Higgs

I have not read any posts on the most recent episodes, so I apologize if I am repeating others' observations. While I was utterly enthralled by the finale, the sticking point for me was Stan telling Oleg that he "didn't give a shit" about what happened in Russia. I found it utterly inconceivable that any FBI agent, let alone someone as astute as Stan, would have failed to recognize the existential threat posed by a coup of intransigently militaristic KGB officers against a Soviet leader with whom Reagan was eager to negotiate a cooling down of the Cold War and the consequent potential undermining of an "Evil Empire.". Oleg's confession would have gone immediately to the White House and then to the Kremlin. Stan's head could not have been that "thick" on that subject. What turned Stan in the garage scene was hearing Elizabeth repeat Oleg's claim. That's when one plus one became two and he finally saw the dark light. Stan now had two sources of shame to live down: failing to understand the transcendance of Oleg's information, and the betrayal by the Jennings. He let them go, in part, to save himself. But now he has the enigma of Renee. Wars, whether hot or cold, destroy relationships.

The difference between the two Soviet factions has to do with trust in American promises. SDI threatened an ability for an American first strike. "Dead Hand" would preclude it, but only if the US is told about it after it's in place. (See Strangelove, Doctor)

Oleg took out a "loan." His wife and child are collateral.

Yes, to adequately portray a sexually repressive society, you must have adults in the roles of enforcers. In my version, Simon's parents would ultimately be persuaded to play them all, with their priest's encouragement.

Yes, its unrelieved seriousness may seem arty, but is not realistic. The whole thing is painted in the sullen gray of the opening montage. The kids are unrelentingly earnest, humorless and charm-challenged. It reminds me of "Spring Awakening." The show could use some glee (lowercase only), "Lady Bird" and "Freaks and Geeks."

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spring_Awakening_(play) https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spring_Awakening_(musical)

In the original Broadway production, "Word Of Your Body" is sung by the two boys (and the rest of the kids) as a reprise in the second act. It might have been useful on multiple levels to juxtapose rehearsal snippets of the song by the two pairs of romantic partners. Originally and traditionally, two actors play ALL the adult roles. Robbie is too short and slight to ever play QB in a major college program, and would have zero chance for the pros. Gwen is too mature, tall, and attractive relative to any potential Melchior to provide the sense of submissiveness and vulnerability necessary for Wendla. That's the rationale she should have been given, and it would have also served to educate the audience about the meaning of "Spring Awakening" and its relevance to modern life, an aspect that has been conspicuously missing from "Rise."

Fun fact: remember Glee.S6 and the suppoosed gay version of "Who's Afraid of Virginia Woolf" starring Klaine? Albee (who was gay) had a legal prohibition against any such production.

A gritty Glee, not a Smash. Talented kids, not proven pros. Covers, not creations. But..., it should have been Groff, not Radnor. It's helpful when the majority of the audience roots for the protagonist. (See Berry, Rachel or Taylor, Eric)

I believe TK's characterization was merely symptomatic of a general failure to understand the mood of the (mainly liberal) target audience with respect to politics. They wanted resistance, not respite; red meat, not pablum. Comedy is fine and appropriate, but lack of underlying seriousness is not. Compare it to Black-ish (which I watched just recently for the first time ever), whose lead-in audience was being counted on to stay tuned in large number. That's also a sitcom, but there's no infallible Magical Negro, the two kids(!!) are smarter and funnier than TK and Jermaine were in the pilot, and important issues are discussed at greater length and depth than The Mayor has ever done. Ratings for the pilot were disappointing and the falloff was almost complete after just two episodes. One doesn't get a second chance to make a first impression, and the fate of the show was almost completely set in stone with the first preview. Yes, most reviews were great, but terms such as "warm" and "heart" were common and the failure (to date) was because of, not despite, those descriptions turning out to be too all-encompassing.

"Moisturizer" and "skittish" are metrosexual and quite funny in defying expectations. OTOH, ignorant abject fear is white writers invoking an ancient racist stereotype (e.g., Stepin Fetchit), and may be why too many Black-ish viewers (~80% are non-black) change channels at the half hour.

So, T.K. can use "facetious" in a sentence and is aware of the progression of diffculty of NYTimes crosswords from Monday to Saturday. If he'd been like that from the very beginning, instead of his idiocy in the "FIRE!!!" scene, I believe the show would have had a much greater chance for success. Val may possibly be having her own (inside) storyline hiding in plain sight at the ends of the final scenes between just her and Courtney in each of the last two episodes.

There are a good number of really excellent public high schools in LA County, some with higher academic performance than ANY private school in California. In the link, below, look for high schools with API > 820. Among that group, Beverly Hills is merely average. Most of what is presented in the media or scripted TV shows about public versus private schools is ignorant snobbish nonsense. New York City alone has two public high schools with more Nobel Prize winning alumni than probably all the private schools in the country combined. http://api.cde.ca.gov/Acnt2013/2013GrthAPICo.aspx?cYear=2011-12&cSelect=19,LOS,ANGELES I would also note that even in schools with lesser academic scores, AP/IB/Honors classes almost always exist which essentially constitute a first-rate school-within-a-school for academically ambitious students.

