stanleyk
-
Posts
178 -
Joined
Content Type
Blogs
Gallery
Downloads
Discussion
Posts posted by stanleyk
-
-
49 minutes ago, tennisgurl said:
Anne is a really sweet kid, but she can be rather harsh on people who make a bad first impression on her, but she's quite quick to move on.
I think the show allowing Anne some - for lack of a better word - meaner flaws really adds to the depth. As a character, she always had her foibles, but they were more charming that really damaging to others: overly flighty or romantic or dreamy or vain about her hair or whatever. I thought her cruelty to Jerry in the early going, which the show made clear arose from her fear that his being there made it less likely that the Cuthberts would keep her, both allowed her to be a more nuanced character and reinforced the show's view of the depth of the trauma of her early childhood and the resulting insecurity.
-
5
-
-
I binged this over the weekend and I have to admit I was a bit flummoxed by the experience. I think this has to be seen as a re-imagining of Anne of Green Gables rather than an adaptation. As I sit with it, it's growing on me. I grew up loving the books, but I was open to a new adaptation - I liked the Megan Follows version but don't consider it untouchable. I love the casting - this Anne looks just like Anne should look. And I like the fleshed-out backstories for many of the characters, the darker take on what it was to be an orphan at that time and the trauma Anne suffered and how it has affected her, the more forthright way class is dealt with in the show in the form of Jerry, the softening of Marilla and the more open friendship between her and Mrs. Lynde, and the gorgeous art direction and cinematography. The lighting in particular is magical and gives some of the transcendent beauty I would expect from an Anne adaptation. There are certain scenes that feel just right, like the girls starting their story club.
But it's the dramatic plot changes that bother me. I don't mind not sticking slavishly to the plot of the boook. But at least some of the charm of the books is that small incidents loom large for a quirky child in this quiet, close-knit community. And here we have Anne rushing into a burning house, running away, sinking ships and financial ruin, sleazy pawn shops, muggers, criminals moving into Green Gables, etc. Not only are some of these plot elements pretty over-the-top (I really gave a side-eye to Anne running into the burning Gillis house), but by focusing on them, we lose some of the introspection and simply slowness and smallness of life that I feel are central to the story. I mean, a dramatic incident in the book is when Anne accidentally uses salt rather than sugar in a cake. I almost think seeing a more realistic view of Anne's trauma in that context (of small mishaps) would be more effective than it is in the context of plots taken from a dime novel.
And as others have noted, I'm disappointed that nature and Anne's escape into natural beauty are somewhat absent. In my mind the beauty of the natural world is a huge, huge part of this story (and all of LM Montgomery's work). There are some beautiful shots, sure, but Anne's rhapsodic response to her surroundings is missing. This girl talks to flowers on the regular.
And I agree some of the anachronistic language takes me out of it: there is a scene in an earlier episode (I think...binging) between all the boys, when Gilbert and Billy get into a fight, that had me cringing with the overly modern language. I was actually physically shaking my head.
But regardless, I will continue to watch. I agree they got more right than wrong, and I'm interested to see where they take the story from here.
-
11
-
-
The dog playing Martin comes from the same shelter my dogs came from, so I think I might be contractually obligated to watch this. Also, Lucas Neff grew up a block from my house and I know his dad. And I really liked Alison Tolman in Fargo and want her to succeed. So many imaginary obligations to watch something that does not at all sound like something I want to watch!
-
8
-
-
2 hours ago, Arynm said:
I don't think Quigley is going to try to pass her off as a virgin, it's that they already killed a girl, one that was a virgin right? That was the deal with the blood on the walls. I don't think they would accept Emily even if they just wanted to kill her. I thought they were asking for virgins originally, that was the first kink. Maybe they will accept any girl, as long as they can do whatever they want. In that case, Emily is well and truly fucked, no pun intended.
Are we sure that Quigley was getting Emily to offer her as a murder victim to the consortium? I kind of thought she was working her way to trying to get religious daughter as their next victim, but I also wasn't watching with the greatest attention. My impression is that the girl doesn't necessarily have to be a technical virgin, as long as she's unwilling, but now they've now graduated to murder and they want more girls in order to even up the score for whoever got too "excited" and killed the flower girl. I guess it would make more sense to have Emily be the murderee, since she's less likely to be missed, but the way Quigley was talking up how she had a very special girl in mind, and then she threatened the blind woman and her daughter...I don't know. The daughter would the virginiest virgin of all to offer up.
