The One
Netflix - Season 1 - 2021 - TV-MA
Several obvious problems in logic can spoil an otherwise very effective show.
1. The opening of the show drops us into the middle of the story and conflict without very much contextual preparation. They’ve done a good job of telling the backstory sprinkled throughout, yes, and it’s clear why the service that The One Company provides is compelling, but the emphasis on the negative effects, compounded by the disaster waiting to happen underneath of a murder and coverup almost seems too soon. We are way deep inside of a plot and coverup story line that seems like we should be watching Season 2 instead of getting established. I believe the show is assuming we’ve completely bought into the idea a bit early.
2. One
of the more obvious flaws of The One becomes evident about the middle
of the 2nd episode. We are following several threads of relationships
that have married people obtaining DNA matches from "The One" company. The program and acceptance for getting a match should have been limited to SINGLES ONLY. Then there wouldn’t be all this heartbreak. It
seems funny to me, actually very obvious, that the primary method for
bringing tension into the story is over-emphasizing married couples at
the expense of the large number of singles that would likely snap this
service up like crazy. We hardly meet any. They are not in any way a significant part of the plot.
Credit goes to the opening sequence however in establishing the overarching conflict right away, visually especially. The very first shot of the show is a deep-sea diver finding a body behind a rusted ship panel. Then immediately after a convincing speech to the public about The One, Rebecca walks out, and the body bag of the dead person found underwater is opened and closed again by a police person. Gruesome.
3. Peripheral themes abound, but most notably LGBTQ expectations and marital androgyny are seen as status quo, and like the over-emphasis on marital involvement in The One program, so are the saturation and normalcy levels of queer presence. The question most people should have after so many TV series of this nature is, “Are there now an overabundance of “different” people than what could be considered “normal”?” If I were an alien that learned earth’s languages and its topography and sociology enough to watch this and other television shows as examples of what human behavior is really like, I’d be inclined to say, “People from earth certainly are diverse sexually and they have expanded their consciousness of that into an almost asexual state of affairs, even though the older generation it would seem still have some outlying but largely insignificant qualms about it.” - memo to space central, planet QuardX8 (a planet where all humanoid life is completely amalgamated sexually and asexual reproduction and gestation are 100% across their “species").
I am only on episode 3 at this time, but I want to make a prediction about what a casual audience might say about this show, after the last episode... and it is an either/or. I believe what we’re seeing is 1. “the potential for better science, if it weren’t in the hands of such dishonest and immoral people”. In other words, the science is real, but being handled the wrong way, and should probably not be privatized, but made available as a right, and an expectation. I could be wrong, but it seems that it may be this way. Or 2. "Of course the science is correct, how can it not be? But the real point is that something this delicate should never be let out of its cage until studies can be done on the real effects, and definitely should be relegated to singles".
So…don’t mess with DNA until we’re truly ready for it". BUT...in EITHER scenario, because of the juxtaposition of the science of DNA leading to "inevitability", and the mixed, or androgynous nature of many of the key relationships, it is ex post facto of how the latter presumes the former.
Another peripheral theme that keeps cropping up in the form of a question is about the integrity of human relationships. Quite a few times during these first 2 episodes the phrase similar to, “Was it Love, or was it just sex?” comes into play, and examples of both kinds of relationships are juxtaposed in the story. At least that’s an honestly good theme, but of course, which gender is not the concern in the subtext of this series.
We largely replace our logic and thinking when undertaking a film,
TV series, and even a book. It's called "suspension of disbelief", and
most of us, frankly, have a memorized path to that switch, on autopilot. We
normally don’t really want to find that kind of stuff out...problems
with logic, or the story, making the connections... because it can spoil
the fun. A consistent question of some of my friends when I was in Columbia College Film School was, “Doesn’t
knowing all that stuff kind of…uh, spoil the movie?” I've not found it
that way. But on the other hand a few questions come up regarding the
"fun". Is it possible that spoiling the fun might be good for us? Like
vegetables instead of cake? I say you can still have your cake, but
vegetables are a must in any case. And isn't the problem with being on
autopilot essentially just that...that someone else is driving then?
When it comes to morality, I want a completely faithful Chauffeur
driving my car, not just any Uber Driver. I guess the most immediate solution for anyone is: watch, enjoy (eat your cake, fine), but make sure you've had your vegetables, and always refer to your faithful Chauffeur. For those who believe that they do not have a Driver....why are you reading this?
Approach with skeptical caution being drawn into an argument you were not thinking about having. I think that’s my new “review” motto.
