Save this article to read it later.
Find this story in your accountsSaved for Latersection.
Occasionally, it is necessary toconvene a conversationbetween Vulture writers to discuss an important and timely issue in culture.
The show is full of music, women, drugs, drama, and, obviously, basketball.
Yet the most immediately striking thing aboutWinning Timeis how it looks.
Its visual style is impossible to ignore.
Is that a good thing?
Lets talk it out.
Jen:The sensibility ofWinning Timeis, to put it mildly, aggressive.
(McKay is an executive producer and directed the pilot.)
Theres a ton of fourth-wall breaking and talking directly to the audience.
The question at hand is: Why did the makers ofWinning Timego this route?
And is it effective, or is it distracting?
Kathryn, Ill throw to you first since I have the impression you were not a fan.
That is its own whole ball of wax.
Its funny, the visual aesthetic is clearly meant to evoke masculine signifiers.
It is a wildly male-gaze-y show full of boobs and cool dudes looking at a camera being cool.
There are even shots that linger on gratuitous violence, which I was not expecting in a basketball show!
This is my fault for not knowing the story.
But the other way to think about the overall visual and narrative impact is that it isoverwhelminglyornamental.
Any time a shot could have one idea in it, there are seven.
Whether its effective, though that feels like a trickier question.
Roxana:You know, I do think its effective!
Will I defendDont Look Up?Never!
But I must admit that I felt challenged byWinning Timein a way I appreciated.
Am I losing it?
Do I need a reality check?
Jen:I realize this will sound wishy-washy, but I see both sides of this.
I agree with Kathryn that the approach can be overwhelming, especially in the first episode.
That kind of stuff feels very bro-ey and, for me, off-putting.
Kathryn:As I get deeper into screeners, I am less overwhelmed by the look of it.
It feels a little like Stockholm syndrome.
Either have characters use direct address,oruse a billion cameras and filters and intercut imagery.
Theyre both devices that refuse to let a viewer rest.
Maybe with one or the other, the exhaustion would be less extreme.
Intellectually, I can appreciate that!
She speaks, he responds, but in one of his responses, there is a cut.
It feels like a little hiccup, and your brain registers the change.
And yeah, it serves a purpose.
When the image bifurcates from the dialogue, we get two levels of information rather than one.
But that added level doesnt change anything!
He loves luxury and excess.
My brain was more full.
That little choice snagged at my attention.
But what did it add?
Roxana:You raise a worthwhile question, Kathryn.
What ifWinning Timeusedjustthis purposely aged look or usedjustdirect-to-camera explanations and asides?
Is one approach more successful than the other?
I think the show unintentionally wades into this in episodes that arent directed by McKay.
IfWinning Timewere only showing rather than also telling, would it go down easier?
Its true thatWinning Timedoesnt give the viewer a chance to rest, but again, thats the point.
A constant-motion offense, the strategy implemented by McKinney, goes hand in hand with a constant-motion TV show.
I think the sense of urgency comes through more forcefully because of that.
When youre moving this fast, theres little time to dive deep, which is a flaw for sure.
