The Queen’s Gambit | Netflix

First episode very entertaining, with great acting all round. Very promising series.
Minor quibble- the young Beth used to be . Hardly likely.

Didn't think this would be my cup of tea but 4 episodes in and it's very good.

It was amazing. Enjoyed it from start to finish and a really satisfying end, came to a natural conclusion while feeling like you want more. Really satisfying watch and a great character study.

I enjoyed this a lot but I suppose a minor complaint would that the actress who is in her mid 20s was playing at one point a 15 year old who was passing as a 13 year old-it was just too unbelievable, I couldn't take the show seriously during that particular episode cause there is no way that actress would ever be mistaken as anyone under the age of 18, never mind 13.

I always wonder who is recommending these films and if they are in the same target market or age group as me.

So to save me the time is this a coming of age drama based on a teenage girl who plays chess and sticks it to the patriarchy?

As a middle aged builder man would I be wasting my time?

Man with broke phone wrote: »

So to save me the time is this a coming of age drama based on a teenage girl who plays chess and sticks it to the patriarchy?

As a middle aged builder man would I be wasting my time?

It's a drama about the dangers from within that can come with genius.

Although her opponents are 99% male, it has nothing to do with the patriarchy. The main character is interested in chess, not her own gender and in fact gets irritated when stories about her focus on that aspect. She wants to talk about chess, not sexual politics.

From the novel (repeated almost verbatim in the series):

“[...] it’s mostly about my being a girl.”
“Well, you are one.”
“It shouldn’t be that important,” Beth said. “They didn’t print half the things I told them. They didn’t tell about Mr. Shaibel. They didn’t say anything about how I play the Sicilian.”

If it's feminism, it's the old fashioned kind and not the more recent victimhood-focused kind. In that sense, the series can be viewed as a breath of fresh air.

One of the best series I’ve seen on Netflix for quite some time. Just oozes quality in every respect - acting, script, production design and direction.

cdgalwegian wrote: »

On top of that it has the feel of a stylized biography, with great effect. Everything about it is stylish, with great attention to detail.

SPOILERS BELOW




I got the sense that the production was something of a labour of love, particularly with regard to the novel. I know that criticism of the series should be on its own merits, but when you've read a novel before seeing its screen version, it's hard to put it out of your mind. That said, the series stands on its own well, and it could even be said that if you've seen the Netflix version, you don't really need to read the novel - although I'd still recommend it. A lot of the novel finds its way into the series almost word for word. Because the novel can be a little light on dialogue, much of the narration is delivered via the actors, for example, descriptions of games delivered by the narrator in the novel are given voice by actors during or after the games, for example Beth describing the Mexico City game against Borgov to her mother, or the British radio commentary during the tournament in Moscow.

The narration-as-dialogue approach isn't limited to the games, for example Benny's disparaging comments about the lack of attention given to the U.S. chess championship are actually Beth's own thoughts in the novel: "They were the highest-ranked players in the country, assembled here in a single room, but it had the feel of a high school tournament. If it were golf or tennis, Benny Watts and she would be surrounded by reporters, would be playing under something other than these fluorescent lights and on plastic boards with cheap plastic pieces, watched by a few polite middle-aged people with nothing better to do."

Mr Shaibel's funeral: "Nobody cried. They looked like people waiting in line at a teller’s window at the bank." In the series we get this from Beth and Jolene. The awful fish: "But you had to eat every bite, or Mrs. Deardorff would be told about you and you wouldn’t get adopted." Netflix has this delivered by Jolene's sidekick instead.

There is one occasion where this approach just doesn't sound right and that is when Beth talks, rather bitchily, to Matt and Mike in Mexico City about Mrs Wheatly and Manuel. Again this is lifted from the novel's narration, but in this case it sounds awkward.

The Netflix production contains a lot of little details from the novel that would have been very easy to leave out, and which in truth don't matter all that much, but it's nice to see them all the same, for example the flames on Harry's car or the Heinz cardboard box containing his chess books. Likewise some of the brand names that appear e.g. the Ripple wine, or Benny's "Chock Full o' Nuts" coffee cup. Also fair play to the series makes for making the orphanage fish dish look every bit as unpalatable as it was described to be by the author.

The reproduction of the 50's/60's feel alone must surely deserve an award e.g. the cars, the beer cans with the reinforced bottoms and seams down the sides, interior decorations that are sometimes an assault on the eyes and sometimes very nice, and the look of the department store in particular.

There are some additions to and changes from the novel, but none of the hurt the story, and may even help. One example is the pre-game bender Beth goes on in Paris with Cleo. In the novel Beth is in good shape for that game and plays her best chess ever, and Borgov still beats her, but I found that that the alternative version still works. Possibly the biggest change is Beth's mother's back story, of which there is pretty much none in the novel. The only thing we know about here is that the young Beth remembers: “Wipe yourself,” Mother would say in the bathroom. “Be sure to wipe your c**t.” This doesn't seem to tally with the version of her mother that we see in the series, but the new version works anyway.

