Shrinking delivers one sucker punch of a climax
"Apology Tour" boasts the best scene in the show’s short history
TV Reviews Liz
Oh boy. Oh boy, indeed.
Listen, at least the team behind Shrinking is rightly aware that shipping Jimmy and Gabby (Jason “I play anxious nice guy who’s actually a selfish prick sometimes well” Segel and Jessica “I can and will have great comedic chemistry with everyone around me” Williams) is not a great idea. Not from a character arc standpoint and definitely less so from a sitcom narrative one. They’re colleagues! He’s still grieving! She was his late wife’s best friend! He’s clearly a mess! She’s getting a divorce! How many more red flags do we need to see before their late night drunken affair wherein they both were “some dirty slut pigs” is understood as a cheap ploy to get Jimmy to reassess his entire approach to life and work?
If it sounds like we seem to do this every episode…well, that’s because “Jimmy comes to an epiphany about how he’s mishandling his life” may well be the governing recurring principle behind Shrinking. Last week I joked that the Gabby/Jimmy kiss/hookup was playing into well-worn sitcom tropes—and I admit that may be giving this one-off too much importance. But then I see the cyclical nature of Jimmy’s character arc and I am convinced yet again that, no matter its single-cam trappings, Shrinking is as beholden to sitcom rules. Namely, character development is slow and clipped, if existent at all. This is why sitcom characters constantly feel stuck in their own looped plots; this is a genre that seemed almost preternaturally averse to change. How else to depend on solid catchphrases and repeated pratfalls if not by them being tied to folks who behave the same way day in and day out?
Have I arrived, then, at the main reason why I’ve so been struggling with Shrinking this entire season? After all, therapy—and the work required to improve one’s mental wellbeing—depends on change. On making better informed choices when what you’ve been doing (for weeks, months, years, even!) has clearly not been working. And Shrinking, try as it might, looks like it’s stuck in a loop. Not the kind that accurately depicts the way grief can ensnare us into not moving forward (though there’s that). But the kind that forces someone like Jimmy to lose all sense of self-awareness…until the end of an episode where he’ll have an epiphany, only to struggle with it the next one.
At least this latest one (that he’s a selfish guy who’s taken for granted those around him who have been caring for him) gave us more fun Segel/Williams banter. Oh, and a signature Segel nudity moment that couldn’t help but echo his iconic Forgetting Sarah Marshall scene. But wait, about that epiphany: Why hadn’t he realized this last time when he apologized to Liz for helping out with Alice? Or when he understood that he actually cherished Paul’s advice?
Anyway. Maybe I should focus on the positive, like how both Gabby and Jimmy and Sean and Alice handled their awkward party mishaps with maturity. They talked through why they felt so uncomfortable the day after and then, just… went their merry ways. And just as I typed that out and almost went to complain about how neatly both storylines were tied by episode’s end, I remembered that this episode was eclipsed by the single best scene in Shrinking’s short history so far.
I was right to be excited to see that Lily Rabe would be coming back to reprise her role of Meg, Paul’s daughter. Mostly because, as she’s shown time and time again (in, say, American Horror Story), she’s a fearless performer who’ll giddily dig into comedy and drama with equal poise. Here, as Harrison Ford’s scene partner, she delivers that and then some.
Paul’s Parkinson’s diagnosis has been mostly kept to the background, a way for Ford to get some good scenes in with both Michael Urie and Wendie Malick (his lawyer and doctor, respectively). But I didn’t expect it to deliver such a sucker punch of a climax. Paul—like Jimmy and all of Shrinking’s characters, actually—struggles with asking for help. His self-involvement, though, has been framed by the show until now as making him a tad antisocial but not for that any worse of a therapist. Finding himself unable to connect with Meg and even failing to see how refusing her kind offer would just dredge up decades of neglect was the best version of Shrinking I could envision. Here is a mental health professional all but stumbling when it comes to his own wellbeing, a father realizing that he wasn’t there for his daughter the way he should be. If Shrinking ends up factoring into next year’s Emmys, I wouldn’t be surprised to find “Apology Tour” ending up as Ford’s ticket to the ceremony (with, maybe a Rabe Guest Actress nod to go alongside it).
Now, can we get similarly melancholy and thorny storylines in the rest of the show?
Stray observations
- “Want to go for a walk?” See! I wasn’t making things up. Walking seems to be the only way these characters interact with one another; but have you ever met anyone who lives in Southern California who loves walking as much as Liz, Sean, and Brian do? At least Alice mixed it up this week and introduced us to her bike.