-
2
-
-
9 hours ago, AnswersWanted said:
I am not sure how I feel about "Orphan Black"'s Donny being turned into a lecherous, rapist doctor on this show.
Not to mention doofus-y Constable Jackson from Murdoch Mysteries. I actually couldn't place him at first, and now wish I hadn't. Though it does say a lot about the nuances of the show that I actually considered whether his offer to "help" did have at least some partial sympathetic motive. Then I remembered the world we're in and figured, "nope, he's just a gross-o using his position to manipulate vulnerable women into having sex with him." I guess I was a little surprised that they even still have doctors - it seems to be such an anti-science society (what with executing some doctors and banishing intellectuals) that it wouldn't seem amiss if they bypassed medicine altogether in favor of "God's will."
I think perhaps my favorite aspect of the show is watching how quickly and easily women will subjugate other women, the structures society puts it into place to drive women apart and to encourage women to ignore their own individual interests or the interests of their group in favor of some imagined societal good - the socialization of women to care for others above themselves, but writ large. How easily Serena Joy dehumanizes June, treats her worse than an animal, because to do otherwise would force her to recognize the terrible inhumanity of a society she helped create and to recognize how her own selfish drives inform her support of that socieyt.
The show overall remains heart-breaking, terrifying, all the things. I've not read the book, though I've always known I should - maybe now I finally will. I stayed up way late last night just to watch this episode, even though it makes the wait till next week that much longer.
-
15
-
-
I found this episode pretty disjointed - they were trying to cover every single plot, and scenes seemed to last a few seconds and then jump to an unconnected plot. In just one episode we had: George killed and the murder covered up; Fanny's pregnancy; Quigley searching for and finding Emily; Charlotte getting with the Irish guy and planning to run away to America; Lennox's refusal to sell Harriet's children to her and plan to move to Virginia with them; the blind mother confessing her harlot past to her daughter...was there more? It was too much, and nothing had any time to breathe before jumping to the next thing. Any one or two of those plots could have sustained an episode. I always worry about where they're going when they're burning through story at such a rate.
In a sense I'm glad they're moving ahead quickly with the George plot, but I find Lucy to be such an infuriatingly naive character that I find myself less sympathetic towards her than I feel I'm supposed to be. I'm not sure if they're playing this all as PTSD from her experience with the Reptons, but the character doesn't read to me and I find her actions somewhat baffling and definitely irritating.
-
4
-
-
1 hour ago, ElectricBoogaloo said:
hell, there are places where it wasn't considered rape if the two people were married, which tells you all you need to know about fucked up assumptions about sex
Like the United States as recently as 25 or 30 years ago. Unfortunately, the idea that a married person can't be raped by their spouse is one that persisted for a long time, and continues to persist; even though the rape of a spouse is now illegal in the US, it is still treated differently in some states from non-spousal rape.
I agree it was perhaps unrealistic that the dinner guests would be on Charlotte's "side" in terms of George raping her (the article linked above describes an English case from the 1730s that illuminates the poitn), but I think they were reacting just as much to the fact that his behavior was now public, that he'd caused a scene in front of their wives. As one of his grody friends said, "bad form, George" which I took to mean not necessarily that you shouldn't rape someone - since I doubt any of them care whether Charlotte was raped, or think she could be - but that you don't create situations where baser behavior is put on display in society.
-
5
-
-
18 hours ago, pigs-in-space said:
So how does Quigley know for sure that the girls she's procuring are actually virgins? Just because they look pure and innocent doesn't mean they are. I'd love to see her fuck things up by accidentally getting a non-virgin and pissing off her powerful benefactors.
I think the unwillingness of the girl and the physical violence is probably more important to the group than the technical virginity. It seems like this group of charmers is most interested in raping a "regular" girl, so they might not care that much that she's an actual virgin. Just not a pro.
