Different strokes, as the great sages have put it for centuries, for different folks. Or, in the words of the ancient philosophers, whatever floats your boat.
Recently I watched the first season of Hulu’s “The Full Monty,” a series sequel to the 1997 movie. It picks up with the British community of Sheffield, and in particular the same group of men who, as unemployed steelworkers, did a striptease performance a quarter-century ago to raise money. The financial struggles of these locals, and, now, their children, continue, as they deal with fractured family lives, diminishing aspirations, and byzantine government-assistance systems.
A warm portrait of a community, it made me think of “Shameless,” at moments, with its rough-and-tumble households, and “Friday Night Lights,” where fending off bleakness was a weekly exercise. It’s not as fine as those two shows, but still, I was happy to recommend it to readers in my short review. Likewise, “The Crowded Room,” Apple TV+’s flawed but faceted depiction of mental illness starring a fearless Tom Holland. I thought readers would like it. Both of these shows display the kind of compassion toward their characters that I’ve seen in some of the best TV, except, of course, in that supreme opus of greed and contempt, that HBO home of a morally barren billionaire and his bitter brood, “Succession.”
Later, I was surprised to notice on TV-review aggregator sites that both of these series were given mixed to negative evaluations by TV critics across the country. I try, and mostly succeed, in finishing my own reviews before I look at others, so I was somewhat startled. I had assumed both shows would have broad critical support. OK, then, I reminded myself, reviewing is subjective, despite the way we write our opinions, which is usually with some commitment to their rightness. There are no absolutes, especially when it comes to judgments and appraisals — a thought that’s not breaking news, of course, but that always deserves to be remembered.
Advertisement
I’d love to be able to pretend that my takes are the best and most correct, but I’m not that cocky, or reckless. I’m very much in touch with the idea of different personal leanings, not least of all because I regularly hear from those who disagree with me through e-mail and in comments sections. There have been times, too, when I have disagreed with myself, when my opinion has changed as I’ve reconsidered or watched more of a particular show — HBO’s “Six Feet Under,” for example, whose first two episodes turned me off before it became one of my all-time favorites. I actively disliked HBO’s “Watchmen,” for its willfully elliptical storytelling, until it fell into place mid-series. It’s always worthwhile to stay open-minded even after publishing an opinion, and there is no shame in flipping — or, as the politicians prefer to put it, evolving.
Advertisement
There are often times when I’m on the other side of the equation, when I dislike something that’s soaring on the critical aggregators. Showtime’s “Twin Peaks: The Return,” for example, met with plenty of rabid acclaim in 2017. I couldn’t get away from it fast enough, regardless of its TV-history cred. Likewise HBO’s “Barry,” which became a painful watch for me after the second season, as the critics kvelled louder and louder, I couldn’t figure out the motivations behind any of the characters’ behaviors. Peacock’s ambitious “Mrs. Davis” from April, which has a 78 on Metacritic, was hard work for me, a tonal mess with a chaotic narrative. Showtime’s “Yellowjackets”? Whatevs.
Advertisement
This kind of personal bias is, to me, what ultimately makes reviewing compelling. Certainly critics can almost universally agree on shows, most recently on Hulu’s “The Bear,” and “Succession,” but the distinctiveness of a critic is often found in the shows they like more than other writers. For instance, I tend to be drawn, more than many, to comedies that tilt into the absurd, like “Wilfred,” “Lodge 49,” “Corporate,” and “Man Seeking Woman,” shows that often fail to make it into the mainstream. I tend to prefer quieter dramas that focus on characters and small epiphanies rather than big world-threatening conflicts, and I’d take a “Mad Men” or a “Rectify” any day over a “Halo” or a “Citadel” or a “The Lord of the Rings: Rings of Power.”
I try to be objective when I sit down with advance screeners of a show. But ultimately, reviewing is about the eye — and the pen — of the beholder. The biggest challenge of all is to be true to your own point of view — at least for the time being — fully aware that there is no one perspective on excellence or on awfulness.
Matthew Gilbert can be reached at matthew.gilbert@globe.com. Follow him on Twitter @MatthewGilbert.