2021 was a strange year for romantic comedies. Netflix still reliably churned out content, including an abysmal gender-flipped remake of She’s All That and trilogy cappers for the To All The Boys and Kissing Booth franchises. The delightful HBO Max series Starstruck delivered some feel-good Notting Hill vibes in miniseries form. And musicals like In The Heights and Camila Cabello’s Cinderella were fueled by rom-com tropes. But there wasn’t a big zeitgeist-grabbing romantic comedy, the way last year had Palm Springs and Happiest Season. In this strange transitional pandemic year, no one quite seemed to know what we wanted from our romances. It certainly wasn’t Anne Hathaway and Chiwetel Ejiofor pulling off a rom-com heist in the age of COVID in Locked Down.
That’s why the best rom-com of the year isn’t even really a romance at all. In fact, writer/director Nikole Beckwith’s Together Together takes great pains to establish that Matt (Ed Helms) and Anna (Patti Harrison) have no amorous interest in one another. They’re two strangers thrown together by circumstance. Matt is a fortysomething app developer who’s decided he’d like to make the leap into fatherhood. Anna is the twentysomething barista he chooses as his gestational surrogate. Theirs is, in many ways, a business partnership. But since they’re both single, lonely people in San Francisco bonded together by Anna’s pregnancy, they strike up a friendship that goes well beyond the usual parameters of the surrogate/intended parent relationship.
“It’s slightly hard to categorize in a genre,” Beckwith explained of her sophomore feature. “I say it’s funny, but there’s no jokes and there’s drama, but no tragedy and there’s sweetness, but no sap and there’s romance, but no sex.” Together Together enjoyed a warm reception at Sundance in January and opened in limited release in April. It’s currently streaming on Hulu, where it offers 90 minutes of sweet, breezy, deeply heartfelt relationship dramedy about loneliness and connection—exactly the sort of thing perfectly suited for this strange year where we’re all figuring out how to connect and reconnect in different ways than we might have in the past.
Built largely of two-hander scenes, Together Together is interested in the differing ways its protagonists deal with loneliness. Anna is reserved and internal, with clear boundaries for herself. She’s been estranged from her family since high school, when she got pregnant and decided to put the baby up for adoption. Matt, meanwhile, sits right in Helms’ sweet spot of characters who are so emotionally needy they’re practically a raw nerve of vulnerability. His claim to fame is creating a successful app called “Loner” that allows users to passively swipe through strangers’ photos, like Tinder but with no potential for communication or connection. Low pressure, but also low reward—exactly the sort of surface level interaction that romantic comedies are always urging us to move beyond.
Broken into chapters for each of Anna’s three trimesters, the film mirrors the experience of pregnancy—not to mention the three-act structure of a classic opposites-attract romantic comedy. The first trimester is awkward and anxiety-ridden, with Matt and Anna struggling to find their groove as Matt keeps overstepping his boundaries with her pregnancy of his baby. (Together Together comedically heightens the tensions that a lot of surrogates and intended parents probably actually go through.) The second trimester reaches a place of stability and comfort as Matt and Anna bond, appropriately enough, by watching the show Friends. And the third trimester becomes draining and high-stakes in a different kind of way, as Matt and Anna have to reckon with the choices they’ve made and what they mean for their relationship.
It’s not hard to imagine a version of Together Together that does shift into more traditional rom-com territory, especially in intimate scenes like the one where Anna stays over at Matt’s place and wakes him up in the middle of the night so he can feel his baby kick. Part of what drew Harrison to the script was the sense of tension she felt during her first reading, waiting to see if Together Together would actually stick to its convictions or bend to something more conventional. Beckwith deploys romantic comedy tropes and aesthetics to demonstrate that they can be used for different kinds of love. She and cinematographer Frank Barrera shot the film through vintage glass to evoke Nora Ephron’s filmography, and Beckwith purposefully used Woody Allen’s signature font as an act of reclamation. (“You don’t get your own font, you disgusting monster.”)
Together Together isn’t a romance, but it is a love story. And like the best romantic comedies, it’s about connection, vulnerability, and emotional intimacy. “Please don’t see when I’m sad,” Anna tells Matt late in the film after he gently points out that she doesn’t seem okay. In that moment, all she’d like to do is go back to the facades we have in our casual relationships, where we’re not able to immediately spot when someone’s mask slips. But there’s no flipping back that switch, which is both the best and scariest thing about being loved.