-
1
-
-
On 4/12/2017 at 6:25 PM, tennisgurl said:
The whole time Lucy was in the woods with that creepy rich couple, all I could think was "holy shit, Lucy's been rented out by serial killers". While they didn't turn out to be serial killers, that was still a messed up dynamic. I guess becoming a successful prostitute is a learning process, but it doesn't seem like Lucy likes this new job very much. Not that I blame her or anything, but she doesn't have the same sassiness and toughness the other girls seem to have. I guess Margaret sheltered her more than Charlotte?
Lucy is the least interesting character to me; she seems a complete cipher, and it's hard to believe she could be so naive and incompetent having grown up in a brothel. I didn't grow up in a brothel, but I still know joking about a man's penis is rarely the way to go. Especially when that man thought it was hilarious to pretend to hunt her for sport earlier in the day! Her character seems unsettled: one minute bold and independent, the next meek and terrified. It's possible, of course, that this inconsistency is intentional, but I find her irritating. And more importantly, just uninteresting.
On 4/12/2017 at 1:44 PM, OtterMommy said:I found this part incredibly heartbreaking. Of course, we knew Mr Lennox was no prince, but still. I did have to hand it to Margaret for seeing things as they were and trying (albeit unsuccessfully) to help Harriet help herself. I also breathed a sigh of relief when the job she offered Harriet was NOT one of the girls.
I really could barely watch the scene when Harriet was separated from her children. I know it happened all the time to slaves, but seeing it made me sick to my stomach. Lennox was a real shit for leaving not just Harriet, but his own children enslaved. I mean, in addition to all the other terrible stuff he did in the first place. I cannot wait to see Margaret and Harriet deliver some comeuppances in the direction of the Lennox household.
21 hours ago, OtterMommy said:By the way, who is the actor playing Lord (?) Repton? I swear I've seen him before, but I can't place his face. Unfortunately, the IMDB entry for this show is incomplete and he's one of the characters not listed.
I'm pretty sure that's Lord Crawley himself, Hugh Bonneville, isn't it?
14 hours ago, ElectricBoogaloo said:I do think that Charlotte was a bit hasty in her decision not to ally with Caroline. Since Charlotte is dependent upon George for money, she should be at least a little concerned that he's running through his wife's fortune so quickly. If he's broke, he's not going to be able to pay her debts.
I thought so too. Charlotte seems to think she has all the power in the situation, so that she can freely make enemies of Caroline and Hawley (that's the servant's name, right?). It would seem to be a much smarter play in the long-run to make them allies, as George is an utter moron and will likely run through the money they're all dependent on. On the other hand, Charlotte probably thinks she'll just get a new one when this one's run out of money.
-
6
-
-
17 hours ago, AdorkableSars said:
This Canadian really appreciated all of the maple syrup content in this episode. Maple syrup really is so important. I'm glad Riverdale recognizes this.
I can't figure out if the show is in on the joke with the maple syrup business. I mean, maybe maple syrup really is a lucrative enough industry to create empires and legacies and billionaires, but it just sounds so ridiculous. Longstanding maple syrup rivalries! Maple syrup fortunes! Maple syrup betrayals!
17 hours ago, Mabinogia said:I don't think I've met as many redheads in my entire life as I've seen in one episode of this show.
I don't think I've seen so many terrible dye jobs in my entire life than in this episode. And Jason wasn't even in it! Red is the most difficult color to dye hair, but all the redheads look insanely fake.
So obviously based on these comments, I love this dumb show. I'm only worried they're going to run out of stories because they're moving so fast.
-
8 hours ago, dleighg said:
good thought; I recall that Charlotte said she was "out" at 12 or something like that; Lucy is clearly older so maybe that was the spark.
I think that's possible, although in the first episode, I thought Charlotte threw a lot of hostility towards Margaret on that point. When they were discussing selling Lucy's virginity and Margaret was saying she wanted to wait, Charlotte looked daggers at her and said something like "You had me out at twelve." And I think Margaret said she was doing sealed bids for Lucy "like she did for Charlotte," or something along those lines. It doesn't preclude Lydia's involvement in selling Charlotte, but Charlotte at least appears to blame Margaret (and resent that Margaret held out longer before selling Lucy than she did for Charlotte.)
1 hour ago, nodorothyparker said:Loved Lucy taking control to give herself a first time story she can look back on amid all the buying and selling of her virginity.
