Netflix’s Hollywood: A Critical Review
Ryan Murphy’s “Hollywood,” released on Netflix in 2020, is a vibrant, revisionist historical drama that reimagines the post-World War II entertainment industry. It offers a tantalizing “what if” scenario, positing a more inclusive and progressive Golden Age where marginalized voices – people of color, LGBTQ+ individuals, and women – are given the opportunities they were historically denied. While aesthetically stunning and buoyed by a talented cast, the series grapples with the complexities of rewriting history, often sacrificing nuanced storytelling for idealized wish fulfillment.
The Allure of Revisionist History: A Double-Edged Sword
“Hollywood” is undeniably captivating in its premise. It presents a stark contrast to the documented racism, homophobia, and sexism that permeated the studio system of the 1940s. The series centers around a group of ambitious young actors, writers, and filmmakers navigating the treacherous waters of Hollywood, each facing unique obstacles due to their identity. Archie Coleman (Jeremy Pope), a Black aspiring screenwriter, experiences blatant discrimination. Raymond Ainsley (Darren Criss), a half-Filipino director, struggles to be recognized for his talent rather than his ethnicity. Jack Castello (David Corenswet), a naive Midwesterner, resorts to prostitution to make ends meet and break into acting. These characters, along with others like Camille Washington (Laura Harrier), a talented Black actress relegated to stereotypical roles, and Ellen Kincaid (Holland Taylor), a powerful studio executive secretly in love with a woman, embody the marginalized voices that “Hollywood” seeks to amplify.
The allure of this revisionist approach lies in its cathartic potential. It allows viewers to imagine a world where talent and merit, rather than prejudice and systemic barriers, determine success. Seeing Archie’s script, “Meg,” a powerful story about a Black woman’s struggles, finally get produced and celebrated is undeniably satisfying. Similarly, witnessing Camille ascend to stardom and break down racial barriers on screen is a powerful moment. However, this idealized portrayal also presents a significant challenge: how to reconcile the desire for wish fulfillment with the historical reality of the era?
The Production of “Meg”: A Case Study in Simplification
The production of “Meg” serves as a central narrative thread and a prime example of the series’ strengths and weaknesses. The script itself, while intended to be groundbreaking, feels somewhat simplistic and lacking in the depth and complexity needed to truly resonate. This simplification is likely intentional, designed to appeal to a broad audience and avoid alienating viewers with challenging or controversial themes. However, it also undermines the authenticity of the story and diminishes the impact of its message.
Furthermore, the ease with which “Meg” is greenlit and overcomes the inherent resistance of the studio system feels unrealistic. While the series attempts to address the potential backlash through the character of Avis Amberg (Patti LuPone), the studio head who ultimately champions the film, her transformation from a cautious pragmatist to a fearless advocate for social change feels abrupt and unearned. The film‘s success, both critically and commercially, is presented as almost inevitable, glossing over the immense obstacles and systemic biases that would have undoubtedly hindered its progress in the real 1940s.
The series also struggles to convincingly portray the internal conflicts and compromises that would have inevitably arisen during the production of such a groundbreaking film. While there are brief moments of tension and disagreement, they are quickly resolved, reinforcing the idealized narrative of seamless progress. This lack of nuance diminishes the impact of the story and makes it feel less authentic and more like a fairytale.
Character Development: Archetypes vs. Authenticity
The characters in “Hollywood” are, for the most part, archetypal representations of marginalized groups. While the actors deliver compelling performances, the writing often relies on familiar tropes and stereotypes, hindering the development of fully realized individuals.
Archie, for instance, is portrayed as the noble and virtuous screenwriter, determined to tell his story despite facing constant discrimination. While his struggles are undeniably moving, his character lacks the complexity and flaws that would make him feel more relatable and human. Similarly, Camille is presented as the epitome of grace and talent, consistently rising above the racist microaggressions she encounters. While her resilience is admirable, her character lacks the internal conflict and vulnerability that would make her journey more compelling.
Raymond and Jack, while perhaps slightly more nuanced, also fall into familiar archetypes. Raymond is the ambitious and driven director, constantly battling against the prejudices of the industry. Jack is the naive and well-meaning aspiring actor, easily manipulated but ultimately possessing a good heart. While these characters are sympathetic and engaging, they ultimately feel like representations of ideas rather than fully developed individuals.
The supporting characters, such as Avis Amberg and Eleanor Roosevelt (Harriet Sansom Harris), offer more complex and compelling portrayals. Avis’s journey from a cautious studio head to a champion of social change is one of the more believable arcs in the series. Eleanor Roosevelt’s brief but impactful appearance adds a layer of historical gravitas and reinforces the series’ message of hope and progress. However, these characters are ultimately relegated to supporting roles, leaving the central protagonists feeling somewhat underdeveloped.
Aesthetics and Production Value: A Feast for the Eyes
Despite its shortcomings in narrative complexity and character development, “Hollywood” is visually stunning. The series meticulously recreates the glamour and sophistication of the Golden Age of Hollywood, with lavish costumes, opulent sets, and a vibrant color palette. The attention to detail is evident in every frame, creating a visually immersive experience that transports viewers back to the 1940s.
The costume design, in particular, is a standout. Each character is impeccably dressed, reflecting their personality and social status. The use of color and texture is masterful, creating a visually rich and engaging world. Similarly, the set design is equally impressive, capturing the grandeur of the studios and the elegance of the era.
The series also boasts a stellar soundtrack, featuring classic songs from the 1940s and original compositions that perfectly complement the mood and atmosphere. The music is used effectively to enhance the emotional impact of the scenes and further immerse viewers in the world of “Hollywood.”
The Ethics of Rewriting History: A Necessary Debate
“Hollywood” raises important questions about the ethics of rewriting history. While the series’ desire to imagine a more inclusive and progressive past is understandable and even admirable, it also risks trivializing the real struggles and sacrifices of those who fought for equality in the 1940s.
By presenting a sanitized and idealized version of Hollywood, the series arguably diminishes the significance of the real progress that was made, albeit slowly and painfully. It also risks creating a false sense of complacency, suggesting that the fight for equality is already won.
However, “Hollywood” can also be seen as a form of aspirational storytelling, offering a vision of what could have been and inspiring viewers to work towards a more just and equitable future. By imagining a world where marginalized voices are heard and celebrated, the series encourages viewers to challenge the status quo and fight for a better tomorrow.
Ultimately, the success of “Hollywood” hinges on the viewer’s willingness to suspend disbelief and embrace its idealized vision. While the series may not be historically accurate, it offers a compelling and visually stunning exploration of identity, ambition, and the power of storytelling. It sparks a crucial conversation about representation and the importance of amplifying marginalized voices in the entertainment industry and beyond. Whether it’s a valuable exercise in historical revisionism or a simplistic fantasy remains a point of contention, but “Hollywood” undeniably leaves a lasting impression. The debate it generates is perhaps its most valuable contribution.