- Agitatus
Several obvious problems in logic can spoil an otherwise very effective show.
1. The opening of the show drops us into the middle of the story and conflict without very much contextual preparation. They’ve done a good job of telling the backstory sprinkled throughout, yes, and it’s clear why the service that The One Company provides is compelling, but the emphasis on the negative effects, compounded by the disaster waiting to happen underneath of a murder and coverup almost seems too soon. We are way deep inside of a plot and coverup story line that seems like we should be watching Season 2 instead of getting established. I believe the show is assuming we’ve completely bought into the idea a bit early.
2. One of the more obvious flaws of The One becomes evident about the middle of the 2nd episode. We are following several threads of relationships that have married people obtaining DNA matches from "The One" company. The program and acceptance for getting a match should have been limited to SINGLES ONLY. Then there wouldn’t be all this heartbreak. It seems funny to me, actually very obvious, that the primary method for bringing tension into the story is over-emphasizing married couples at the expense of the large number of singles that would likely snap this service up like crazy. We hardly meet any. They are not in any way a significant part of the plot.
Credit goes to the opening sequence however in establishing the overarching conflict right away, visually especially. The very first shot of the show is a deep-sea diver finding a body behind a rusted ship panel. Then immediately after a convincing speech to the public about The One, Rebecca walks out, and the body bag of the dead person found underwater is opened and closed again by a police person. Gruesome.
3. Peripheral themes abound, but most notably LGBTQ expectations and marital androgyny are seen as status quo, and like the over-emphasis on marital involvement in The One program, so are the saturation and normalcy levels of queer presence. The question most people should have after so many TV series of this nature is, “Are there now an overabundance of “different” people than what could be considered “normal”?” If I were an alien that learned earth’s languages and its topography and sociology enough to watch this and other television shows as examples of what human behavior is really like, I’d be inclined to say, “People from earth certainly are diverse sexually and they have expanded their consciousness of that into an almost asexual state of affairs, even though the older generation it would seem still have some outlying but largely insignificant qualms about it.” - memo to space central, planet QuardX8 (a planet where all humanoid life is completely amalgamated sexually and asexual reproduction and gestation are 100% across their “species").
I am only on episode 3 at this time, but I want to make a prediction about what a casual audience might say about this show, after the last episode... and it is an either/or. I believe what we’re seeing is 1. “the potential for better science, if it weren’t in the hands of such dishonest and immoral people”. In other words, the science is real, but being handled the wrong way, and should probably not be privatized, but made available as a right, and an expectation. I could be wrong, but it seems that it may be this way. Or 2. "Of course the science is correct, how can it not be? But the real point is that something this delicate should never be let out of its cage until studies can be done on the real effects, and definitely should be relegated to singles".
So…don’t mess with DNA until we’re truly ready for it". BUT...in EITHER scenario, because of the juxtaposition of the science of DNA leading to "inevitability", and the mixed, or androgynous nature of many of the key relationships, it is ex post facto of how the latter presumes the former.
Another peripheral theme that keeps cropping up in the form of a question is about the integrity of human relationships. Quite a few times during these first 2 episodes the phrase similar to, “Was it Love, or was it just sex?” comes into play, and examples of both kinds of relationships are juxtaposed in the story. At least that’s an honestly good theme, but of course, which gender is not the concern in the subtext of this series.
We largely replace our logic and thinking when undertaking a film,
TV series, and even a book. It's called "suspension of disbelief", and
most of us, frankly, have a memorized path to that switch, on autopilot. We
normally don’t really want to find that kind of stuff out...problems
with logic, or the story, making the connections... because it can spoil
the fun. A consistent question of some of my friends when I was in Columbia College Film School was, “Doesn’t
knowing all that stuff kind of…uh, spoil the movie?” I've not found it
that way. But on the other hand a few questions come up regarding the
"fun". Is it possible that spoiling the fun might be good for us? Like
vegetables instead of cake? I say you can still have your cake, but
vegetables are a must in any case. And isn't the problem with being on
autopilot essentially just that...that someone else is driving then?
When it comes to morality, I want a completely faithful Chauffeur
driving my car, not just any Uber Driver. I guess the most immediate solution for anyone is: watch, enjoy (eat your cake, fine), but make sure you've had your vegetables, and always refer to your faithful Chauffeur. For those who believe that they do not have a Driver....why are you reading this?
Approach with skeptical caution being drawn into an argument you were not thinking about having. I think that’s my new “review” motto.
- Agitatus