“Just because you’re not like ‘together together’ doesn’t mean that you haven’t created a bond,” Anna’s hilariously bizarre coworker (Julio Torres) reminds her. Are Matt and Anna friends? Should they be? Will that friendship continue after the baby is born? And if it doesn’t, is that a bad thing? “We’re so conditioned to believe that the only relationships that matter and are worth fighting for are permanent, or ones that we know will last forever,” Harrison noted in an interview. It’s something A.V. Club film editor A.A. Dowd echoed in his review: “That’s what’s ultimately touching and even a little complicated about this Sundance selection: It’s an ode to the way that even impermanent relationships can be profoundly meaningful.”
Maybe the biggest reason to see Together Together is for Harrison’s performance. The comedian has spent the past few years carving out her own signature deadpan niche playing off-kilter characters on shows like Shrill and Search Party, as well as in several standout sketches on I Think You Should Leave. Watching her give an earnest dramatic performance in Together Together is as revelatory as watching Melissa McCarthy in Can You Ever Forgive Me? or Jim Carrey in The Truman Show—a singular comedic voice suddenly unlocking a whole new set of skills you didn’t even know she had, particularly in the film’s stunner of a last shot.
Harrison finds a good match in Helms, who between this and his Peacock sitcom Rutherford Falls spent 2021 delivering interesting, socially conscious work that deploys classic comedy forms to more thoughtful ends. Matt’s ticking-biological-clock desire to have a kid on his own is the sort of story that’s almost exclusively reserved for female characters. Together Together is thoughtful about the unique challenges Matt faces; the only books about single parenting he can find are aimed at women, divorced guys, or widowers, none of which entirely speak to his experience. “I do think part of feminist representation is also changing the way we represent men, not just women,” Beckwith explained. “I think that it’s a whole holistic thing.” But Beckwith knows there’s a flipside here too. In one well-observed scene, a salesclerk treats Anna with pity when she thinks she’s a single mom but fawns over Matt when she learns he’s going to be a single dad.
Beckwith also has a beautiful ear for poetic dialogue, which Helms and Harrison are able to toss off in a way that feels completely natural. “People think I’m giving something up to do this, but I don’t feel that way at all,” Matt tells Anna. “I just feel like I’m pursuing this thing that I care about. It’s weird to be perceived as hopeless in this moment when I’m actually incredibly hopeful.” When Anna panics about her family judging her for being pregnant again, Matt is able to comfort her by saying, “You have also helped to create two families, by giving the hardest possible gifts. First, your actual kid and now your actual self. They are not silver linings; they’re standalone good things.”
Like the best romantic comedies, Together Together seems simple, but has a lot going on beneath the surface. It’s a movie that rewards multiple viewings, particularly to track the subtle shifts in Matt and Anna’s relationship—the way Matt’s initial neediness melts away into surprising emotional maturity; a funny scene where Anna teaches Matt how to teach his future child to use a tampon. In its thoughtfulness with character and tone, Together Together shares a lot of DNA with Leslye Headland’s Sleeping With Other People and Gillian Robespierre’s Obvious Child, two of the best romantic comedies of the 2010s. It also offers a lovely, low-key example of casting a trans actor to play a cis role, which Harrison has talked about wanting to celebrate without letting it define her entire performance.
If the romantic comedy genre exists to explore the nature of human relationships in situations where the stakes are both incredibly high and objectively low, then Together Together delivers. It’s an ode to the people that shape our lives beyond our romantic partners—a rom-com that celebrates the unique ways that families are made, and the power and depth that friendships can have. Together Together doesn’t subvert rom-com tropes so much as broaden their scope to all the relationships in our lives. And that makes it a welcome gift in the strange year that is 2021.
Next time: What makes The Family Stone sparkle?
69 Comments
She’s been estranged from her family since high school, when she got pregnant and decided to put the baby up for adoption.
Good on you for not revealing the big twist in this review, but because I’m a stinker I’ll spoil it: in the third act we learn that she’s actually estranged from her family because of tables.
DON’T ASK ABOUT THE TABLES!!!
Let me guess. You’re saying this because it was your big boots that were stomping on the tables.
She makes a good living at fantasy cons and horror cons. Her family should respect that.
Ohh, that’s why!!
I enjoyed the movie but I felt the cameos from Robert Englund, Butch Patrick, and John Kassir were gratuitous.
Back off man, freddy krueger was screaming at her.
