ferdinand1932 The first season has a solid trajectory and the combination of characters, the circumstances and the recreations of 1950s are all intriguing with that added element of truth. Apparently. Sure, there are compromises to tell a story but even Primo Levi did that with his memoir of Auschwitz. The curious relationship of Masters and Johnson and their quest, her maverick confidence as much as anything, are quite attractive. Then into the second season it becomes obvious that truth and historical accuracy are being defined by what the producers believe will be sufficient. The fact that Sheen isn't bald, as was the real Masters, indicates that this is pick and choose biographical history. This manipulation of the audience might be acceptable with just Masters and Johnson, the real nature of their affair, what they said and the reason behind it, but it's a strain and disturbing when the other parties: Masters's wife in particular, are portrayed in a way for which Maier's biography does not source and there is no record. This is not about a hairstyle or a political affiliation, this is an event in a persons' life, which has been invented.The progress from historically sourced facts, with some enhancement to raise dramatic interest, is presented in the opening of the third season. At the close the producers make it clear that Masters and Johnson is presented for their important work, meanwhile the children as presented in the TV episode are fictional. The real Masters and Johnson had children and no doubt this was done to close any possible dispute. Even the most charitable of viewers realizes they have now been swindled. What won the trust – and in the days of Ed Sullivan, the thanks for coming into your home – is in reality just a disingenuous fraud. Yes, there are truthful parts but the overall arc, the element the dramatic pitch, the nature of the lives shown, is not related to the two real persons, nor to their families and associates.In its place is a reworking of a Douglas Sirk picture of the 1950s: the enterprising single woman finding her way in the world.It's a good story and in this version Lizzy Caplan is photogenic and convincing although she cleaves to the junior high school teacher way of talking, to impress upon her interlocutor the reason to her argument,in very evenly pronounced syllables much too often. Opposite her is a block of wood in a bow tie. Playing Bill Masters would be very hard and Sheen does something with this difficult material, although he lacks physical presence and command.Like Sirk's movies, this is middle-brow melodrama. It looks good, it's photographed well, the scripts were better in season one than later, but its connection to history and biography are only tenuous at best.

maria-ricci-1983 Everything interesting was shown and said in the first season, which was quite innovative, rich and well-paced. The gist of the series was the ground-breaking research of Masters and Johnson, how both characters met, started their collaboration, and the vast array of difficulties which frayed their work in an evoking and well-recreated American social setting.In the second season, the core of the show shifted to the romantic complications between the two, which made the show look more like a soap-opera, while the actual research was sent to the background. We were also distracted with too many secondary situations and characters, much as a deceptive main course with no meat and lots of little side dishes.The third season was a complete mishap and a waste of time, going from bad to worse, from a disappointing first episode to an embarrassing finale which broke every rule of decent script-writing and left too many untied threads. A whole army of secondary characters was introduced all along so as to add spice and interest, but this only served to highlight how void of substance the main line had become. Not even wonderful Josh Charles, resembling Will Gardner too much, could save the show, while every secondary role was pushed into unbelievable situations and attitudes.Quite disappointed, I will not see next season, if there is one.

