The Penguin (Colin Farrell) Max

What a great start! Even more than I expected, the reviews don’t do it justice.

Robin Lord Taylor was the best thing about Gotham.

Well, Max decided to drop only a single episode for starters, and maybe that's not the best way to get a sense of how good the whole season will be, but it's an OK start.

There's some really good actors in the series, naturally, even though it doesn't seem like this is going to exactly transcend the gangster genre, maybe it just wants to give the title character some added gravitas so he'll be a more formidable presence in future feature films.

Second episode fell off, but passable. Everyone is saying Miloti is the star and she is intense.

This is being offered on my service now but I’ve been hesitant because Cristin Milioti has never done anything for me.

She might in this one. It's a good part and she's milking it for all it's worth

John Turturro said in an interview that he did not want to come back and reprise his role from the movie because there was too much violence against women in the show, and he said "that's not my thing".

Very understandable, and there really seems to be a disproportionate amount of violence against women in the series, but particularly in the episode where Turturro would have appeared.

While I respect John's opinion, and he is welcome to decline any project that he wants to for any reason, I personally think this is an incredibly stupid reason to not participate in this series. It is likely to be very popular, he played this character in the film, and the series story is likely going to continue into the next movie for the Batman trilogy, and he was an integral part of the first film. This is a crime story, women are half of the population, and it is to be expected that in a crime story there would be violence against women, and men, as part of that story. This is not real life and to me the overriding concern related to the story is whether or not it is well told, not who the violence is being depicted against and whatever social message that John would like to communicate through his participation in a completely fictional story set in an entirely fictional universe. Having considerations such as this when developing stories is misguided because, in my opinion, it restricts the type of stories that can be told and it constraints where those stories can go, which to me, is antithetical to the goal of art. When I watch a film, I care about how well the story is told, how good the actors are, the quality of the writing and directing, etc. not irrelevant aspects of the story such as who violence is or isn't directed against in the story that is being told. Additionally, one of the main characters and a big contributor to the heart of the series story is Cristin Miloti's character, and in order for the story to work, I think her character would need to have oppositional forces directed against her as the antagonist and main foil to the Penguin, which would in a story like this involve either the threat of violence, or actual violence.

All I can really say is that I have a lot more respect for John Turturro for taking a principled stance.

He's one of the few famous actors I have met in real life so his distancing himself from the violence in the show makes him a real-life hero to me.

I tend to agree with you. My thinking is that a lot depends on how they're presenting that violence. Is it violence against a heroine or against a villain? Are we supposed to be okay with it? Or is it at least tempered by a sense of justice or vengeance in it? I've seen only the first episode so far, but Farrell's performance will keep me watching for now. Feels a lot like The Sopranos without the sense of humor. I mean that in a good way.

__________________
Linda's Author Website
Linda's Amazon Author page

Most of it is really quite unnecessary, imho.

I speak as someone who was a victim of violent crime (and it was gender-related) and has been dealing with PTSD ever since.

Much of what they have done with violence against women really wasn't completely necessary, nor is it justified by the storyline, imho.

I'm only one episode in, so I reserve the right to amend my position. However, I know I myself have a few triggers for various types of things I can't watch on TV or in a movie. I try to just avoid those types of shows/movies, since I view it as my weakness and not everyone else's problem.

HAVING SAID THAT, violence against a group (such as women or gays) precisely because they are a member of said group is extremely disturbing, even to me as someone who has never been a victim of group hatred or violence. So, I can easily see myself dropping this show like a hot potato if it feels in any way exploitative. There's really no need to indulge a worldview like that in this day and age. (And let's hope that viewers leaving any show or movie en masse would send the right signal about what people expect from their entertainment.)

I don't know if I would go so far as to call it "exploitative," but it certainly seems gratuitous, imho, and here's why: the storyline would still work quite well without such explicit violence. We can hear that "so-and-so got bumped off, and it was [XYZ] who did it!" - and it gets the point across. We know who did what to whom, and why they're out for revenge, or whatever.

So, it really wasn't necessary to make it explicit and going to great lengths to make things super nasty doesn't make it a better story.

But, I get why some people still won't mind it - I'm used to it, society has unfortunately been desensitizing itself against violence for some time now

FilmBuff, I am sorry to hear that you have been the victim of gender-driven violent crime. I hope whoever did that to you has been held accountable, and that that kind of thing never happens to you again. This is my perspective on this. A lot of people have been clamoring for more female driven stories with strong and empowered female characters. That's a large part of what "The Penguin" is. Cristin Miloti's character is a well written, well acted, well conceived one, with great character development, a good deal of complexity, and a plot that meaningfully integrates her role, in which her character drives the story forward. To me, it's exactly what a lot of people have been asking for, and it's being done very well. But, now, that is suddenly not enough. In addition to having all of that, we also have to worry about the kind of character that she is and whether or not violence is being directed against her, or whether it's the "right type" of female driven story, or whether her character, or those around her, are being treated well, or not, in her scenes. That constraints the story too much. To me, you can't really have it both ways. We either want female driven characters and stories, and we're excited when see them done well and we try to support them when we do. Or, we don't, and if we do, then we can't also impose requirements on what happens to them, or doesn't, in pursuit of telling the story as well.

Actually, it would be more than enough all by itself!

I'm not sure if you've seen all of the episodes, but the overwhelming amount of gratuitous violence wasn't even aimed at her. And no, absolutely nobody is saying everyone in the show has to be "treated well," that's an absolutely ridiculous standard for a gangster series. Completely and absolutely ridiculous.

The story itself doesn't depend on the gratuitous violence - the story would be just as strong if the violence was implied or talked about, not always shown in the most graphic way possible.

We can absolutely support that, that isn't an issue at all.

That's a false dichotomy. What happens to them could still be exactly the same if it wasn't shown graphically, after all.

I've seen all of the episodes. To be honest, I didn't even notice this aspect of the story until you pointed it out. It wasn't a concern for me at all. There is a lot of violence directed against men too in the show. It is not just against women. I think it's just the nature of the story. John didn't say that there was too much violence in the show in general, he specifically highlighted it being against women. He didn't object to the violence depicted against men, and that is shown a lot as well. So, by just commenting on violence against women it's not a false dichotomy. It's central to the argument that he made, and that, I think, you are supporting as well.

I think he was speaking from the perspective that he would have been playing the character who was responsible for most of the violence against women being shown in the series. If he doesn't feel comfortable with that aspect of the character he was being offered to play again, then he's definitely within his right to turn the part down.

It is a free country, after all.

He certainly is, but I'm speaking to the larger issue in general, which his comment speaks to. It could be that I am misunderstanding your point of view though. Is it that you think the show is too violent in general, and you'd like the show to be less gory than it is, and more understated in its depiction of violence? Or, is your argument in support of John's, which is that the concern is that the violence is being committed against women, and you'd like to not see that and object to it being shown in this way?

I have actually already stated my position, please go back to the earlier posts and re-read them, because at this point, you're just asking me to repeat myself.