I didn’t understand what their problem was with her tables. THEY KEEP HER HOUSE HOT!
She wanted to center them on the page; they wanted to justify left.
Can we, as a society, stop trying to normalize surrogacy. It’s a fucking shitty practice. If you want a child but can’t or won’t get pregnant(or don’t have a partner to make a kid with) then fucking adopt one. Or foster.
What makes it a “shitty fucking practice”?
It’s something you have to be obscenely wealthy to even consider doing—on top of compensation for the surrogate, insurance doesn’t cover surrogacy, so all medical expenses are out-of-pocket—and there are certainly *potential* ethical concerns, but I don’t think the practice is *inherently* wrong. I think adoption probably accomplishes the most good for the most people, but a lot of couples don’t want to give up on the idea of a child who is biologically “theirs,” as irrational as that impulse might be. And of course it’s not a matter of “just” adopting—adoption is itself an incredibly lengthy and expensive process these days. Circling back to the movie’s premise—as a random single dude, surrogacy might be a more viable option for Helms’s character than trying to get approved for adoption.
I can be very difficult for a single man to adopt a child.
Well maybe try not being so difficult, if a bloke wants to surrogate then allow him.
I agree but at the same time, I have friends who tried for OVER A DECADE to adopt before finally getting their son. As much as people complain about all the kids in the system who will never get adopted, they sure do make it damn nigh impossible for the people who do want them to get them. So with the system as is, I don’t know that I can say it’s THAT much worse.
Yeah, that’s what I’m saying. My partner and I have looked into adopting, but we know given our current income level and living situation we’d be quite a few spots down on the list from the get-go.
The vast number of children in this country and around the world looking for adoption who are stuck in foster homes. Surrogacy is all about ego, you need your child to have your DNA. Its shitty
I’ve never had any children by surrogate… but I’ve also never adopted any children. Aren’t I just as guilty as people who use surrogates of failing to alleviate the plight of those in foster homes?
No because you aren’t having a kid.
Sorry I misread this the first time so my response didn’t make senseFor me it’s a bit of a complicated calculus and maybe I’m bias. I see adoption and foster as an altruistic and good thing, for the most part, and thinks it best. Having kids the old fashion way is just how most people do it and it’s sorta net neutral(not for the planet but for my ethical mind). As long as you aren’t having a dozen I general don’t think bad of it. I see Surrogacy and even artificial means to fix fertility as ultimately selfish and a waste of resources. Take a hint from the Universe that maybe genetic baby making isn’t in the cards and use that money to adopt a kid who needs it.
Never happen. The worst thing you can say to a white person is “No.”
Look, I get it, but adoption also isn’t quick or cheap. And neither is foster care—the people who do it are fucking saints, but you’re giving up a lot for it.I’m adopted, and I definitely still feel a little twinge of anger when I hear about someone having a baby via surrogate … but it’s their choice. I can’t make that choice for them and neither can anyone else for them, so I leave it alone.
don’t think a comment on the av club message board is gonna move the needle much in either direction.
Ya never know
From the perspective of the impact on the planet, it’s not much more of a privileged or egotistical act than traditional pregnancy.
Yeah, I’d be FAR more critical of those couples who have little in the way of resources but decide to burden the planet and the social safety net with a DOZEN of their own children instead of adopting.
Having ONE instead of zero is nothing, in comparison.
Yeah, the trouble with having little in the way of resources that also means you have little in the way of preventive care, and while we can always suggest people should just never have sex I think expecting poor people to deny themselves of all of life’s pleasures with no guarantee of an after life is kinda cruel and unreasonable. Especially when we all know there isn’t really a social safety net in this country and few efforts that are left are underfunded and understaffed.It’s just weird that we get all worried about the waste of resources when it comes to other people’s habits, but never evaluate our own.
Society needs to stop pretending that adoption is a easy fix solution for people’s fertility woes. It’s not easy on the adoptive mother who gets traumatized from being in the situation where you have to give up a kid and not every kid ends up in a nice home just a richer one, and that’s kind of a problem.Stop trying to make profiting from other people’s personal misfortune a happy Hallmark story. It’s not. It’s just another option.If you feel so passionately about foster/adoption more single people and people with no fertility issues should adopt instead of producing biological children as well. Solving societies woes is not just on the shoulders of the infertile.
