Why “Lessons in Chemistry” Fails to Ignite the Spark: A Frustratingly Static Narrative

Tv Review: Lessons in Chemistry Is Maddeningly Inert

Introduction

The Apple TV+ adaptation of Bonnie Garmus’s best-selling novel, Lessons in Chemistry, may be visually stunning and well-crafted, but it falls short in challenging its audience. The series, set in the 1960s, introduces new elements, such as racial tensions, in an attempt to make the story more intersectional. However, these additions ultimately marginalize the character of Harriet and fail to illuminate the source material in a meaningful way. While the show is aesthetically pleasing, it lacks the spark and depth that would make it truly engaging.

A Beautiful but Familiar Narrative

Like many shows on Apple TV+, Lessons in Chemistry is visually stunning. The production and costume designs effectively evoke the 1960s, with mod furniture and figure-hugging feminine fits. The cinematography is smooth and vivid, capturing the essence of the time period. However, despite the attention to detail in the aesthetics, the narrative itself feels all too familiar.

The story revolves around Elizabeth Zott, a chemist who becomes the host of a popular cooking show. She is portrayed as the main character, overshadowing Harriet, a marginalized character who is only briefly explored. This relegation of Harriet’s journey to secondary status is a missed opportunity, as it diminishes the potential for a more nuanced exploration of intersectionality and the civil rights movement.

A Marginalized Character’s Untapped Potential

The performance of Aja Naomi King as Harriet is a standout in the series. She brings quiet power and warmth to the character, creating a desire in the audience to know more about her story. Unfortunately, the series fails to fully explore Harriet’s experiences and perspectives.

In one pivotal moment, Harriet confronts Elizabeth about her lack of understanding of racial tensions and white privilege. This raises the possibility of a deeper exploration of Elizabeth’s privilege and growth as a character. However, the series quickly resolves the conflict, avoiding any prolonged discomfort or exploration of these themes. This missed opportunity further marginalizes Harriet’s story and limits the show’s potential for insightful commentary.

Shallow Exploration of Gender Dynamics

While Lessons in Chemistry attempts to provide a fresh exploration of female empowerment, it falls short in truly delving into the complexities of gender dynamics in the pre-women’s liberation era. The series touches on familiar themes such as the dismissal of women’s ambitions by men, the challenges of motherhood, and societal attitudes towards marriage and female sexuality. However, it fails to offer any new insights or a unique perspective on these issues.

Comparing Lessons in Chemistry to other series that successfully tackle similar themes, such as Good Girls Revolt, Mrs. America, Mad Men, and GLOW, highlights its lack of focus and depth. While it is entertaining and well-made, the series lacks the vibrant and compelling storytelling needed to make it truly memorable.

A Reluctance to Streamline the Source Material

The series also struggles with an unwillingness to streamline the novel and eliminate unnecessary diversions. For example, a chapter told entirely from the perspective of a dog named Six-Thirty is recreated in episode three, with B.J. Novak providing the voice for the pet. This tonal shift feels out of place and detracts from the potential to develop more meaningful characters and storylines.

Conclusion

Lessons in Chemistry is a visually appealing adaptation that ultimately falls short in its attempt to challenge and engage its audience. The addition of racial tensions and attempts at intersectionality are admirable but ultimately marginalize the character of Harriet. The series lacks the depth, insight, and focus needed to truly explore gender dynamics and the complexities of the pre-women’s liberation era. Despite its aesthetic beauty, Lessons in Chemistry fails to live up to its potential as a thought-provoking and illuminating adaptation.

About the Author: is a current affairs commentator and writer for The New York Times. He specializes in providing in-depth analysis and commentary on a wide range of topics, including culture, politics, and social issues.