Trivianut this show , although predictable, and barely shows nudity, does something that even movies have barely done nowadays.....stimulate the imagination.....if you want a stimulating program, this is your show....

casanovadreams7 After viewing the 1st season of this series, I say, "Bravo to Brave "Bliss"! for: a) giving female producers, writers and directors the rare opportunity to create a series from a female point of view b) for bravely navigating through the volatile territory of female erotic fantasy to create six, well crafted short films (beautiful production design & lensing, deft directing). What I find most powerful about the series is it's indisputably provocative ability to raise questions about the complex themes of attraction, seduction, desire, love, commitment, betrayal, loss, sexual identity -- regardless of whether a viewer may find the characters sympathetic or not, situations relatable, or not, the sex titillating/teasing or displeasing to the senses -- all of which is a purely subjective response - a series that can elicit powerful response, I believe is successful. Here Bliss has succeeded. I found each story to be compellingly unique - as a richly layered unfolding in a sense of unpredictable mystery. I much appreciated the moments of motivational ambiguity, emotional tentativeness, which served to heighten the humanness of the characters in terms of how fragile and brave it can be to move from desire into action/seduction. How important it is, to allow women to give voice to their explorations of sexual desire and fantasy. Bravo Bliss, for doing so. I look forward to the next season.

thekitehawk NOTE: SPOILER This is a review specifically of the Bliss episode, "Guys and Dolls" and talks about its contents. If you have not seen the episode and wish to and would prefer not to know the story ahead of time, please do not read this.I am a diehard Peter Wingfield fan, an admirer of his work from the British series 'Medics' right through to 'X-Men', even though his acting outshone the vehicle in almost all cases. There was so much palaver about Bliss when it first aired that when it showed up on a channel that I actually get - last night - I broke down and watched it, even though I had promised myself that I would never do that because I would never be able to look Peter in the eye having seen him naked. On the other hand, it is part of his body of work (no pun intended) and though he may ultimately have regretted doing it - see his own comments in the Toronto Star about being treated by the woman director and the actress like so much meat, and invisible meat at that - it wasn't for the nudity, which, to quote him, becomes 'another wrench in your toolbox'. I watched it as a PW fan but I observed it as a writer. And that is where the failing is. I suspected that something billed as 'by women, for women' and 'women exploring their erotic fantasies' would to be a disaster. It was. The writing is garbage. And if that is for me, as a woman, keep it.This is what I jotted down immediately after seeing it:Okay, so I've seen it. What was all the fuss about? The George character I understand completely; Laura is a passive-aggressive failure as a character and entirely unlikeable. What I don't understand is why she is supposed to be sympathetic while he is a shmuck. Wow.a) She walks into that hotel and she should be in a monumental flap. The cabbie just drove off with her laptop on his back seat!!!!! Yow! She is now out every file that's on it, all the information about her business, all her email PLUS her purse and the cost of the laptop. (And why she ever stepped out of that cab in the first place is absolutely beyond me! Nobody in their right mind would do such a thing.) Not to mention that she would be feeling angry and violated at having just been robbed. (Believe me; that's how you feel.) That is major trouble. And yet she walks into a hotel and she notices the erotic statues?- which weren't all that erotic anyway - or did I get it wrong and she accidentally walked into a brothel? Gimme a break. She would have gone to the desk, got on the phone to the police, the taxi company, a friend to come get her. a whole lot of other things on her mind. Oh, I forgot. She still had her cell phone in her hand, so what was she going into that hotel for anyway? (The problem would have been quite easy to fix and I don't know why they went with this.) In the taxi, she was portrayed as having that type of obsessive/aggressive personality which wouldn't have let her rest until she'd got it back and seen the cabbie hung,drawn and quartered! And she wouldn't have asked for coffee; she'd have gone for a double Scotch! She's two different people right off the bat and I didn't buy it. And I didn't get the connection with the cherubs. Was this supposed to mean she was in some kind of den of iniquity? Glory be! A brothel might decorate itself like that but not a classy hotel. Didn't work for me A-tall!She accepts the proposal - very unenthusiastically - and they go to his room. (Now, that in itself is not how it's done. If she were in the business, she would be taking him to her room. Presumably she sees herself as a call-girl rather than a streetwalker. Only a street pick-up goes wherever the trick wants to go.) In the room, George tells her he doesn't want to know her name or anything about her - this isn't a romance, after all. Afterward, he leaves her an envelope with money and suggests they make it twice a week. The relationship goes on for a while but one day they both show up to the same business meeting and the jig is up. The next appointment, George is understandably late - I wondered why he showed up at all - and tells her that he loves his wife and that he wants to end it. She turns into a shrieking harpie and excoriates him with a 'don't-you- dare-leave-me-you-jerk' speech that had me boggled. When he seems skeptical, she makes a dive for the bulge in his pants that wasn't there (that's a privacy patch for you!) and he acquiesces. End of episode. b) The theme of this thing is supposed to be that she realizes he wants a prostitute and she plays along with it. That's not how it played. If she was going to go that route, she would have started playing the part in the bar. The way it's written, this gung-ho-business-woman-of-the-world doesn't know what she's walked into or what he's asking for? Either she's no innocent and was playing dumb (which doesn't work) or she's no hard-headed businesswoman - they tend to know about these things. She has just been screaming at some business partner on the phone and now she's playing the coy innocent? The character simply doesn't work. Whoever wrote this is guessing how this would go down; I have to wonder if she's ever been in a bar, let alone noticed men picking up ladies of the night!c) The nude scenes were pretty mild. Have you seen Cronenberg's 'Crash'? I don't think Peter should worry about his image with that performance. Nice ass. I noticed something that I've never seen commented on. Peter did that like a man who not only really likes sex - and women - but is used to making love to a woman he loves. He did that like a man making love to his wife, not like some guy getting his rocks off with a streetwalker. I don't know if that was deliberate but I suspect it was. George is in love with his wife. That's what Peter portrayed. George wasn't having casual, illicit sex for the naughty thrill; he was making love - to his wife. I suspect that was one of those things that Peter does for those who get it. I got it. Hated his hair. Jenny Levine's rather wooden and very bitchy performance, however, left me completely cold.Considering the huge fuss over it, I expected a half hour of non-stop T & A.Yawn.As usual, the 'act' wasn't believable. No way he could have been inside her with her in that position - she'd be up on her knees, which is hardly graceful. And when she supposedly made a grab for him through his pants in that last scene, she was looking for it in the wrong place. Better not to pretend with something you really can't show. All in all, that didn't measure up as 'erotic'. The only reaction I had was to Peter's portrayal of a man who was, in his mind at least, making love to his wife, and the reaction wasn't physical -- I felt like an intruder. And there's nothing wrong with me!d) And good Lord but that was a HUGE amount of money! There must have been a thousand bucks in that envelope and he's supposed to come across with this twice a week? And I'm supposed to think that he thinks she's worth it? Why? Because she has nice 'attributes'? She certainly didn't DO anything for her money! Boy, somebody's fantasies were working overtime. I doubt you'd have to blow anywhere near that much for something much classier in Toronto.The other thing that I noticed was that although she was supposed to be playing the whore, HE made love to HER, when the whole idea of paying for it is for her to make love to him. And for this he paid her a thousand bucks??? So she could lie there like a log looking sour? He definitely did not get his thousand bucks' worth! She might have at least pretended she was enjoying it - or smiled. I was gobsmacked when he wanted more. No man I know would want more of that.e) What on earth was that ending all about? He told her where he was at with it and she responded by turning into a shrieking harpie! Laura's quite vicious expression was a 'don't-you-dare-leave-me-you-jerk' look. And I'm supposed to believe either that he was moved by what she said enough to stay or that he was so shallow that a quick grab to the crotch was all it took to change his mind? Even Peter couldn't pull that one out of the toilet. And how was he supposed to feel after he realized she's a 'successful business woman' and yet took his money? And kept it? This woman has the moral fortitude of a cockroach! Having a little illicit nooky is a normal urge; being a liar and profiting by it - and seeing nothing wrong with that - isn't. And going the passive/ aggressive route to get her own way was a total turn-off. I hated her. And believe me, that does not appeal to men.f) It was very obvious that the writer was a woman, a woman with no real life experience and who was doing her own 'erotic fantasy' thing. Boy, was it a fantasy!!! Whoever wrote this travesty should have got her butt out of her suburban kitchen long enough to know how these things really work. The writer, the director and the actress all botched this one.And this was the best of the lot? [heavy groan] I won't bother to watch the rest. Besides, it comes on opposite Farscape and it's strictly 'no contest' there!I'm disturbed by a consistent theme in so-called 'erotic' stories by women - the female character is either a wilting violet/victim or a passive/aggressive unlovable horror. The thing which is never there is genuine love or respect for men. And that is a great shame.Another consistent theme in the 'by-women-for-women' genre is equally worrisome: the man makes love to them while they just lie there. George does all the work on 'Guys and Dolls', although he is allowed his moment. Big deal. Ladies, sex is warm, comforting, good for you and beats the hell out of doing it yourself. It is NOT all up to him! You do NOT just lie there. This was the whole point of the sexual liberation of women, not that they were free to get it anywhere any time, but that they were allowed to like it, to participate in it. While not losing sight of the real problems of sexuality and its unfettered expression, THIS is the theme that needs to be in women's erotica, love of men, enjoyment of sex, not a continuation of the puritannical fears and hatreds that have made the male/ female relationship of the past century so horrendous. That is the only sensible goal, the one which will be truly fulfilling - a genuine fantasy. And this is where Bliss fails completely.

