Queens Gambit and Netflix

Discuss anything you like about chess related matters in this forum.
User avatar
John Saunders
Posts: 1717
Joined: Thu Apr 19, 2007 3:10 pm
Location: Kingston-upon-Thames
Contact:

Re: Queens Gambit and Netflix

Post by John Saunders » Wed Dec 08, 2021 1:27 pm

Something in another thread which is also relevant to this one - an error in the Gaprindashvili lawyers' submission...

viewtopic.php?f=46&t=12347&p=276339#p276339
Personal Twitter @johnchess
Britbase https://www.britbase.info
(I prefer email to PM - contact me via this link - https://www.saund.org.uk/email.html)

Kevin Thurlow
Posts: 5821
Joined: Wed Apr 30, 2008 12:28 pm

Re: Queens Gambit and Netflix

Post by Kevin Thurlow » Wed Dec 08, 2021 7:07 pm

Relating to the other thread, but better here so as not to contaminate an obituary section...

"Note his name in bold: the lawyers cite John Taylor as one of the players who lost to Nona Gaprindashvili. But he didn't - he won. I wonder if Netflix know that."

Probably not... But courts don't seem to worry too much about false claims anyway.

I recall an English player referring to our heroine as "Moaner", not Nona, as he claimed she spent her whole life complaining. Of course, I was shocked at this grave insult and it would be quite wrong to repeat it.

Reg Clucas
Posts: 602
Joined: Mon May 16, 2011 3:45 pm

Re: Queens Gambit and Netflix

Post by Reg Clucas » Fri Jan 28, 2022 12:17 pm


Roger Lancaster
Posts: 1910
Joined: Tue Mar 17, 2015 2:44 pm

Re: Queens Gambit and Netflix

Post by Roger Lancaster » Fri Jan 28, 2022 12:58 pm

In short, Netflix lawyers will presumably argue (a) that most viewers had never heard of the real Gaprindashvili and would assume instead that she was another fictional character, so that consequently they had no prior opinion which could be affected by seeing the film, and (b) that the minority who had heard of the real Gaprindashvili would know the statement to be false so their opinion would be unaffected.

Neil Graham
Posts: 1938
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2007 8:36 pm

Re: Queens Gambit and Netflix

Post by Neil Graham » Fri Jan 28, 2022 8:19 pm

Kevin Thurlow wrote:
Mon Sep 20, 2021 1:21 pm
"one put by an (American?) reporter who asked The Proclaimers where they met."

The Corrs suffered a similar fate in England...
The late Dale Winton used to present the Morning Show on Radio Trent - he was interviewing a man who had a twin sister and Winton asked "Are you identical twins"?

Mick Norris
Posts: 10329
Joined: Tue Apr 17, 2007 10:12 am
Location: Bolton, Greater Manchester

Re: Queens Gambit and Netflix

Post by Mick Norris » Fri Sep 09, 2022 8:49 am

Roger Lancaster wrote:
Fri Jan 28, 2022 12:58 pm
In short, Netflix lawyers will presumably argue (a) that most viewers had never heard of the real Gaprindashvili and would assume instead that she was another fictional character, so that consequently they had no prior opinion which could be affected by seeing the film, and (b) that the minority who had heard of the real Gaprindashvili would know the statement to be false so their opinion would be unaffected.
Case has been settled
According to The New York Times, lawyers for Gaprindashvili filed papers in federal court on Tuesday suggesting that they had settled the lawsuit while also filing a motion to voluntarily dismiss its appeal in the case. Lawyers of both parties are quoted saying they are "pleased the matter is resolved."
Any postings on here represent my personal views

User avatar
JustinHorton
Posts: 10364
Joined: Mon Aug 04, 2008 10:06 am
Location: Somewhere you're not

Re: Queens Gambit and Netflix

Post by JustinHorton » Fri Sep 09, 2022 8:54 am

Interesting point
"Do you play chess?"
"Yes, but I prefer a game with a better chance of cheating."

lostontime.blogspot.com

Neville Twitchell
Posts: 110
Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2010 10:22 am
Location: Harlow, Essex
Contact:

Re: Queens Gambit and Netflix

Post by Neville Twitchell » Sun Feb 18, 2024 3:29 pm

I don't know if there is a thread relating specifically to reviews of this series but having finally got round to taking out a Netflix subscription and watching the series I am tempted to make some comments, which may go against the grain.

