}

The Hounourable Woman: Part II

If you haven’t read my first post about The Hounourable Woman, then you should do so before reading this.

The Honourable Woman

First I must say how surprised I was with all of the comments that my review of the first half of the miniseries received. I’ll talk about that later, but first I would like to point out the absurdity of those comments.

This is just a TV review! There is no reason for anyone to take negative criticism of a television show so personally. Certainly not unless you are one of the people who was involved in the making of it.

My intent in my first review was simply to warn people not to be fooled into thinking that the show is a serious and sincere attempt at depicting the Israeli-Arab conflict. It is not.

I reiterate here that The Honourable Woman does not accurately portray the conflict or the issues involved.

Now if you read my first review you might have been waiting to see if I would change my mind about the show after seeing its second half in hopes that if I did then it would be a sign that the Mashiach is coming. I’m sorry to disappoint you.

The criticisms that I raised in the first review all still apply. In fact, the show became even more absurd. (SPOILER ALERT) It turns out that the U.S. Government was behind the whole nefarious plot which included the assassinations or attempted assassinations of several prominent British citizens.

This was all done, apparently, so that America would have an excuse to come out in support of an independent Palestinian state. Once again the show’s writers betrayed an ignorance of the facts since both the U.S. and Binyamin Netanyahu have said that they accept the eventual establishment of such a state. The only issue to be resolved is the terms on which it will be established.

(SPOILER ALERT OVER)

The acting did not get any better. Nor did the dialogue.

One of my main problems with the show was its sheer implausibility. As our illustrious publisher David Abitbol pointed out to me, TV shows are not supposed to be realistic. I know that and actually prefer a lack of realism in film and television.

I think that people who go to the movies looking for art are silly. Its entertainment first and foremost and, as such, people look to it for escape, not reality.

That being said, a program should at least be plausible. What I mean by that is I would never have wanted to see the detectives on Law and Order solve a case by using suddenly acquired psychic powers. But I do acknowledge that as realistic as it may have felt, that show was frequently unrealistic.

Then there were the people who simply do not know how to understand plain English. I believe I titled the last piece, “Please Don’t Watch The Honourable Woman,” and not “I forbid you to watch it.” Yet for some reason people posted comments saying that I am so arrogant that I think that I can tell people what not to watch.

Also, for some reason, there were British people who took my negative review as an attack on British television. How can they be so sensitive? It’s just one of countless British programs.

I pointed out that the word honorable was spelled with an “ou” just as an explanation. How is it that some people took that to be a mockery of British spelling?

Another person actually wrote that I must be, “one of those ultra-orthodox bigots who made aliyah to Israel in order to participate in the disgraceful Greater Israel policy by breeding a large family and imposing them on new settlements beyond Israel’s legal boundaries.” For the record I am neither ultra-orthodox nor right wing politically.

Another person actually called me a “saddo” (short for sadist) for watching so many episodes; even though, I said that I did not like it. A Sadist is someone who inflicts pain on others. I believe that guy meant to call me a masochist.

And the reason that I continued to watch was so that I could write about it. Plenty of movie reviewers stay to the end of horrible movies because they have to.

Another person said that my responses showed that I cannot take criticism. Wrong again! If that guy or any of the other idiots who posted such comments had actually read and understood my responses then they would have seen that I only responded to comments that were factually incorrect.

I did say to those people who wrote that they liked it and simply disagreed with me that I was glad for them and do not expect everyone to agree with me; although, they should.

Now before someone comments about that last line being egotistical, it was a joke.

Interestingly, people seemed compelled to post comments when they disagreed with what I wrote. I’m not sure why that is. Apparently the last review got thousands and thousands of views, but only a few people felt the need to say something nasty about me.

So to all of you who just read this and want to post a negative comment I expect that you will actually read this whole review and everything in it before you post anything.

Actually, I dare you not to post any negative comments. I even double dare you. Hell, I triple dare you!

Gil

Gil Tanenbaum made aliyah from New York after he completed college.He Has lived in Israel for over 20 years.He has an MBA from Bar Ilan University and is a contributor for various blogs.

2 Comments

  1. Ari

    8/30/2014 at 10:39 am

    Just for the record (and not that I made the original remark), but “saddo” means “sad person”. “Sad” in this context meaning off-beat in a pathetic sort of way. It doesn’t mean “sadist”.

  2. Ari

    8/30/2014 at 10:45 am

    PS: Yes, the final episode stretched the bounds of credibility a bit. But it didn’t stop it being good, compelling drama. It is fiction after all. As another post said (I think): “Don’t eat this delicious ice cream!”

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *