attention upper east subscribers , film fatales here, your one and only source for the truth
behind the scandalous reception of a certain new outsider.
spotted: gossip girl's little sis gracing our screens last thursday evening.
let's see what the public has to say about this, shall we?
*spoilers for episode 1 of GG*
the new Gossip Girl has finally arrived and, predictably, critics were.. not happy.
i saw these bad reviews, calling the reboot clumsy, drab, and even a complete failure,
and I braced for the worst.
the best that i could hope was that maybe it would be Riverdale-level bad, not the /best/
writing [clip] but still pretty entertaining to watch.
so I settled in prepared for the worst and I have to say..
I liked it.
For anyone who doesn't know what it's about, it is set in the same world of the original
gossip girl without the original cast.
It boasts Joshua Safran, the showrunner for the previous Gossip Girl as its showrunner.
We follow new girl Zoya as she moves from Buffalo to NYC to a ttend the prestigious
Constance Billard on a scholarship.
There, she meets her long lost sister and Queen Bee Julien.
Julien is a wildly rich and popular influencer, surrounded by a similarly wealthy friend group.
Their young, underpaid teachers set up Gossip Girl in order to enact revenge for the unjust
dismissal of their colleagues and teach the rich kids a lesson.
### expect the unexpected
The first episode of the reboot balances the nostalgia of the old gossip girl without becoming
*too* referential and manages to make an old premise feel fresh and exciting.
The new gossip girl plays with the established tropes of its predecessor and subverts them.
First, we're introduced to Zoya, and though we think this will be our underdog new girl
who's pitted against the band of 'popular' kids, it's quickly revealed that Zoya and
Julien have been friends for two years.
THEN gossip girl attempts to create a rift between the two with a cheating scandal, but
their friendship wins over petty rumours (unlike the original gossip girl).
However, the biggest subversion of all is that we know from the beginning exactly who
Gossip Girl is.
Revealing who Gossip Girl is from the get go was a clever move on the writers' part,
as it not only goes against our expectation that it will be yet another mystery, but introduces
a fresh perspective.
it also raises the stakes from petty power struggles between friends to workers revolting
against those in control.
it updates the original blog format to 2021 with a deux-moi-esque instagram account.
while I do think teachers bullying their students is an odd narrative choice, especially with
the fact that they effectively spread child p*rn, i'm intrigued as to what direction the
show will take.
All of these plot points show that the reboot knows its audience, the writers know that
we're familiar with the tropes of the original and use this to subvert our expectations.
I am already invested in all the characters and cannot wait to dive into their backstories.
Just from looking at the cast it's 10 times more diverse than the original, with queer
(Jordan Alexander), non-white, and trans actors (Luna).
but the characters don't seem like tokens thrown in for bonus points, at least so far.
the characters have a good dynamic and feel like they're actually friends.
The show's subversions don't stop at its story, as it takes the stock character of the rich
playboy and gives him a queer twist.
From what we've seen, Max Wolfe isn't the straightforward party-animal and immoral guy
(read: attempted r*pist) that Chuck Bass, his obvious inspiration, was.
He's bisexual, raised by two dads, and it's hinted that his storyline will involve polyamory,
which is already miles beyond the straight playboy stereotype.
The update on Blair's "minions", the characters of Luna and Monet, have more agency and personality
than their predecessors, who felt like more like props than people.
And even though we've only gotten a taste of what's in store with each character, the
storyline hasn't feel predictable.
It also adds a meta-textual element with its casting of Tavi Gevinson, who garnered recognition
as a teenager with her blog Style Rookie.
The experienced blogger now plays a 20-something woman pretending to be a teenage blogger...
the layers.
where the original show glossed over the privilege of it's uber rich main cast, going as far
as trying to convince us that the Humphrey's are poor.. the reboot has addressed the main
characters' generational wealth and privilege while still indulging the audience in the
opulence of the Upper East Side with runway shows and members-only bars.
some people have criticised the glamorisation of wealth, but i'll get into that later.
besides that, it does have some social commentary that, unlike in other reboots targeted towards
gen z, doesn't feel out of place or like it's pandering to its audience.
i think i was most surprised when Obie was heckled for hooking up with a freshman [with
a freshman? gross].
the age difference is obviously gross and i'm praying that despite the blatant set up,
the show won't have us root for a relationship between 14 and 17 year old.
social media is central to the new show, and thankfully the teens text normally, and the
references to pop culture feel natural
the episode was directed by Karena Evans, and in fact all of the episodes are directed
by women, and over half are written by women too.
in terms of style, the soundtrack, the visuals, and the outfits all hold up.
the soundtrack includes frank ocean, ariana grande, megan thee stallion, and doja cat
while the cinematography boasts some great composition.
the wardrobe nods to its predecessor's style, particularly with the varying (and comically
unrealistic) uniforms, all the while updating it to 2021. also - huge - is that kristen
bell has returned as the voice of gossip girl, and when i heard that first [hey upper east
siders ] i tell you guys.. i ascended.
from what i've seen, the audience has responded pretty positively to the first episode.
twitter has been flooded with memes and a consensus that though the reboot stays true
to the original in some aspects, it doesn't feel like it's leaning to heavily on nostalgia
[fate: the winx saga] or creating a vapid "woke" revival in an attempt to appeal to
Gen Z [powerpuff girls/heathers].
so with a solid first episode and all this positive reception from audiences, we have
to wonder why there's been an onslaught of poor reviews from critics.
critics have long been biased against media that's popular with and targeted towards teenage
girls.
From One Direction to Twilight, media aimed towards teen girls has been ridiculed over
and over again, even when it is wholly undeserving of such negativity. even tiktok [as musically]
started off as an app predominantly used by young women.
now everyone from will smith to gordon ramsay have wholeheartedly embraced the app. teen
media has become an obvious punching bag for reviewers, nitpicking flaws in easy targets
like riverdale.
when reviews note that the target demographic is young girls, it's usually as a way to emphasize
mediocrity.
the same can be said of films directed by women.
In this article for Refinery29, 'do movie critics have a female director bias, too?"
Lauren Le Vine details the criticism lobbed at Elizabeth Banks' PP2.
Despite being the highest debut ever for a first-time feature director and opening no.1
at the box office, critics gave the film lukewarm reviews.
Levine writes "reviews paid a disproportionate amount of attention to Banks' stylistic and
directorial decisions in crafting a lightweight comedy sequel designed to bank of the surprise
success of its predecessor".
the worth, impact, and success of media directed towards young women is consistently harshly
debated and combed through for flaws.
the extent to this critical bias only becomes clearer when we look at media directed towards
men, which flies by largely unscathed [the big bang theory] despite its obvious flaws
[misogyny].
the root of this issue is that criticism is entirely subjective, and given that the majority
of film critics are male, the female critical voice isn't accurately represented.
though this issue is garnering more and more attention, it doesn't change the impact this
bias continues to have - look no further than the gossip girl reboot.
in terms of gossip girl, just look at the disparity between the critic and audience
response on rotten tomatoes.
i would say the only issues with the show are issues common to teen TV: the normalised
depictions of underage s*x and substance use, old actors, and the idea that a 14-year-old
girl looks like [this] and will get into these kind of situations.
besides those, there's maybe a few faults like lines of dialogue but certainly nothing
that warrants a 30% critic score.
there's also criticism that in an age of enormous global disparity of wealth we shouldn't glamorise
wealth and opulence.
Robert Lloyd, in his review for the Los Angeles Times, wrote that the show was "too aggressively
glamorous".
however, i don't see critics take issue with shows like succession and dynasty or films
like the great gatsby and the wolf of wall street, all of which revolve around grossly
wealthy characters.
i know there will be people defending these portrayals of wealth saying they're satire,
but gossip girl is no different.
it does not take its subject matter too seriously and while the reboot contains elements social
commentary, it hasn't lost sight of the cattiness, camp, and drama of the original.
to be fair to the critics, gossips is a new show and sometimes critics are slow to warm
to tv shows.
some of them have also seen as many as four episodes of the show and honestly, none of
us know where this show is going so maybe it will crash and burn.
but going off the first episode, I for one am hopeful that the new gossip girl will continue
down the path it's forged for itself thus far.
do i think it will succeed?
well, that's one secret i'll never tell.
xoxo
film fatales