maria-ricci-1983
Everything interesting was shown and said in the first season, which was quite innovative, rich and well-paced. The gist of the series was the ground-breaking research of Masters and Johnson, how both characters met, started their collaboration, and the vast array of difficulties which frayed their work in an evoking and well-recreated American social setting.In the second season, the core of the show shifted to the romantic complications between the two, which made the show look more like a soap-opera, while the actual research was sent to the background. We were also distracted with too many secondary situations and characters, much as a deceptive main course with no meat and lots of little side dishes.The third season was a complete mishap and a waste of time, going from bad to worse, from a disappointing first episode to an embarrassing finale which broke every rule of decent script-writing and left too many untied threads. A whole army of secondary characters was introduced all along so as to add spice and interest, but this only served to highlight how void of substance the main line had become. Not even wonderful Josh Charles, resembling Will Gardner too much, could save the show, while every secondary role was pushed into unbelievable situations and attitudes.Quite disappointed, I will not see next season, if there is one.
Dana Holt
I have reserved any review of Masters of Sex (M.O.S) season three until the final episode of the season had aired. To give any opinions prior would be premature and unfair, like judging a book chapter by chapter. Full disclosure, I am a writer, of fiction and poetry mostly and my approach to the show has always been from a writing perspective first and a viewer second.My draw to the show was threefold, Thomas Maier's book on which the show is based, Michael Sheen, and Lizzy Caplan, two of the finest actors to bring characters, both real-life and fictional, to life. It is nothing short of extraordinary, the bravery and honesty with which Sheen and Caplan bring forth Masters and Johnson. From the first episode of the show, I was hooked. Few shows can brag this caliber of acting and writing.There is not one episode in seasons one or two I did not like. All episodes seemed to move the story forward and reveal more about the characters, even the more fictionalized episodes that were necessary to fill the gaps beyond what the facts revealed. I do have one question about the Lillian DePaul character played by the amazing Julianne Nicholson. I have not found this character to be based on any real person. And while I loved the relationship between DePaul and Johnson, I am wondering why the writers chose to put Johnson through such grief? Did DePaul have to die? Why write her cancer as so advanced? Some lesser shows have used tragedy and trauma of female characters as a cheap ploy to make such characters seem more sympathetic, vulnerable, or build them up stronger. I don't think that is the case with M.O.S.Season three began strong. The first three episodes were incredible, even as I understand the writers were left scrambling due to a legal issue. I am convinced there is nothing Amy Lippman cannot write and no scene Michael Apted cannot direct. In fact, dare I say these two should be the only ones on the show working their respective craft? However, I do look forward to the day when under "Directed by" is Michael Sheen, and Lizzy Caplan.However, season three has disappointed for a number of reasons, none of which have to do with Josh Charles's character Dan Logan. Anyone who has read the book Masters of Sex knows the real Virginia Johnson had a relationship with a man named Hank on which the character Dan Logan is based.Season three is when Johnson also begins a major sea change. In real life she was a very confident woman, in her faculties and abilities as a researcher, in her sexuality and as a woman. She was also very hopeful, exuberant and socially adept. Though after many setbacks, lost loves, and most of all failing to acquire her college degree and fearing people would not take her seriously as a result, she became very disillusioned and cold. The beginning of Johnson's slide is not so much disappointing, as again I've read the book, as it is sad to watch such an incredible woman of such poise and confidence lose her nerve and joy.There's also the conspicuous fact that, aside from Henry Johnson, Virginia Johnson's children seem to vanish mid-season. Is Tessa watching baby Lisa? Is George watching them both? What's happening here? The real disappointments I'm afraid may have more to do with the show runner, Michelle Ashford and her decisions regarding the shows directions. One the most upsetting and frankly utterly ridiculous episodes was "Monkey Business," the one in which