thesnowleopard You would never think, from watching "Bliss", that sex could ever be fun, or make people laugh. The characters in "Bliss" may sleep with each other out of revenge or some other primal need, to scratch an itch or to beat back profound loneliness, but never just for the fun of it. While people do have sex for the above reasons, this hardly makes "Bliss" the ground-breaking erotica series that its creators wanted. For a start, it is far too limited in scope. While three of the six stories deal with lesbian themes, several involve cheating and one involves a woman who likes rough sex, there are none with s&m or bondage (which seems a bit odd if this series is supposed to be riding the edge), or any number of even more liminal practices. There is precisely one major non-white character, who gets maybe five minutes of screen time. Also, the women get their kit off a lot more than the men, considering that this is supposed to be women's erotica. Conversely, the men are treated like meat--or worse yet, like living sex toys. Most of the characters are urban, and most of the female characters are, to be frank, unlikeable. The cinematography, as well, is washed out. I'd rather become a nun than live in the depressing, blue-gray world of this series.The two best entries in the series--"In Praise of Drunkenness and Fornication" and "Guys and Dolls"--also contain the only sympathetic major characters over the age of thirty. The first story, about couple-swapping, works because the four main characters are awkward but engaging. Unlike their younger counterparts in the other stories, they worry about the consequences of their actions. They care about something besides their own physical needs--namely, will they still all be friends in the morning. "Guys and Dolls" works simply because its male lead, Peter Wingfield, surmounts the cliche of his character, George, and converts what appears to be considerable directorial humiliation into fuel for George's ironic malaise. That's what happens, I suppose, when you get one of the best character actors in Canada on board and then mess with his head.While I found this an interesting experiment, I sincerely hope that "Bliss" does not reflect the totality of women's fantasies out there. Because if it does, then ladies, we are in trouble.