I had heard a lot of very good things about this and seen a lot of favourable reviews both on this Forum and on IMDB, and tuned in with high expectations, but was rather disappointed. Seems to me the chess content is woefully inauthentic, notwithstanding that the show boasts Kasparov and Bruce Pandolfini (of “Searching for Bobby Fischer” fame) as advisors. But what they were advising the producers on is a mystery for there is little kinship with the real world of competitive chess.

It is difficult to know where to start with a critique of this offering. Beth Harmon’s career progression is unconvincing in the extreme. She apparently learns the game from the janitor at her orphanage in Kentucky, picking up the rudiments of the game with astonishing rapidity. So far, just about believable. But, after a lengthy layoff forced on her by the Principal as punishment, she is shown picking up the game again and enjoying an almost untrammelled path to the top, suffering almost no setbacks or career doldrums with which even the most gifted players would be afflicted. For example, she wins the Kentucky state championships with ease at her first attempt, sweeping all before her, and of course humiliating chauvinistic male players along the way. This is just too much.

Then there is the matter of her date with destiny viz. the reigning world champion, the Soviet Borgov. Despite her fervid desire to take him on and defeat him she does not seem to partake in any sort of World Championship cycle, which is scarcely even mentioned, but merely goes from one tournament to another, culminating in Moscow 1968, where she faces Borgov. We see little or no contact with anything in the form of chess officialdom, such as the USCF. There is no distinction drawn between games and matches; a very common error; nor between matches and tournaments and her game with Borgov is presented as if this single, solitary tournament game is a World Championship decider. As with many of these tournaments, it is presented as if it were a knockout format with all other players eliminated.

The chess is not convincingly portrayed. Players all move very fast even well into the middle game and respond almost instantly to every move of their opponent even in the most difficult of positions, and often do not write the moves down. The production fails to convey the rhythms and register of top level competitive chess where players alternate between intense study of the board and casual wandering about in between. Players do not sit rooted to their seats for four hours or more. They do not talk to each other very much, if at all, during play, and certainly are not supposed to, and do not tend to confer genteel and orotund tributes to their winning opponents, nor do audiences applaud. The names of great players, openings and chessic terminology are sprayed around in the dialogue and may sound impressive to a lay viewership, but none of it sounds plausible nor really makes sense. She even conducts detailed technical explanations of her games with her stepmother who hangs on every word, yet as a non-player she would surely have found it incomprehensible. It is as if the scriptwriters have been supplied with a chess lexicon and selected words and names almost at random from it.

Leaving the chess aspects aside and regarding the show purely as drama it falls down badly in many respects. There is a mishmash of styles and it lacks any truly unifying theme. There are very frequent flashbacks to her childhood, which gradually enables one to fill in the blanks of the storyline and her personal history, though some matters remain obscure to the end.

Characters float in and out of the story at various points to strut their hour upon the stage and then are heard no more, or re-appear fleetingly, by which time they have often undergone personality changes. The devil-may-care Watts (who looks like he has strayed in from a spaghetti western) is an egotistical narcissist one moment and then a deeply sympathetic individual, dedicated to advancing Beth’s career. Another early chess opponent, Harry Belkin, similarly arrogant, becomes a stressed-out caring soul concerned about Beth’s descent into alcoholism. The stepmother starts out prim and proper but degenerates swiftly and seamlessly into alcoholism and sexual licentiousness. Beth herself is depicted as a child as introverted and almost autistic but transmogrifies into a sexually promiscuous, hard-drinking, drug-taking teenage rebel. Admittedly, people may undergo character reformation over time or have submerged traits that rise to the surface as they mature but these conversions often seem implausible and motivated by the requirements of the plot.

If this series is trying to say something about life, adversity, talent, obsession, addiction, female emancipation or whatever, then I am unsure what it is.

User avatar
Gerard Killoran
Posts: 1006
Joined: Sun Oct 04, 2009 11:51 am
Contact:

Re: Queens Gambit and Netflix

Post by Gerard Killoran » Sun Feb 18, 2024 11:07 pm

Neville's review reminds me of this:
Although written many years ago, Lady Chatterley's Lover has just been reissued by the Grove Press, and this fictional account of the day-to-day life of an English gamekeeper is still of considerable interest to outdoor minded readers, as it contains many passages on pheasant raising, the apprehending of poachers, ways to control vermin, and other chores and duties of the professional gamekeeper.