Dana Holt I have reserved any review of Masters of Sex (M.O.S) season three until the final episode of the season had aired. To give any opinions prior would be premature and unfair, like judging a book chapter by chapter. Full disclosure, I am a writer, of fiction and poetry mostly and my approach to the show has always been from a writing perspective first and a viewer second.My draw to the show was threefold, Thomas Maier's book on which the show is based, Michael Sheen, and Lizzy Caplan, two of the finest actors to bring characters, both real-life and fictional, to life. It is nothing short of extraordinary, the bravery and honesty with which Sheen and Caplan bring forth Masters and Johnson. From the first episode of the show, I was hooked. Few shows can brag this caliber of acting and writing.There is not one episode in seasons one or two I did not like. All episodes seemed to move the story forward and reveal more about the characters, even the more fictionalized episodes that were necessary to fill the gaps beyond what the facts revealed. I do have one question about the Lillian DePaul character played by the amazing Julianne Nicholson. I have not found this character to be based on any real person. And while I loved the relationship between DePaul and Johnson, I am wondering why the writers chose to put Johnson through such grief? Did DePaul have to die? Why write her cancer as so advanced? Some lesser shows have used tragedy and trauma of female characters as a cheap ploy to make such characters seem more sympathetic, vulnerable, or build them up stronger. I don't think that is the case with M.O.S.Season three began strong. The first three episodes were incredible, even as I understand the writers were left scrambling due to a legal issue. I am convinced there is nothing Amy Lippman cannot write and no scene Michael Apted cannot direct. In fact, dare I say these two should be the only ones on the show working their respective craft? However, I do look forward to the day when under "Directed by" is Michael Sheen, and Lizzy Caplan.However, season three has disappointed for a number of reasons, none of which have to do with Josh Charles's character Dan Logan. Anyone who has read the book Masters of Sex knows the real Virginia Johnson had a relationship with a man named Hank on which the character Dan Logan is based.Season three is when Johnson also begins a major sea change. In real life she was a very confident woman, in her faculties and abilities as a researcher, in her sexuality and as a woman. She was also very hopeful, exuberant and socially adept. Though after many setbacks, lost loves, and most of all failing to acquire her college degree and fearing people would not take her seriously as a result, she became very disillusioned and cold. The beginning of Johnson's slide is not so much disappointing, as again I've read the book, as it is sad to watch such an incredible woman of such poise and confidence lose her nerve and joy.There's also the conspicuous fact that, aside from Henry Johnson, Virginia Johnson's children seem to vanish mid-season. Is Tessa watching baby Lisa? Is George watching them both? What's happening here? The real disappointments I'm afraid may have more to do with the show runner, Michelle Ashford and her decisions regarding the shows directions. One the most upsetting and frankly utterly ridiculous episodes was "Monkey Business," the one in which Johnson exposes herself to a gorilla to entice him to mate. This not only came out of left field, but I'd like to know what the hell kind of field Ashford was sitting in when she wrote this episode, poppies perhaps? This was the antithesis of a show largely about a woman (Virginia Johnson) who is ahead of her time and is a feminist role model. And, even in a fictive world, what a degrading scene for Caplan. The story line made no sense and neither furthered the story nor revealed more about any of the characters.Finally, the last two episodes, "Party of Four," and "Full Ten Count," were so far off the mark, in particular, the latter. The former was a fantastic demonstration of people not saying the truth and engaging in an awkward dance of words at the dinner. I love those scenes. The scenes at the Masters' house, particularly the detective's line of questioning, perhaps the writers' efforts to create a suspenseful ending, was unnecessary and cheap, a hasty and substandard way to create a finale.Then the finale, "Ten Full Count," or a better title would be the "Unfulfilling Hour of Circling Back." Nothing happens. Literally, nothing happens. Last year's finally? We got a book, a press conference, and found out that Virginia was pregnant thanks to Lizzy Caplan's remarkable ability to convey an idea or emotion with a single look or a subtle nod.I am so pleased Showtime has renewed Masters of Sex for a fourth season and I hope they will continue to renew it for many years to come. I'm excited for the show to get back on track to the glory of its first two seasons, to the foundation of the book, and to revealing the real lives of Masters and Johnson, two people who were so innovative and courageous, they really don't need any ploys or stunts with which to tell their incredible story. To Michael Sheen, Lizzy Caplan, Amy Lippman, Sarah Timberman and Michael Apted, cheers!

keenast Over all very well acted, and often has compelling writing even if some characters are borderline believable.It has to be said though, nothing we see in this story is real. All of it is an invention. From presenting that the work of Masters and Johnson was a 'first' or 'revolutionary' or whatever (oh my, sexuality has been studied forever before those 2 came along and with much more insight than those two mechanics/statisticians) up to their portrayal of characters and what have you. Nothing of what we see here did actually happen or is anywhere near to it. It's a well made TV fantasy!