Johnson exposes herself to a gorilla to entice him to mate. This not only came out of left field, but I'd like to know what the hell kind of field Ashford was sitting in when she wrote this episode, poppies perhaps? This was the antithesis of a show largely about a woman (Virginia Johnson) who is ahead of her time and is a feminist role model. And, even in a fictive world, what a degrading scene for Caplan. The story line made no sense and neither furthered the story nor revealed more about any of the characters.Finally, the last two episodes, "Party of Four," and "Full Ten Count," were so far off the mark, in particular, the latter. The former was a fantastic demonstration of people not saying the truth and engaging in an awkward dance of words at the dinner. I love those scenes. The scenes at the Masters' house, particularly the detective's line of questioning, perhaps the writers' efforts to create a suspenseful ending, was unnecessary and cheap, a hasty and substandard way to create a finale.Then the finale, "Ten Full Count," or a better title would be the "Unfulfilling Hour of Circling Back." Nothing happens. Literally, nothing happens. Last year's finally? We got a book, a press conference, and found out that Virginia was pregnant thanks to Lizzy Caplan's remarkable ability to convey an idea or emotion with a single look or a subtle nod.I am so pleased Showtime has renewed Masters of Sex for a fourth season and I hope they will continue to renew it for many years to come. I'm excited for the show to get back on track to the glory of its first two seasons, to the foundation of the book, and to revealing the real lives of Masters and Johnson, two people who were so innovative and courageous, they really don't need any ploys or stunts with which to tell their incredible story. To Michael Sheen, Lizzy Caplan, Amy Lippman, Sarah Timberman and Michael Apted, cheers!
MacCarmel
We're three seasons in and the critics are wrong about this series. If you're watching for the Mad Men appeal of something set in the 50's-60's you're in the wrong place. There are no eye candy sets here, the men are all either unredeemable dicks or hugely patronizing pains and the women are, by far, the most appealing characters and actors. But that said, the writers certainly seem to have taken an interesting series and run it into the ditch by season 3. The characters have pretty much all outlived their viewer interest. The fictional children do not belong in this series based on real people and they are a big drag on the story arcs.The value to the series is, in my opinion, solely to view the work of Lizzy Caplan, Allison Janney, Annaleigh Ashford, Sarah Silverman and Caitlin FitzGerald. Michael Sheen does nothing with a wholly unlikeable character. There is no humanity in his Bill Masters. The longer this show continues the more awful this character becomes. And he is, ultimately, the reason I can no longer watch the show. I just can't put up with his character that takes up so much screen time to get to the female performances that are actually worth watching.
Scott-101
The sex in the title is a likely draw for some viewers but as anyone who's seen the show can tell you, the show is about much more than sex. The show focuses on real-life sex researchers Bill Masters and Virginia Johnson (who would eventually marry each other) who struggle to pioneer their sex study despite living in a decade (I believe it's the 50's or early 60's) where sex is taboo. It's a typical period piece that idolizes the progressive protagonists for being on the right side of history and populates its supporting cast with straw men (i.e. Beau Bridges plays a closeted homosexual who initially refuses to come to terms with himself, Caitlin Fitzgerald as Master's wife is a cruel boss who doesn't see her black housekeeper as an equal). By the second season, the show's supporting stars start to really develop with Julianne Nicholson (August Osage County) as a frumpy doctor who strives to be taken seriously and Annaleigh Ashford as a prostitute wishing to go straight and conceive children. Masters is played by Michael Sheen as a driven and dedicated man who can come off as stubborn and asocial in the way that many a TV protagonist is written these days (see: The Knick, House, Halt and Catch Fire), but he has plenty of complexity. Johnson is played by Lizzie Caplan who has been toiling away as a character actress (often playing girlfriend of the week roles on sitcoms) and surprises in her first leading role. The show isn't the most attention-grabbing program on TV. It doesn't have that cliffhanger appeal that a show like Scandal does but it's engaging throughout and, as previously mentioned, by the second season, the show does a good job of honing in on which story lines work.