I liked this too, but it was also clear that she has picked up all the lessons of growing up in Margaret's house - she still made him pay. And with his food money too!
-
I'm really enjoying this show. Sucked into all the different dynamics, curious to see how various relationships play out, and liking the nasty rivalry between Margaret and Lydia. I agree there is a weird vibe between the Quigleys - mamma's boy, I guess, or maybe something weirder.
And, boy howdy, was the kidnapping thing gross. At first I thought the judge (wasn't he the same one who fined Margaret in the first episode?) was seeking an actual child, so I was kind of relieved that the girl appeared to be of age, until I realized that what he was seeking was an unwilling virgin to rape. Not like Lydia had much to redeem her before, but that effing crazy...and apparently also what she did to Margaret, if Margaret had her up on kidnapping charges.
15 hours ago, ItCouldBeWorse said:Won't Renton notice that he's not getting what he's paid for?
Margaret didn't seem too concerned about that when she sold Lucy's virginity twice, so I'm guessing she's an old hand at faking virginity (and other things, of course).
-
2
-
-
On 3/30/2017 at 5:10 PM, nodorothyparker said:
The bidding for and deflowering of Lucy were hard to watch, even if the lack of anything at all done to her hair was a little jarring in an opera house full of serious wigs and coifs.
I thought having her hair down was odd at first too, until I realized Margaret was probably trying to make her appear as young, fresh and virginal as possible. It was a pretty sharp contrast to Charlotte's insane get-up and wig.
On 4/1/2017 at 7:11 AM, mustbekarma said:I really want NotLady High Class Whore to get her comeuppance. In the grand scheme of things, she has deluded herself into thinking she's untouchable. All the art, music, and French don't change the fact that she's in the same profession as her rivals. NotLady is just one dissatisfied customer away from a public whipping and being shipped off to a penal colony. She's just forgotten that little fact.
I noticed that she herself does not speak French, despite her pretensions for her girls. She makes a nice foil, and it will be interesting to know whether there's more to the history between her and Margaret beyond her originally pimping Margaret out. I assume her vitriol towards Margaret is based on some idea that Margaret was disloyal to her by striking out on her own.
On 4/2/2017 at 4:15 PM, kieyra said:Somehow I even like Mrs Quigley's son. They could have gone the route I expected, making him cruel/stupid/thuggish, but he's an interesting villain type that doesn't immediately seem cookie-cutter.
Yes, it does seem like he might be a bit interesting! Though he was super-gross with Emily, somehow he still has a kernel of likeability.
On 3/31/2017 at 6:02 PM, kieyra said:I kind of love the ... fop? Is that the right word? The guy who is obsessed with Charlotte and being a whiny babyman about it.
I believe Charlotte's baronet also played a sort of similar character on Poldark - a dimwitted high-class fop who believed he was due the affection of a rich, beautiful woman as a matter of course, despite having no personal charms to recommend him.
And I'm interested to see what role the street corner prostitute will play! I'm not sure if she was there just to show the range of situations a woman might find herself in, to sing a melancholy song, or to illustrate Margaret's point about women's only power being money (when she upped the price for the dick who'd abandoned her when the cops raided). Or perhaps she will take Emily's place in Margaret's house and become a direct player.
-
3
-
-
1 hour ago, pbutler111 said:
If he was attempting to isolate her, he was doing a piss poor job of it. Women who are isolated don't tend to have nannies and frequent meals out with friends.
I'm not sure why "isolated" needs to mean a single thing; it seems like your definition is limited to a person having zero contact with the outside world. I'm no expert, but isolation in the context of domestic abuse seems like it could take many forms. As another poster pointed out, Celeste has a single real friend. Perry has cut her off from her family and work. Celeste herself said that Perry wanted her to have little contact with her family. We saw her have drinks with Maddy once and coffee with Maddy and Jane a couple times. Domestic help may act as a witness, but isolation in this context is more about isolating a person from emotional support, not keeping them locked up and literally unable to communicate.
-
17
-
-
4 minutes ago, film noire said:
eta:
22 minutes ago, Penman61 said:I think she was jazz club Audrey from 1957's Funny Face.
Okay, scratch my big ol' theory :)
Ah well - I liked your theory, at least!