Okay smart ass. Then what should happen to kids that need to be adopted? It’s hard on mother’s but many chose to put them up for adoption for many reason. Should they be forced to raise them or terminate them instead? I do think many people should foster and adopt. Even fertile ones. One of my children is adopted because we wanted to help. Once my kids are out of the house my wife and I also plan to foster if our health and finances can support it. So yeah I think everyone should help and have less kids and adopt or foster more kids in need. I think surrogacy sucks.
I don’t think women should be forced to raise or terminate the “surplus children” but I do think they should have the choice to raise, terminate, or place children elsewhere because all the trauma and effort falls on them in any scenario. I think framing adoption as the “best option” lets us avoid conversations about poverty and opportunity by sweeping along a happy narrative where the Kind and Wise wealthy assist the Ignorant and Craven Poor whose only redeeming choice is by balancing the scales of baby equity. I’m not calling for fostering/adoption to end just the way we view it in public narrative. I think lots of different alternatives should be offered depending on the situation and the case.In a just system most women who place would have the support necessary to bring up their own children without major penalty and we do not have that. So if the system is geared towards only letting middle to well-off people have children buying a kid is no less moral. In a way its almost better because you at least acknowledge there’s a value in childbirth that probably should be monetary and you’re forcing a person to lose a intimate life connection so you might dislike surrogacy for it’s obvious elitism (I kinda do too) but adoption is just as elitist under the current circumstances. Nobody is coming out morally superior here, ya know.
Sorry for the double post but I also just found another hole in your postWhy is it gut wrenching for a mother to adopt their baby but it’s don’t for a surrogate? Neither was planning to keep the baby. It’s the same biological bonding.
I wouldn’t say it of every mother who opts to give away for adoption, but for the ones who experienced adoption regret the regret they feel is because at the last minute they had to make that decision which means they didn’t always have adoption in mind, but circumstances forced their hand. So that makes a big difference between making a conscious choice and making one based on need or lack of options because one feels a lot of guilt about not being able to be a proper parent and knowing that that bond is gone forever.For surrogates some do regret it too, especially ones who haven’t given birth to their own children before, which is why they made it a requirement and that implantation has to be through medical means it just helps emotionally to distance oneself. I think requirements were also in place to have a embryo not be genetically related to a surrogate so I think from the offset you’re negotiating terms and forming this relationship with the parents of the child you go in with the goal of not being a parent to that child in particular. It’s admittedly kinda weird how business like it all is, but I think that works for people who have opted in to do it.
adoption can be like, really hard? the process can take years and they can turn you down for a lot of pretty arbitrary reasons. And I say this as someone with adoptees in my family who I love deeply, adoption isn’t this holy selfless amazing act either. The adoption industry is (and has been for a long time) deeply shady, especially regarding international adoption. Frankly, there are a lot of people that are probably fine parents who should absolutely not adopt.fostering is great (except for all the abusive foster families) but it’s not the same as adoption. foster care is ideally always temporary and the goal should be to reunite the kid with their family, not find them a ‘better’ family. it’s all complicated but one option isn’t inherently less shitty than the others
Why is she being a surrogate? Did she run out of money from being sewn into the pants of the big Charlie Brown?
Highly recommend the GQ interview with Harrison linked to above.
https://www.gq.com/story/patti-harrison-together-together-interview I hope there’s fan-fiction written about it, where my character goes on
to be an astronaut. And she lives in a little hole in the moon and one
day, she gets so comfortable on the moon, she’s like, “I’ve been here
for three years. I think it’s time I take my dome off.” And then she
takes her dome off and her fucking eyes explode out of her head. It’s
hyper graphic. It’s in slow motion. It’s super detailed. It’s like a $20
million scene, like the CGI is so intensive.
God damn, I love her so much.
When she appears in a comedy, there’s this wonderful moment of suspense because you know she’s about to turn the whole scene upside-down. She’s a ringer. Hopefully a lead dramatic role like this will give her some cache to continue doing whatever she wants.
this was a lovely little movie i watched while putting together a lego bonsai tree and the whole experience was, aside from the insane back pain i had from sitting on the floor building lego, very soothing.
Is it questionable to have a transwoman playing the role of someone who can carry a child? It’s unacceptable for a non-trans person to play a trans role and it’s odd that this is ok to the same audience.Edit: to be clear, I’m not saying Harris should not be allowed to play cisgendered, biowomen. It’s my opinion that actors should be allowed to play whatever role they can land.