- I was already planning on commenting on the twee indie soundtrack that scores much of the show (apt, given its protagonist) and then this episode put Simply Red’s “If You Don’t Know Me By Now” as the centerpiece of a moving father/daughter moment and, well, it made me rethink whether I really wanted to nitpick the show’s music choices. Because if that song doesn’t move you in ways both cheesy and earnest, then know you are dead inside (or perhaps have better taste in music than I do).
- “Why do you have sadface?” “It’s just face.” (Don’t mind me, that’s just me silently going full on Regina George and whispering, “Stop trying to make sadface happen!” every time “sadface” is uttered by any character on Shrinking.)
- What is Shrinking doing with Sean? Other than being dangled as an example of how Jimmy is fumbling his practice and being equally dangled as an ill-suited love interest for Alice, we’ve gotten only bits and pieces of what’s really going on with him. Maybe the show will finally give him a job, or let us witness more of him and Jimmy’s therapy sessions. Because if not I worry he’ll end up feeling like a missed opportunity to turn him into a well-rounded character whose plots need not only serve the white family that’s housing him.
- We didn’t get a party this time around but we did get an impromptu BBQ. I fear that what we’re getting next as an excuse to bring all these disparate characters together with…a birthday dinner? A group hike? A karaoke outing? A conga line?
61 Comments
“Not from a character arc standpoint and definitely less so from a sitcom narrative one.“But definitely from a height standpoint.
“Was he hot?”“No…but he meant a lot to my dad.”I really don’t need a whole lot more than the hangout vibes…and I also really like the scene between Liz and her husband where he’s open and honest about it being “his turn” to be home, because he’s so burned out.
That was truly a revelation. He went from Jefferson Darcy to an actual human being who knows exactly who his wife is and how to balance that against his own needs. I loved it so much.
I feel like Harrison Ford is just itching for another of his characters to be killed off. It’s his thing.
Now I’ve got to watch the episode just to find out if “Simply Reed’s ‘If You Don’t Me By Now’” is some sort of weird meta tribute band and song or just two typos mashed together.
I suppose it’s a reasonable stance to say that therapy is not a particularly good profession for a sitcom. But I can’t really be down for complaints about the entire *nature* of sitcoms themselves. It’s tiresome contemporary critique bullshit. I’m sorry but relatively static characters are part of the very definition of a sitcom. Character development is NOT the point. If it happens and it’s well written I’m all for it (Schitts Creek immediately pops to mind) but to make that the basis of a critique is to ignore what these things ARE. Go watch prestige drama if you’re looking for arcs.
It’s a single-camera show with a twee indie soundtrack, deep explorations of feelings, intergenerational trauma, and Harrison Ford. It sounds like the working definition of “sitcom” is a lot more flexible than you’re making it out to be.
I’m not saying that sitcoms have to be broad multicam affairs with no thematic resonance. I’m saying that complaining about a lack of character development is looking at sitcoms wrong. It’s a self-defeating expectation. And it’s not a fair criticism because it fails to take the format as it is rather than what the critic *wants* it to be.
You can absolutely criticize the show for a poor choice of format…the format isn’t this divinely ordained thing, it’s something that was chosen by the people responsible for putting out the show…
Yeah, you CAN. To criticize the *show* for a poor choice is perfectly fine. But there are repeated derogatory references to the format itself, which is my primary objection to the review. It’s clear that Manuel has some negative feelings about sitcoms, particularly multicam. (Although it’s interesting that single camera gets a mention as though single camera is itself a subgenre of sitcom and not, in fact, simply a production choice.) Okay, fair enough. But that should be a separate opinion piece. It feels throughout the review like he’s taking the concept of sitcoms to task by way of this particular example.