I felt the episode was both, and the reason Bow's treatment of Megan bothered so many people is that it was a deeply serious splash of cold water in the midst of the Monopoly farce. It is unfair to consider Bow's actions as racism, and the same might be true with all colors reversed. Her concerns may just as well be taken as desire for preserving cultural identity within the larger community and/or fear (however out-dated it may now be) that Junior's life would be more difficult in an interracial marriage. In terms of story arc, it's possible it will turn out to be more about Junior than Bow, with him ultimately gaining the confidence to tell his mother to butt out.

What might well be humorous and quire acceptable within the family can become much less so when an outsider is involved. Have there been incidences in the past where an adult in the family behaved strangely/inappropriately/rudely toward someone outsde their circle?

As I wrote upthread, this was first episode of Black-ish I had seen, and I have never even read anything about it. Has Bow ever met any other of Junior's girlfriends? Who were they and what were Bow's reactions? Has Bow ever been rude to anyone outside her family without provocation? If so, to whom and why? The last family sitcom I watched was Modern Family, and that was several years ago. Has anyone ever seen a sane, sober, educated white sitcom character behave badly toward a black character on a major network show in prime time? (This is ultimately about TV scriptwriters, not people in real life.)

Where in a race/religion-blind society any parent would kill to have someone like Megan choose their son. She wasn't even a Republian. And Occam's Razor.

Common courtesy is one thing, being so foolish a parent as to almost certainly cause your son even to spitefully prolong a relationship that you wish would end is something else. Megan could have virtually every straight male in the school, including faculty and administration. That she chose Junior says a great deal about both of them.

I watch The Mayor, as I did Scream Queens, for Lea Michele. This one episode of Black-ish I watched had the usual juxtaposition of (heightened) real world and farcical, TV-stereotyped behavior, as does The Mayor. One particular thing the two programs have in common is a major black female character gratuitously insulting a white woman in front of people important to both. American TV sitcoms do not ring true about the lives of any group. Such realism is occasionally on PBS, but it's rarely funny. Regarding sitcom blacks, in particular, my main objection is condescension by whites (writers and characters) and pandering to black audiences. I'm more interested in the social/political/business dynamics involved in the creation of major network shows than in the shows themselves. The Mayor is not yet gritty enough about politics. I'm not asking for a municipal Veep, comedic West Wing, or anti-T***p satire, but I want engagement with the big local issues, and Val and Courtney should be having sex, but not with each other (yet). For example, here in Californiastan, perhaps alone among all states due to passage of its own voting rights bill, cities are being forced to go from at-large to district elections to get more minorities on city councils. A right-wing group is threatening a lawsuit charging violation of recent Supreme Court decisions. I was given examples (elsewhere) of Bm/Wf MtoM osculation on mainstream TV, but none were sitcoms. I welcome related references, but I want at least near-range action shots; a mere relationship, marriage, fornication, fellatio, furtive groping, CPR (emergency or practice) don't count. And faked con la lingue, only, please.

Is that really fair? Courtney learned there are no easy solutions to deep-rooted problems (about time) and perceived the city needed a formal mechanism for continual citizen input (commendable). What do you mean by "mom is magic"?

Bow may have every right to be upset, but she has absolutely no right to take her resentment out on Megan, and certainly not in public. I'm more concerned, however, with why the writers decided to depict the character in such a negative way. (If the colors of all the characters were reversed, only a white Archie Bunker type would have been shown to act in this way.) My guess is short and brutal: it allows whites to feel superior, and gives blacks the satisfaction of revenge. It's a win-win for a bottom-feeding mainstream TV network.

Two replies: one wants it dark, the other light. There's just no pleasing everyone. I, too, am glad Courtney learned there are no quick fixes to all problems. Now if that park would only become trash-strewn again. Maybe then they could get some currently unemployed former community organizer to provide some advice.

Not liking Junior's girlfriend and repeatedly insulting her to her face in public are two entirely different things. There is no way in hell a TV comedy show's main protagonist would have behaved in such an inexcusably crass manner if the colors of all the characters were switched. (The obvious exception would have been "All in the Family", to be consistent with its theme and purpose.)

I watched this show for the first time ever, mainly to see how a sitcom about a black family compared with one about a black mayor. I don't believe a black family would treat any guest so rudely. I don't believe no one, especially including her boyfriend, would defend her. I don't believe teenage couples say goodnight without kissing. I do believe black males don't kiss white girls on the mouth on the major networks in prime time. But hey, maybe I'm naive and/or don't watch enough TV.

While the racial difference is the most immediately obvious, I believe the conflicts would arise at even more fundamental levels. Val/Dina are split by generation, occupation, education, religion, income, pragmatism v. spirituality, expediancy v. principle, professional (eventually romantic?) v. maternal association. An amusing aspect of this last episode is that Dina encouraged Courtney to solve his problem as he had in the past with cooperation and compromise, and instead he hung Gunt out to dry with the preemptive strike of a public billboard. Val would have been proud. Dina should have noticed. The most drama-laden "comedy" on TV that I currently watch is the second season of "Better Things" on FX.