At this point in cinematic history many cisgendered women have played characters going through pregnancy, and I’m fairly certain those ranks have included women whom, for various reasons, are unable to conceive or even go through biological processes like menstruation. From an audience perspective imo, the real life viability of that actor is not a factor. There are two aspects imo to the push for black, brown, Asian and LGBT people to play roles that have been written for those identities (as well as work behind the camera). One aspect is the fact that they have been excluded from those roles for decades. The other aspect is that they bring perspectives that have been lacking on screen. There is no deficit of cisgendered women being allowed to play pregnant women on screen. And, while women still aren’t well represented as directors and screenwriters, many cisgendered women who have had that opportunity — for example Cody Diablos — have created narratives that featured or focus on pregnancy. What has been lacking is the opportunity for trans women to play any roles. I don’t think that there are any simple answers to situations like these but to me, given the factors cited above and the fact Harris is obviously excellent, I think her casting makes sense.
I absolutely agree that Harrison’s casting here is excellent and I want to see her in more leading roles. She’s hilarious! I think the idea that a cisgendered person being cast as a transgendered person steals a job from a transgendered person is a fallacy, though. I also agree that, in general, major producers should be casting from a more diverse bench than they have historically. Representation is important. I appreciate your thoughtful reply–it’s exactly the kind of discussion I was hoping for.
I think the idea that a cisgendered person being cast as a transgendered person steals a job from a transgendered person is a fallacy, though.
It does perpetuate a system that has kept transgendered people out of major roles (the same system btw that has kept other minorities out of major roles ) regardless of the intention or rationale of the filmmakers. The problem is systemic biases founded in longstanding societal bigotries. So yes, the protest to this issue frequently takes the form of questioning individual casting choices, but its addressing a pattern that can’t effectively be fought in any other way.Imo, the reason we have more women behind the camera, more POC playing roles that typically went to white people, and more entertainment that represents Asians and Muslims in non-stereotypical ways is that marginalized people fought for every inch of every gain. The industry didn’t do it willingly and had all sorts of excuses (usually economic ) to explain their rationale. My opinion is subjective of course, but I’ve also been in the industry for several decades and in rooms where these rationales were put forward. That is only my anecdotal experience, but its coupled with the long documented history of bigotry in the industry.
This is a solid take that I can get behind. In some ways, it feels like media production is in an awkward transitory phase between how things are and how things should be. The truth, of course, is that social standards are always in flux. Part of the reason I chafe against the idea that transgendered characters should be the exclusive domain of transgendered actors is that it implies that transgendered actors should ONLY play transgendered characters, which I disagree with, much in the same vein that strait actors can’t play gay characters and vice versa. And, again, I appreciate your insight!
I think there’s no simple answers but I also kinda think asking for more and the extreme kinda works better than negotiating a subtlety and I hate that that is true because they can claim you’re crazy but seeing as things tend to center out I think asking for something kinda nutty works if your goal is just more exposure.
Great response. It’s Diablo Cody but Cody Diablos sounds cool too.
Thank you (for the correction and the compliment), its going on my “good name for a band” list. Also good for a charming bad guy in a western.
these aren’t really hard and fast rules, either. it’s all case-by-case. people want these things to be uncomplicated ‘good or bad’ things but it’s super nuanced and hyper-specific to each instance.
I take more issue with the lack of consistency in application of social outrage. It’s baffling to me that Eddie Redmayne should apologize for playing a transgendered person, but Harrison gets a pass for playing a cisgendered person.
The major difference is that many cis women have gotten the chance to tell mainstream stories about cis women, but relatively few trans women have been able to tell mainstream stories about trans women; we’re seeing more and more, but it remains a very recent trend, and Redmayne did it when there were even fewer trans performers getting their shot.In short: if a trans actor is cast as a cis character, they aren’t taking away a rare opportunity for a cis actor to represent the cis experience, because cis actors have been representing the cis experience since the dawn of cinema.
This is an excellent point!
My first instinct when I encounter something I don’t understand is to interrogate it. I truly appreciate posts like this which are genuinely helpful in broadening my understanding of issues I don’t interact with very often.
Depends on the role, doesn’t it.
I dunno that Eddie Redmayne’s apology is even real I’m mean it gets the public opinion monkey off his back after’s he’s already reaped the reward and puts him back in print and the public consciousness which his last few flagging roles have knocked him out of. I’m not a fan of performative apology that the discourse has forced either, but ehhh protocol.That said I don’t agree with harassing actors on roles they played. That I leave on the shoulders of directors, producers, and casting. Its a actors job to take roles and play them. I think the heat is placed on the wrong subjects because the access to celebrities is easier than to these background operators.