"Unfortunately, one is obliged to wade through many pages of extraneous material in order to discover and savor these sidelights on the management of a Midlands shooting estate, and in this reviewer's opinion this book cannot take the place of J.R. Miller's Practical Gamekeeping" (Ed Zern, Field and Stream, November 1959, p. 142).

Paul Habershon
Posts: 550
Joined: Sat Aug 07, 2010 5:51 pm

Re: Queens Gambit and Netflix

Post by Paul Habershon » Mon Feb 19, 2024 12:49 pm

I enjoyed Neville's Queen's Gambit review, a considered antidote to the generally warm reception from chess players. The problem with chess films is that to outsiders the game is incomprehensible, slow and BORING! Thus chess is difficult for a script writer to portray entertainingly.

I wondered whether a snooker film might have had more success. Slow and possibly boring, but more comprehensible. I found this recent offering had only lukewarm reviews: https://snookerzone.co.uk/was-the-snook ... akthrough/
If the link doesn't work you could Google the film 'Break'.

User avatar
Gerard Killoran
Posts: 1006
Joined: Sun Oct 04, 2009 11:51 am
Contact:

Re: Queens Gambit and Netflix

Post by Gerard Killoran » Mon Feb 19, 2024 7:24 pm

I think you missed

The Rack Pack

https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p03bv0t5
Affectionate feature-length comedy drama about the glory days of professional snooker in the 1980s and the legendary rivalry between Alex 'Hurricane' Higgins and Steve Davis, featuring many of the key personalities of the time.
https://youtu.be/tAVznA24y-A?feature=shared

Paul Habershon
Posts: 550
Joined: Sat Aug 07, 2010 5:51 pm

Re: Queens Gambit and Netflix

Post by Paul Habershon » Tue Feb 20, 2024 10:48 am

Gerard Killoran wrote:
Mon Feb 19, 2024 7:24 pm
I think you missed

The Rack Pack

https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p03bv0t5
Affectionate feature-length comedy drama about the glory days of professional snooker in the 1980s and the legendary rivalry between Alex 'Hurricane' Higgins and Steve Davis, featuring many of the key personalities of the time.
https://youtu.be/tAVznA24y-A?feature=shared
I had seen reference to the Rack Pack but I don't think it is entirely comparable to the Queen's Gambit in that it is concerned with real events and people, whereas Neville's criticism of the QG is that it's unconvincing fiction.

Kevin Thurlow
Posts: 5821
Joined: Wed Apr 30, 2008 12:28 pm

Re: Queens Gambit and Netflix

Post by Kevin Thurlow » Tue Feb 20, 2024 3:55 pm

"I wondered whether a snooker film might have had more success."

Paul is on to something. Walter Tevis (author of Queen's Gambit) also wrote "The Hustler", which is about Pool. That was pretty successful as a film! The sequel "The Color of Money" did ok.

Roger Lancaster
Posts: 1910
Joined: Tue Mar 17, 2015 2:44 pm

Re: Queens Gambit and Netflix

Post by Roger Lancaster » Tue Feb 20, 2024 7:15 pm

It's really a statement of the obvious but, for the benefit of any non-chess-playing forumites, Neville is reviewing this from the perspective of a player of the game. He's correct but only in the sense that, for example, "The Sound of Music" bears little resemblance to the realities of life in pre-Nazi Austria and, were Neville a scholar of 1930s European history, he would presumably be criticising the R&H musical on that account. Hard fact, in both these cases and many others, is that the facts have been 'adapted' so as to appeal to those who aren't specialists in the subject.

User avatar
Matt Mackenzie
Posts: 5205
Joined: Tue Mar 31, 2009 11:51 pm
Location: Millom, Cumbria

Re: Queens Gambit and Netflix

Post by Matt Mackenzie » Tue Feb 20, 2024 10:39 pm

Yes, but in that context some "adaptations" are more excusable than others. Certain things identified by Neville just appear like sloppiness and carelessness, and could have been done with greater accuracy without making it harder for the layman to understand.
"Set up your attacks so that when the fire is out, it isn't out!" (H N Pillsbury)

Post Reply