The first season has a solid trajectory and the combination of characters, the circumstances and the recreations of 1950s are all intriguing with that added element of truth. Apparently. Sure, there are compromises to tell a story but even Primo Levi did that with his memoir of Auschwitz. The curious relationship of Masters and Johnson and their quest, her maverick confidence as much as anything, are quite attractive.
Then into the second season it becomes obvious that truth and historical accuracy are being defined by what the producers believe will be sufficient. The fact that Sheen isn't bald, as was the real Masters, indicates that this is pick and choose biographical history. This manipulation of the audience might be acceptable with just Masters and Johnson, the real nature of their affair, what they said and the reason behind it, but it's a strain and disturbing when the other parties: Masters's wife in particular, are portrayed in a way for which Maier's biography does not source and there is no record. This is not about a hairstyle or a political affiliation, this is an event in a persons' life, which has been invented.
The progress from historically sourced facts, with some enhancement to raise dramatic interest, is presented in the opening of the third season. At the close the producers make it clear that Masters and Johnson is presented for their important work, meanwhile the children as presented in the TV episode are fictional. The real Masters and Johnson had children and no doubt this was done to close any possible dispute.
Even the most charitable of viewers realizes they have now been swindled. What won the trust – and in the days of Ed Sullivan, the thanks for coming into your home – is in reality just a disingenuous fraud. Yes, there are truthful parts but the overall arc, the element the dramatic pitch, the nature of the lives shown, is not related to the two real persons, nor to their families and associates.
In its place is a reworking of a Douglas Sirk picture of the 1950s: the enterprising single woman finding her way in the world.
It's a good story and in this version Lizzy Caplan is photogenic and convincing although she cleaves to the junior high school teacher way of talking, to impress upon her interlocutor the reason to her argument,in very evenly pronounced syllables much too often.
Opposite her is a block of wood in a bow tie. Playing Bill Masters would be very hard and Sheen does something with this difficult material, although he lacks physical presence and command.
Like Sirk's movies, this is middle-brow melodrama. It looks good, it's photographed well, the scripts were better in season one than later, but its connection to history and biography are only tenuous at best.
Then into the second season it becomes obvious that truth and historical accuracy are being defined by what the producers believe will be sufficient. The fact that Sheen isn't bald, as was the real Masters, indicates that this is pick and choose biographical history. This manipulation of the audience might be acceptable with just Masters and Johnson, the real nature of their affair, what they said and the reason behind it, but it's a strain and disturbing when the other parties: Masters's wife in particular, are portrayed in a way for which Maier's biography does not source and there is no record. This is not about a hairstyle or a political affiliation, this is an event in a persons' life, which has been invented.
The progress from historically sourced facts, with some enhancement to raise dramatic interest, is presented in the opening of the third season. At the close the producers make it clear that Masters and Johnson is presented for their important work, meanwhile the children as presented in the TV episode are fictional. The real Masters and Johnson had children and no doubt this was done to close any possible dispute.
Even the most charitable of viewers realizes they have now been swindled. What won the trust – and in the days of Ed Sullivan, the thanks for coming into your home – is in reality just a disingenuous fraud. Yes, there are truthful parts but the overall arc, the element the dramatic pitch, the nature of the lives shown, is not related to the two real persons, nor to their families and associates.
In its place is a reworking of a Douglas Sirk picture of the 1950s: the enterprising single woman finding her way in the world.
It's a good story and in this version Lizzy Caplan is photogenic and convincing although she cleaves to the junior high school teacher way of talking, to impress upon her interlocutor the reason to her argument,in very evenly pronounced syllables much too often.
Opposite her is a block of wood in a bow tie. Playing Bill Masters would be very hard and Sheen does something with this difficult material, although he lacks physical presence and command.
Like Sirk's movies, this is middle-brow melodrama. It looks good, it's photographed well, the scripts were better in season one than later, but its connection to history and biography are only tenuous at best.