The exchange rate on that one isn’t equal enough to justify. I think we need to see more trans roles portrayed by actual trans people to kinda get over the idea of them as pantomiming another gender. I didn’t even know the actress was trans which I think kinda says something beyond highlighting my inability to clock as I age. I mean we don’t say it’s weird for actresses to play pregnant who have never had a child physically.I’m not on the team saying no cisgendered actors ever playing trans people, but I think the assumption that a certain caliber of actor is enough to play any role and we need not extend the options is kinda not great either. I know it’s not equivalent to actors playing other races, but when you know how they cast things with so little consideration in general the ban while kinda extreme is sorta necessary to get them to even try. I hate that we have to insist on the extreme to get an inch forward.
I think a very important difference between this and most cis-as-trans casting is that at actor, who identifies as a woman and is socially recognized as a woman, is playing a woman.Usually when a cis person plays a trans person, they are playing someone of the opposite sex. I.e, Eddie Redmayne is a cis man playing a trans WOMAN. This perpetuates the idea that trans women are “really” men in dresses, invalidates their gender identity, and becomes part of a systemic culture of suspicion toward trans people that leads to violence.If there were a pattern of hiring cis women to play trans women and cis men to play trans women, we’d still be having a conversation about appropriateness, BUT that’s not generally how it works.
So part of the problem is that minority actors are more likely to be typecast, ie. a trans actor is more likely to be stuck in trans roles, and giving those roles makes it even harder for them to find work.In a perfect world, spherical actors in a vacuum situation you might have a point; but this is an imbalanced world, so we need to thumb the scales a little.In other words, what the other replies to you are saying 😛
I mean, there are a probably plenty of cis-woman who, for various reasons, are unable to carry a child. I’m not sure how much we’d want to dig into an actress’s medical history in casting her?
I really enjoyed this film. I did kinda get romantic vibes from Ed Helms though, like he was a bit interested in her, but she was for sure not into him. Maybe that’s just me.
Kinda sorta same, but that might’ve been the vibe of him wishing he could kinda be her. Which is like a dynamic you never get to really see from straight men, a kinda pregnancy envy. I thought it was cute and nice how like enamored of her he kinda was in this and not only about the pregnancy. It’s rare you get to see a man admire a woman non-romantically.
I might have to watch this for two reasons:
1. Every Julio Torres line on Los Espookys made me wheeze-laugh, and I want more of his work.
2. I can’t do normal rom-coms, I need some sort of gimmick to get invested in them.
For reasons unknown I watched this one back to back with the similarly themed “Milkwater” (Also on Hulu) and yeah this one was way sweeter and a lighthearted ride. But I would recommend the latter as well. For a dramedy take on the same subject.
Okay I’m just about done with Gawker Media, where can I find your writing (beyond Twitter)? So sorry to see what the executives are doing to this site.
and Beckwith purposefully used Woody Allen’s signature font as an act of reclamation. (“You don’t get your own font, you disgusting monster.”)That’s funny, I saw Welcome to Raccoon City last night and it used what I will always think of as “The John Carpenter font”, although I think Kubrick might have used it before that.
So, nobody else saw this and read Helms’ character as mentally ill, but white and rich enough to get away with it?
Edomites are as funny as an infected toenail. You’re just being a filthy tribal nepotist, again.
Patti Harrison is Trans? I thought she was like a natural born female and not a male turned female.
Ed Helms has done some fantastic comedy with genuine undertones. I’d like to take this opportunity to recommend the film “Jeff, Who Lives At Home”.
When the movie ended, I hoped they would have gotten together. As I was reading the trivia for the movie, I began to think it was a nice they didn’t since it was a change from the typical Hollywood movie.
I enjoyed Rutherford Falls but still found the narrative to be too centered on the white man who couldn’t let go of a historical narrative that centers another white man. And it didn’t come off like lampshading. I wanted more of all of the Native American characters. Hopefully, we’ll get it in season 2.I hadn’t even heard of Together Together, but now I’m adding to my watchlist! I believe I will truly enjoy it! Thanks for always exposing me to stuff I might have otherwise missed like Monsoon Wedding and stories about Chinese American lesbians living in Queens.I appreciate this series so much! Sorry, about everything happening in your workplace. I hope you’ll keep writing these for many more weeks and months to come!