-
1
-
-
3 hours ago, film noire said:
I think the differences are meant to convey not just budget constraints (which is a great touch) but also something more, perhaps. Audrey Hepburn wears several different black dresses in "Breakfast At Tiffany's" -- the one Kidman wore appears at the top of the movie (when Holly is wandering Fifth Avenue early in the morning, stopping to look in Tiffany's window, as she comes back from one of her "dates"). Later on, rips to her "date" dresses are mentioned, the result of manhandling men (the kind of men that give her fifty dollars for the powder room).
The shorter black dresses are worn when Holly's ex husband (a country doctor forty years older than her, that she married at fourteen to protect her younger brother) arrives in town, and when Holly visits a gangster in Sing Sing (to deliver messages from his criminal cohorts, something Holly isn't exactly aware of, and is paid money to do). So (at least to me, imperfectly, bc/ Jane's accessories aren't exactly similar to the movie) Celeste is both pristine Holly, top of the movie -- all glamour and magic (bruises lurking somewhere underneath) -- and also the Holly who gets attacked by violent men, and Jane is the Holly protecting a younger male figure, who is also around a criminal, an act that brings her down at the end (briefly, before the happy ending arrives). I don't know if that jibes with the designer's intent, but it's how I read it.
I also love the two My Fair Lady costumes: Renata in the Ascot Races outfit (a scene in which Eliza drops her ladylike pretense and screams out in her native Cockney -- the real deal coming out, as it does for Renata when she immediately attacks Perry w/o hesitation) and Bonnie in the Embassy Ball dress, the scene of Eliza's elegant, doe-eyed triumph (she pulls off being seen as a lady of quality amid the blue bloods) but the night ends with her in that gown and tiara, throwing slippers (Jane's shoe prints in the sand?) at Higgins (Perry?) and screaming "I could kill you, you selfish brute!"
Also, and I could be totally wrong about this, but I thought that the wife of the man Madeline was having the affair with (Tori?) was dressed as Audrey from Charade. Seems...about right. And if I'm wrong, well, she should have been dressed as Audrey from Charade.
-
4
-
-
- Popular Post
- Popular Post
5 hours ago, pbutler111 said:Perry didn't actually run exactly on track with the typical abuser, since he never did anything to isolate Celeste. They had a nanny who, if not live-in, was there a lot. Celeste had easy access to money, to transportation, to communication devices, and to her friends. Typical abusers don't allow their victims that sort of freedom. That could be why Celeste assumed that communications on her phone would be safe/private.
I've got to disagree with the statement that Perry never did anything to isolate Celeste. He insisted she stop working. He became extra-controlling when she went to ONE meeting to help Maddy with the play. She lied to him on more than one occasion as to where she was going, indicating that he would have prevented her from going if he knew what it was about. He insisted she get off the phone when she was talking to a friend. It seemed to be a common mode for him to attempt to get her to have sex with him right before they were due at a social engagement (i.e., to prevent them from going). And in one of the therapy sessions, Celeste herself said something like "he doesn't like me to spend time with my (family? friends?)". I can't remember exactly what she said, but she definitely vocalized that Perry attempted to isolate her. If he had actually refused her a phone, a car, access to her friends, that would have certainly not allowed either of them to keep up the charade of the "perfect family." There are more ways to isolate someone than actually keeping them semi-prisoner, and Perry seemed to excel at those.
-
44
-
1 hour ago, vixenbynight said:
Madeline saw Jane freeze up once she saw Perry. You could see something in her whole body that said, "This is the guy". Once Madeline saw it, she looked towards Celeste in shock. That was before Perry started to attack Celeste and the other women joined in to protect her.
Perry also reacted on seeing Jane, which I think confirmed for Maddy and Celeste what Jane's body language and face were already telling them. It may also have made Perry go even more rage-crazy, since it was another sign his life as he knew it was coming to an end - wife leaving, rape and domestic abuse allegations meaning he wouldn't see his kids, etc.
Even though the end result was as I had expected, I was on tenterhooks the whole time and had to stop myself from fast-forwarding or spoiling myself because the whole thing was too tense. I knew they were throwing red herrings right and left, and yet still I got sucked in! I thought it was absolutely brilliant, and I loved the cross-cutting between the incident and tranquil scene on the beach.