The reviewer’s criticism is that the limitations imposed by the format end up cramping the story that this show is trying to tell. Obviously he’s going to focus on the ways that sitcoms create narrative constraints, which means he’s focused on the more “negative” aspects of the format. But the focus is still on how the show made a bad choice by trying to cram a heavy character-driven drama into a sitcom format… It seems like your main complaint is that the reviewer doesn’t go off on a tangent about why sitcoms are good in order to sooth all of the sitcom fans reading this review. Personally I’m glad he didn’t waste time on pandering to sitcom fans in this way. Not that it really matters, but it’s worth pointing out that this writer gave the 70s show reboot a “B”, which is difficult to imagine someone doing if they sincerely hated the sitcom format…
I don’t CARE if he does or doesn’t like sitcoms, I think that it’s a SEPARATE talking point. I don’t think sitcom fans need to be mollified or whatever bullshit you’re throwing in there. Yes, there is a context for the criticism. I don’t know how many times I have to say that I *agree* with the idea that the show is possibly a bad fit for the format. I just also don’t think it’s *necessary* to cop an attitude about the format, which I think happened. As underlined by the paragraph I quoted. And I don’t think it IS particularly relevant that the same reviewer scored That 90s Show relatively well. You can think that Burger King makes a great burger while still copping an attitude *about* burgers.But as I also say in my other response, I’m finding this whole conversation fucking tiresome. Enjoy whatever complaints you have about this show. I don’t even particularly care ABOUT the fucking show. I just thought it was a bad complaint.
This is such an incredibly petty and nitpicky complaint. You’re saying that the criticism itself is valid, but he’s “copping an attitude” about sitcoms? Absurd. It’s very obvious that you like this show and are looking for any reason to complain about this lukewarm review. The fact that he was willing to give a B of a remake of a sitcom is not directly relevant; I only bring it up to emphasize how made-up your complaint about “attitude” is. And he didn’t just say That 90s show was a decent sitcom; he said it was a decent show in general. There isn’t a special AVClub grading scale for sitcoms.
I completely agree that this is tiresome.
Well the fun sandtrap I’m going to step into is that I haven’t watched a single episode of the show! I don’t actually care about the show itself. I care that a reviewer of TV shows made it part of the review to complain about the format of a TV genre. And do I need to reiterate, again, for like the thousandth fucking time, that I agree with the substantive part of the review that wonders if therapy is a bad fit for a sitcom? Or are you just gonna keep ignoring the fact that I said that because it’s convenient for your antagonism?I don’t know if you’re ignorant of the show or you’re making a wannabe-clever little joke about That 90s Show but it’s a sequel series, not a remake. (Which in some ways is part of the complaint people have had with the show. It has missed some of what made the original show so engaging. But I digress.)
They didn’t say a single inaccurate thing about the format. They were talking about the limitations that the format imposes, so obviously they were focused on the more “negative” aspects of the format for the purpose of this review…I’m sorry that you’re such a huge fan of sitcoms that you can’t handle someone observing the limitations imposed by the format! But this is what is commonly referred to as a “you” problem. Whether that 90s show is a remake or a sequel is entirely irrelevant. The point is that it’s rehashed/recycled sitcom content that this guy (who you think has a vendetta against sitcoms) apparently thinks is decent.
And it’s a mini-series, with a beginning, a middle and en end that were encompassed from day one, with character development being necessarily involved.
What about orcs?
Go ask Sourpuss Zaddy. Er, I mean Geralt.
“9 Seasons in and this ‘Jerry Seinfeld’ character is just as much of an asshole (if not more so!) as he was in the first episode. D-.”
I think Steve Carell and Domhnall Gleeson in The Therapist were more realistic than this mediocrity and that’s about a freakin’ serial killer kidnapping his shrink and holding him hostage, FFS.Ugh. This is not a very good show, but this was definitely the ‘best’ episode so far, if I may damn it with faint praise
Not every show can be made by the geniuses behind The Americans.
I’m not expecting Succession-level writing, or Severance-level compelling, but this show just feels so workshopped. Everyone is such a writer’s construct. It’s a shame because it’s got some great actors.
Haha… Fair! I was more wistfully recalling the marvel of The Americans.
I hear you! God, I loved that show.
I think they are going for therapy realism at the same level that Ted Lasso is going for soccer realism. If you’re watching Ted Lasso for the soccer, you might be missing their intention. The problem is, Shrinking isn’t nearly as effective. On another note, I posted a comment 24 hours ago that is still pending approval. What is the point of a comments section that doesn’t post your comments?
I’m not even on board with complaining that the depiction of therapy is unrealistic. A realistic depiction of therapy would be dull and awful TV.A realistic depiction of most things would be dull and awful TV.