There were a couple of small things which I was hoping to see that were left out. In the novel, at the conclusion of the meeting with Allston Wheatly and the lawyer when Wheatly complains about it being too hot in the house, Beth responds "You could have taken off your coat." Pow. That really should have been left in. Another is when we see a glimpse of a more human Borgov, that in the series isn't revealed until the final game: "He ignored her as usual, and she ignored him, but he was not as frightening with a teacup in his hand [...] When the director came to escort them to the stage, Borgov glanced at her just before he left the room and raised his eyebrows slightly as if to say, “Here we go again!” and she found herself smiling faintly at him."

My biggest criticisms would be for the ending, and the way in which Beth's Jolene-led recovery is portrayed - much too quickly. In the novel this involves visits to the gym many squash games and a change in diet. In the series, it's like Jolene flicks a switch and Beth is all better. In the novel it's a slower process: "But when she opened the refrigerator to find something for breakfast, she saw stacks of TV dinners and suddenly thought of the way Mrs. Wheatley’s pale legs had looked when she rolled down her stockings. She shook her head in revulsion [...] When she opened the cabinet to look over the canned foods, there were three bottles of Almadén Mountain Rhine sitting in front of the cans. She hesitated and closed the door. She would think about that later."

Lastly, the ending, although again very true to the novel there a couple of changes that stretch credibility, the first being Townes turning up in Moscow - in the novel she doesn't see him again after Las Vegas, and there was no Roger. The author gives the impression that Beth and Townes never got it together because Townes just didn't pick up on the attraction Beth felt for him - or possibly because of her age. From their photo-shoot in his hotel room: "She did not want to play this game with him. She wanted to make love with him.", but Townes plays on, seemingly oblivious.

The second is the presence of Beltik and Mike and Matt in Benny's apartment during the Moscow tournament. Even forgetting about the novel we know Benny is aware of Beltik, but there is no suggestion that they are friends or why Beltik, from Kentucky, should find himself at Benny's apartment in New York, much less the other two or how they are qualified to assist with the analysis of Beth's adjourned game. Their presence, and that of Townes, gives the ending a bit of a Four Weddings/Love Actually feel that it doesn't really need.

But these are, I suppose, just quibbles. The Queen's Gambit is a great production that does justice to a great novel.

Hyzepher wrote: »

Great show and even more remarkable that the key matches are actually famous matches from history. Even the correction she is told about after the state championship was a real debate in the chess world when that match was played

They had Kasparov has a consultant, so not so hugely surprising. And probably easier to use famous matches than come up with new chess games which people wouldn't analyse to death afterwards.


I enjoyed the show, though some of the aspects to make chess interesting (and to make the show viewable) were a bit OTT. Every game blitzed, staring at your opponent every move, no draws, no agonising for an hour over a move (aside from the adjournments), banging every piece down on the board emphatically as though it were a decisive move..

It was grand though. There are some better shows on Netflix, but many, many worse ones.

just watched first episode last night, don't know anything about the book or story, enjoyed it. will fire it up again later when the kids go to bed

Hector Savage wrote: »

So based on an actual game ... between men ?

But me must clean history ...

woke nonsense.

It was fantastic 10/10, it just shows how women are unfairly treated in these fields, and STEM in general. This show proves that women are much better than men in all these areas.


You're obviously just a misogynist that hates women and wants them kept out of traditional mens hobbies.

storker wrote: »

What's your point here?

Ignore the troll, he just hates women and thinks they should be in the kitchen.


This show proves how not only women are as good as men in these things - but far superior.

Hector Savage wrote: »

So based on an actual game ... between men ?

Yep - the consultant chess grandmaster was a man. It's likely his choice of candidate games came initially from his memory, and would have been played by men since top level chess players are mostly men. That the game he chose was played by men proves nothing one way or the other.

But me must clean history ...

No cleaning required. Judit Polgar is a Hungarian grandmaster, trained with her sisters, also high-level players, by their father. Polgar played in women'e events only rarely, preferring to do her thing in the men's events, during the course of which she counted among her scalps that of Kasparov, Karpov, Spassky and Kramnik. Beth Harmon took one game out of three from a Russian grandmaster. Not really so outlandish when compared with Polgar.

(And despite what some reviewers keep saying, Harmon didn't finish the series as World Champion.)

woke nonsense.

The novel on which the series is (very closely) based was written in 1983, before the advent of third-wave feminism, never mind woke-ism.

Hector Savage wrote: »

And a Mary Sue to boot

She's no Mary Sue - are you sure you know what the term means?

Beth Harmon is self-centred, has a capacity for dishonesty, forgets her friends and is prone to anger and sometimes cruelty. Hardly Mary-Sue material.

TomSweeney wrote: »

it just shows how women are unfairly treated in these fields, and STEM in general. This show proves that women are much better than men in all these areas.

Obviously HectorSavage is talking out his backside, but this isn't really any more accurate.