The only quibble I had is that there really was no need to lie, at all. Defense of others is a legitimate self-defense claim, and there were five witnesses that Perry was beating the shit out of Celeste and appeared to be about to kill her, as well as all her obvious injuries. Bonnie also couldn't have known he would land just-so on some convenient rebar - otherwise a fall down the stairs would not likely have killed him. That's also why it seemed silly that the detective was so focused on it. It clearly was not a planned murder, but at worst a justified and accidental homicide. I don't think Celeste being concerned about her image would trump her lawyerly understanding of the situation. Though I suppose in the heat of the moment they didn't have much time to think it through.
But whatever. I can't believe I was all "blech" on the trailer for this and I'm so glad I watched it. Riveting, compelling, all the good things.
-
19
-
-
14 minutes ago, tennisgurl said:
I'm still convinced that its one of Celeste and Perry's kids that's doing it. He is repeating the behavior that he sees from his dad. I hope that Celeste can leave, take the kids, and get them into therapy ASAP. I know Celeste is in denial, but now its hurting the kids as well as her, even if its not in the "traditional" way abusers hurt kids. Its just perpetuating a cycle of violence. I hope she can see that.
I have to think that they'll bring those two stories together in the conclusion: that one or both of the twins will be the one hurting Amabella, that he will give as a reason the fact that he likes her so he's just doing what he sees his dad to his mom, and that the realization that Perry's abuse of Celeste has such a profound impact on the kids will prompt Celeste to really confront their issues and get away from Perry. Of course I will probably be totally wrong, but it would seem like a bit of a cop-out at this point if they introduced a new or minor character as a major actor in either of the mysteries in the show.
-
4
-
-
- Popular Post
- Popular Post
One interesting throwaway line that I haven't seen mentioned yet is during the conversation between Madeline and Ed about confronting the suspected rapist. Maddy says Celeste is coming and Ed says something disbelieving like "Like Perry would allow Celeste to go?"
That line says to me that the controlling nature of the Perry/Celeste relationship is not lost on outsiders to that relationship. So while Celeste's friends may not know the extent of the violence and abuse, they do know on some level about the control issues. Which also gives the lie to Celeste's insistence that the twins don't see anything. When people who rarely see you (have we even seen Ed interact with Perry or Celeste?) sense there is a weird control dynamic in your relationship, you can bet people living in the house with you sense that and much more. Celeste may think her concealer and her delusions about "passion" are fooling everyone, but I bet more people than just Dr. Calamity Jane see through that.
-
29
-
26 minutes ago, Razzberry said:
Since everything happens for a reason in fiction, I wonder about the scene with Jane and Ziggy at the beach where he gets hurt.
Ooh, good point - I wondered about that too. My initial thought was that she is going to get accused of abusing him because of some visible injury that resulted from an innocuous accident no one else witnessed - if someone thought he was being hit at home, it would reinforce the narrative by the world's worst teacher that he is prone to bullying (which would, of course, be supremely ironic if it turns out the twins are the bullies). Or it might just have been to reinforce that he is a small boy, sensitive and fragile.
-
6
-
-
19 minutes ago, scrb said:
The children complicates things but she has options. If she was smart, she has her own savings account from the days when she was making a lot of money.
Other thing is, if Madeline is getting play from the theater director, Celeste is probably getting hit on as well. Eric Northman could disembowel her some day, so she should be more open to these advances.
I would encourage everyone to do some reading on domestic violence. I'm certainly no expert, but it's just not as simple as saying, "Well, she's got money and an education, so she can leave." Others have said it better than I could so I won't reiterate, but there are many reasons why it's difficult to escape a domestic violence situation. Here's an interesting article with a study showing that highly successful, high-earning women are more likely to be abused because of the power imbalance in the relationship: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/journalists/sarah-knapton/10679238/Educated-and-well-paid-women-more-likely-to-suffer-domestic-abuse.html. I have done pro bono work in domestic violence court, and I saw the entire range of socioeconomic circumstances represented there. This is not a class or wealth issue, and the implicit judgment that a women with means is to some degree responsible for her situation is problematic.