I don’t think the reviewer does that at all, though? They clearly acknowledge the nature of sitcoms, and they don’t complain about the nature of sitcoms in general. They just point out how this specific show and the specific stories it’s trying to tell don’t fit comfortably into that mold, and they question whether the show is well-suited to the sitcom format. I think it’s perfectly reasonable to say that not every story should be told in the form of a sitcom…
Really? You don’t detect some undue snark about sitcoms generally in “character development is slow and clipped, if existent at all. This is why sitcom characters constantly feel stuck in their own looped plots; this is a genre that seemed almost preternaturally averse to change. How else to depend on solid catchphrases and repeated pratfalls if not by them being tied to folks who behave the same way day in and day out?”?I dunno. That feels pretty pointedly critical of the format to me.
That seems like an accurate description of the format. If that sounds critical to you, then maybe you don’t like sitcoms.
Yeah, every sitcom definitely has pratfalls. Just nonstop old ladies tripping over cracks in the sidewalk and incompetent fathers dropping babies. And there’s no judgment attached to the idea of a character being “stuck”.What the fuck ever. I’m not going to have a semantics or tone policing debate with you. I thought it was shitty and judgmental, you didn’t. COOL.
If you didn’t want to get into a tone policing debate, then you shouldn’t have tone-policed this review lmao. But yes, all of those things are hallmarks of sitcoms. Sorry if someone pointing that out upsets you? And he never said those things happened “nonstop” in sitcoms; that’s something you added.
The question mark instead of declarative punctuation is apt because you seem to be confused. Pointing out sitcom hallmarks is not upsetting. I thought I was clear about that, but I suppose I have to rephrase it another dozen times. Acting as though those hallmarks are inherently problematic and a weakness of a show in the sitcom format IS pretty annoying.Some rando blog commenter antagonizing me for no good reason? That’s upsetting. I mean… You’re not even trying to back up Betancourt here. So what’s the point? I get going to bat for a G/O writer because they are so often shat on by the commentariat for what often seems to me like “the lulz”. Believe it or not my complaint isn’t just G/O rabble-rousing. And I don’t have anything against Betancourt, unlike some of the Barsanti haters hereabouts. I just think this *particular* review has some weird anti-sitcom stink on it.And FWIW, the tone policing itself is not the problem. It’s the *debate*. I don’t give a fuck if you agree or disagree about tone policing. Clear? I don’t want to debate it with you.
They didn’t act like the hallmarks were inherently problematic lol, get a grip. Your entire complaint boils down to them “copping an attitude”. You can’t point to a single thing they said that was wrong, you’re just mad about the tone in which they said it. The reviewer is annoyed by the presence of sitcom tropes in the context of this show. They aren’t saying those tropes are always bad. I don’t think I have seen someone who was so devoted to the format of sitcoms that they go into the comment thread of a show they didn’t even watch to whine about imagined slights to the format of the sitcom. Simply incredible.And the fact that you, of all people, have the gall to say that my participation in this thread is pointless? In any case, I clearly am “going to bat” for the reviewer…not sure where you got the idea that I wasn’t.
I keep reading these “enjoy it for what it is, not what you want it to be” memes in the comments every week, it’s a ridiculous thing to say about a show focused on grief and therapy when the critique is, “this thing is not moving forward after 7 episodes”. It’s a perfectly fine critique to make, Sean has gotten less agency and less importance as the show has gone on and these comments saying “hey, it’s a sitcom, he’s supposed to be the black sidekick, enjoy it for what it is” are absurd. One can expect a little more out of Lawrence and Segel in this format.
Like I said above and will continue to say: It’s fine to point out that therapy is possibly not a great fit for a sitcom. It is less fine to blame *the format* for this show choosing it. A poor carpenter blames his tools. Aim the critique at the show, not the format.
i mean, Huff ran for 2 seasons and it was about a therapist and that was funny (and dark) as hell, so.
Fair! I don’t think there’s a ton of actual therapy going on in Frasier but that was also about a therapist. The dynamic isn’t quite the same but there’s group therapy in Dear John, which I quite liked once I was old enough to understand it. (I was a preteen when it premiered.) I don’t think that therapy is *inherently* bad for sitcoms but I see where someone might.Either way it doesn’t strike me that format is the problem with Shrinking. Because format is never the problem. Format just IS. Which is all I was saying before the string of whatever with Dan-o.
I’m still digging this show. It’s not the best thing ever, but the humour and emotion really speak to me in a way few things don’t. This may be an unpopular opinion, but it’s really refreshing to have a show tackle mental health in a way that acknowledges just how messy it can be. Is it realistic? God no, but I laugh a lot more at this show than I do others!
