stubborn single-mindedness of the expert.

The movie belongs to Frank Langella, however, whose performance is a tour de force. The movie was filmed on the grounds and in some of the rooms of the Western White House (Casa Pacifica) in San Clemente, and he’s like a giant inhabiting a fairy tale cottage, barely able to stand up straight. The claustrophobic feel of these rooms as well as those of the tract house where the interviews are filmed, remind us that this once giant man of power and influence has shrunk, and he doesn’t fit in well in these more plebian surroundings. Ungainly and weird, full endless, meandering stories, he’s a deposed king who still expects to be deferred to, and he comes with courtiers who smooth over his tics and translate him to the world. Langella’s voice takes on the literal, even tone of Nixon’s, reflecting Nixon’s dogged and single-minded personality. The centerpiece of the movie is a soliloquy that Langella delivers as a drunken phone call to Frost where he reveals his innermost character: his is a personality built on lifelong resentments. Real or perceived, his dismissal by East Coast power brokers throughout his career will never be forgotten or forgiven. He tries to find a common ground between the two in their class differences, but Frost is too cautious to comment or let on that he might agree. This scene is hypnotic and fascinating, and even more so when it’s revealed later that Nixon had no memory of the conversation because he’s said it all while in a blackout from drinking.

Ron Howard’s direction is straightforward, a “style of no style” that allows the actors and story to shine, but it’s full of wit and sly humor, such as a scene in which an unwatched TV is playing the ubiquitous and silly television commercial of the 1970’s which depicted a tear-stained American Indian man canoeing through a polluted river. The costumes and art direction give us the wide lapels, shag carpet, black limousines and white phones of the era and they look normal; no one is making fun of past lapses in taste—indeed, they look like totems of power. Frost/Nixon is a movie full of men who are talking, standing, sitting, and walking through halls on the way to important meetings. Charlotte Cushing, Pat Nixon, and Diane Sawyer are not central players, either in the cast or in the drama of the story. This is right and fitting at a time when Martha Mitchell was deemed crazy for truth telling about Watergate, and was alleged to have been drugged in order to keep her quiet. It was a man’s world, and it is their power as well as their corruption depicted here.

Stephanie Brown is the author of two collections of poetry, Domestic Interior and Allegory of the Supermarket. She’s published work in American Poetry Review, Ploughshares and The Best American Poetry series. She was awarded an NEA Fellowship in 2001 and a Breadloaf Fellowship in 2009. She has taught at UC Irvine and the University of Redlands and is a regional branch manager for OC Public Libraries in southern California. She grew up in the same area as Richard Nixon and lives in San Clemente, where the Western White House still stands at its southernmost shore.