I'm also not sure what your second point is. Are you suggesting that Celeste should have an affair so that she can get a man to protect her from Perry? I would have to strongly disagree, on every basis from the practicality of such an escape plan to the suggestion that a woman needs to run to another man to escape a domestic abuse situation. The idea that she should have an affair for the sole purpose of securing physical protection from another man is pretty repugnant, on many levels.
-
1
-
23
-
-
- Popular Post
- Popular Post
5 minutes ago, susannot said:True. But women who go to law school, and women who succeed as lawyers, tend to be loud, ballsy, and aggressive. I don't know a single woman like Celeste.
First, having a public or professional appearance of being "loud, ballsy and aggressive" does not preclude being in an abusive relationship at home; as mochamajesty points out, it's hard to know what goes on behind closed doors. I'm sure Celeste's friends would never believe she's being abused. Second, I'm also a lawyer and a woman, and saying all successful women lawyers are a certain type is a very broad (and based on my experience, not particularly accurate) generalization. Even if one's job were predictive of one's likelihood of being abused, there is no one type of personality for women lawyers.
-
51
-
- Popular Post
- Popular Post
6 minutes ago, nara said:Re: Amabella's bullying, the twins are the most obvious option. Chloe is another possibility. If Abby is anxious at home, she could be too. Whereas Abby is old enough to recognize and express her feelings, Chloe might express them more violently. I hope not, because I really like her (and her hair flip in the credits). However, I kinda want it to be Skye (because Nathan and Bonnie annoy me -- no fault of the actors) or Renata herself. Speaking of the twins, I forgot to mention in my comment upthread that I was terrified that Perry was going to beat one or both for crunching cereal too loud... :(
I think it has to be one of the kids, right, since the original injury happened during school (again...this school is terrible)? I guess it's possible it was only noticed during school, in which case it could be Renata or her husband. But if we have to pick among the kids, the twins are indeed the obvious choice.
5 minutes ago, susannot said:I have to admit I do not understand Nicole's character. I'm hoping someone can explain it to me. I am a lawyer and have lots of female lawyer friends. Literally not a single one married a good looking abuser who forbade them to work as lawyers. The female lawyer friends I have had for my entire life would have recoiled in horror over marrying a man like that, good looking be damned. I realize, dramatic license, but still, find very unrealistic.
I'm not sure what being a lawyer has to do with it. Women in all kinds of situations, from all walks of life, can find themselves in abusive relationships. Women who are lawyers don't have immunity to the reality of psychology and human relationships, no matter how toxic.
-
59
S01.E08: Episode 8
in Harlots [V]
This is where the show kind of fell down for me. I started out loving it, and I still did enjoy it through the series, but I was wanting more "day in the life" realism about life for these women at this time. And then the melodrama ticked way, way up: murders and cover-ups and more murders and shadowy high-powered rings of rapist/murderers. It all got a bit silly and it moved far away from where I thought the show was starting out: how this world worked, how the women in it did what they could to protect themselves and each other. I was more interested in that.
On a tiny nitpick, I'm usually good at suspending disbelief, but I did have to question how Fallon planned to get away with murdering Cunliffe - the coachman had to either have known he was already in the carriage or have, you know...noticed someone getting in if they didn't come together. I guess he could pay him off or whatever, but that detail for some reason was annoying me.
I did like the idea of turning Lucy into a dominatrix - it might make her a little more interesting. I found her (or the writing for her) to be inconsistent and annoying, so this development could work for me. And I liked getting Lucy into Quigley's house with vengeance on her mind and ditching the ill-developed Marney character and romance.
And are we going to get a third house, run by Emily Lacey and Son Quigley? Yes please!
She may be the new heroine of the show, as the only character we've seen who is both pragmatic and strongly moral. Though of course with her wealth and standing, she has the privilege to be moral without sacrifice, which someone in Margaret's position arguably does not. While Margaret certainly has a sense of right and wrong, her position (and her need to protect herself and her children) makes her choices a little harder than Caroline's.
I believe her testimony, though, was not about what happened that night, but about the fact that Haxby confessed to lying in order to get Charlotte and Marney arrested. So - if Haxby's testimony were all that tied Marney to the murder - I can see how her stating that he admitted he'd made it up would lead to Marney's release.