#they're meant to satirize these types of guys doing anything to be their view of 'perfect' but in doing so are pathetic for it

[avelera]

I watched the first episode of Kate Winslet's "The Regime" and had a few thoughts.

First, the good:

- Really excited to see Matthias Schoenaerts (Booker in The Old Guard) in it, so that was already a huge plus.

- Kate Winslet is definitely acting her ass off.

- A lot of worldbuilding and research about dictators both historical and modern definitely went into the script. I could see snippets of many known dictator affectations, like germophobia, on display.

And now the... not exactly bad but the ???:

(Cut because we start to get into some actual spoilers)

I really don't know where the show is trying to go just yet. I can't quite tell if it's a flat out comedy in the style of Death of Stalin, as advertised, or if it's actually going for a deeper dramedy where we're supposed to feel some level of pathos for Winslet's and Schoenaerts' characters.

Basically, it feels like a fictionalization of a historical dramedy.

However, in Death of Stalin and other dramas and satires based on real historical events, we know where this is all going, to some extent. We can tell if the Bumbling Advisor's advice is, well, bumbling because we know how things are going to turn out.

Right now, in The Regime, we don't have any grounding in reality to be able to determine if the decisions being made are bad or good or simply incompetent and doomed to fail.

We've got a lot subjective view points like the various ministers and Schoenaerts' character to give their perspective on what the country should do next, but we don't have any objective birds eye view, historical knowledge, or even an actual person average person in the this fictional country to tell us what they're really thinking, unfiltered through the subjective POV of all these characters with very pronounced agendas.

In a way, I do consider that quite clever from a writing craft standpoint. I feel just as isolated and wrapped in cotton wool as Winslet's character. Which is part of why I wonder if I'm supposed to sympathize with a figure that, to my eyes, reads like Marine le Pen from a dystopian world where she actually won in France.

As an American, I can't tell whether or not the country turning away from America (who was clearly trying to take advantage, in a cobalt deal that to my ears echoed the British oil interests in Iran at the beginning of the 20th c.) is meant to be seen as a good or a bad thing. Truly. I don't mean that as saying I want or expect America to be the good guy, but I can't tell if I'm relatively anti-American compared to the creator of the show (ie, that America is just assumed to be a good guy so it's meant to be a negative harbinger of bad things to come that they turned away) or relatively pro-American (ie, that it's a show made by non-Americans so by not seeing this as a clear good thing that they reject America using terminology that echoes current Russian rhetoric) and I should be cheering on their choice to turn away.

On the one hand, this ambiguity if intentional is quite masterful! I can't quite tell if I'm supposed to see Schoenaerts as a straight-shooter who is supposed to help this rather hapless dictator maybe achieve some good, or if he's a violent MAGA-type thug who is going to get her ear and put their country down the path to atrocities. I just don't know yet, because this isn't a historical dramedy so I don't know how these events play out.

And I can't tell quite yet if that's a good or a bad thing from the writerly perspective. On the one hand, I'm personally more baffled than intrigued as to why I should care about anything going on in it so far. It's not all that funny, so I'm not entertained or amused just at the nonsense happening, because I can't tell what I'm supposed to see as nonsense and what I'm supposed to see as serious worldbuilding leading towards an actual fictional country narrative that will allow some commentary on our own global situation, or if it's just intrigue for the sake of intrigue, or if it's a character study and I shouldn't care about the actual events in the fictional country because it's the absurdity of the personalities I should be focusing on. Or if I am supposed to be laughing, what aspects I'm supposed to be laughing at.

Basically, it hasn't won my trust yet. I'm mildly intrigued, mostly because of Winslet and Schoenaerts adding complexity to what in a normal satire might just be flat comedic characters. But I can't even really tell yet if the story thinks it's a comedy or if it just has comedic elements (like, say, Succession).

Maybe I'm just basic, but I wouldn't have minded a bit more signposting and a bit less of a feeling that I'm supposed to grasp what point the story is trying to make on its own. I don't really know what the thesis is yet, because it's not based in real events, there's no objective truth for me to look at and say, "Ah, they're saying this historically terrible person was misunderstood, or bumbling, or actually heroic, or well-intentioned," etc etc. I only have their word for it and they haven't actually told me yet what their word is trying to say, y'know?

Verdict: I'll probably watch a bit more, but I am a little perplexed at present as to what the takeaway should be.

[somelazyassartist]

Wait there are people unironically attracted to Kurt from Spree. Are you telling me there are also people unironically attracted to Patrick Bateman too