That’s what I thought! And isn’t regression and repeating patterns despite knowing what’s best for us…human nature? Despite being therapists, I presume that would follow for all humans otherwise we would never know therapists who go to other therapists for their own mental well-being.
I’m enjoying the show and all of the characters. As this is only season one, I think it would be incredibly boring for everyone to figure their stuff out by episode seven. And quite unrealistic.
This just here. If anything it’s too realistic in how it portrays how hard it is to break free of patterns of behaviour, self-destructive or otherwise. I’m not on board at all with the complaints that the characters don’t change enough. That’s real.
I think, with regards to the critique the characters don’t grow enough or change enough, it’s got to be related to this new format of “sitcom.” This is a half-hour show where standard sitcom plots unfold, albeit with a more dramatic angle at times, but shot like it’s an hour-long prestige TV drama. Are these comedies? Dramadies? Is it fair to expect the same of this as of other sitcoms? I dunno, but it does explain a lot of the thoughts online I see about shows like this and Ted Lasso.
I thought it was pretty clear that this is a Dramedy. Not sure why the reviewer is trying to force it through a sitcom lens.
Man, Peak TV has really warped our critical sensibilities when we start kvetching about a lack of character growth seven episodes into a show’s first season.
Last week I joked that the Gabby/Jimmy kiss/hookup was playing into well-worn sitcom tropesYou didn’t joke, you complained.
Real life is people making the same mistake over and over even if they’re trying to actively change. Incremental change is still change. And Jimmy’s actually in a much different place now than he was 6 episodes ago.And they’re not disparate people. Jimmy, Gaby, and Brian have been friends since, what, college? Liz is his neighbor and became closer to them since Tia died. Sean lives in the pool house. These are people who would naturally be hanging out together because of history and proximity.
Jimmy is honestly making pretty realistic progress, and if you think about his introduction..,yeah he’s come a long way.
Are there really no copy editors to catch that it’s “If You Don’t Know Me by Now” by Simply Red?
Welcome!
Why are you calling this the “climax”. This isn’t the last episode of the season.
Jimmy does seem to be in a bit of a “loop,” but the characters around him are not.When you take a look at Jimmy’s “loop,” you realize that the loop is based on his coming to grips with each of the other characters: resolving his failings with Alice, accepting Liz’s help, coming to grips with his needs from Paul, etc. He is re-evaluating the relationships around him and acknowledging his mistakes with each individual. The writer seems to expect that Jimmy’s realization with one character will instantly solve those issues with the others. That doesn’t seem real. Does me resolving my issues with my mother change how I deal with my best friend? Probably not. Jimmy’s approach seems to be one almost of a person in recovery, addressing people that have been wronged individually.So I don’t think it’s fair to say Jimmy is stuck in a loop. It might be more reasonable to say that as he evaluates and understands each relationship, he is improving himself and is more equipped to fix the next one. All while grieving for his deceased wife from a marriage that was failing. I don’t think the show has quite found the tone and, personally, I thought Paul’s daughter thinking her father, after all these years and running a psych practice was just going to drop everything and move away from his life of fifty years was a little presumptuous, even with her long standing pain. Her expecting a man who never gave that much to suddenly give everything seems a little too hopeful given their history.
how did jason segal get where he is? Is he some kind of great actor and i dont see it? I dont have anything against him, im just like, why
Really great episode. I’ve really enjoyed this show so far.
re: Jimmy “But wait, about that epiphany: Why hadn’t he realized this last time when he apologized to Liz for helping out with Alice? Or when he understood that he actually cherished Paul’s advice? re: Paul “Finding himself unable to connect with Meg and even failing to see how refusing her kind offer would just dredge up decades of neglect was the best version of Shrinking I could envision.”Why is this bad with respect to Jimmy but good with respect to Paul?
I may have missed it, but, at this point, the writer should know and acknowledge that Christa Miller is the show’s music supervisor (as she has been on her other shows). I love her choices so far.
I didn’t know this! She’s doing a great job.
Every week the review just seems to be missing the obvious point.
Reviewer is not watching the same show the rest of us are. *insert lament at the steep decline in quality of writing here*
Clearly Liz and Sean are going into some kind of business together. He needs something to do (he likes to cook) and she has to get out of the house. There was no other reason for that walk/talk then to set up their venture.
Now, can we get similarly melancholy and thorny storylines in the rest of the show?Yeah! Why is this sitcom so light and funny?! It should be more convoluted and sad! – The Comedy Expert