Mermaid Under

I didn't have to Google Bradley Whitford. If we have pretty much decided that the lack of a "host" guiding the story means that this show is more scripted, I'll at least say the Bradley Whitford was one of the best actors they've had on since the return. He made the whole thing seem almost natural. That final drone cemetery shot was a bit overly dramatic, but it worked. And I can already say that I know next week's guest, Zachary Quinto. Not because I've seen anything he did, but because Sheldon on the Big Bang Theory accidently bought a life size cardboard cut out of the "new" Spock, when he really wanted Leonard Nimoy.

In reading the shorter article, the only thing that was notable to me was that Clawson's accuser was a (female) servant. I wonder if this would have ended differently had the accuser been a wealthy, (male) land owner.

Prior to this, as I said, I had only one context for this word, and because of that I questioned whether it was an actual, real, scientific word, or something made up by the folks who who had a specific agenda.

I had to Google Zachary Levi, and even after I did that I was still completely unfamiliar with him. At least with Billy Porter I had seen pictures of him on the red carpet, even though I had no idea who he was or what he did. He didn't wallow in it, he actually seemed excited by it. His reactions to the information he was presented seemed odd to me at times. I missed any mention of his Mom being abusive, but since he mentioned alcoholism and abuse in her ancestors more times than I could count, I kind of picked up on it. He also mentioned his father being religious in a way that didn't sound particularly admirable. I picked up on it the first time through. Having to beat him over the head with it made him seem stupid. Prior to this, I've only heard the word abortifacient used in anti-abortion literature. If this 15 year old had a baby, and if the baby didn't die from neglect because it was illegitimate, maybe there are some relatives out there that Cece Moore could have found with genetic genealogy.

I was certain I was the only one who read all the children's names when they displayed that document, and was more interested in Stephen Hopkin's personal life than anything else they came up with. In addition to Constance, the first wife Mary had a son named Giles who came along to the new world. Was Stephen the father, or had he been at sea when this unmentioned son was conceived. And there was another child with Eliza in addition to Oceana - James or Jamarius. I couldn't read it. This is what you get when mix genealogy and celebrity on commercial tv, I guess.

I never actually watched an episode of Parks and Recreation, but was familiar with Nick Offerman from countless clips and commercials while the series was airing. I enjoyed the first five minutes where he was talking with his mother and aunt, who had done so much of family tree work prior to the ancestry.com influence. And the 18 month gap due to COVID. After that, with no explanation, they seemed to concentrate on one line of his family tree. (The only interesting story? The only line with any documentation?) After that, the story they told wasn't all that interesting to me. They couldn't resolve the dichotomy of 18th and 19th century behaviors and 21st century standards. The perspective kept jumping back and forth and it gave me a headache. At least Gates is always consistent - your ancestors owned slaves, isn't that awful, or your ancestors were slaves, isn't that awful. This is something I have to get used to. With Finding Your Roots, Gates is leading the direction of the show, even if all the work is done by his staff. In this show, the "celebrity" is depicted as narrator, but I wonder how tightly scripted it is.

I had to Google Billy Porter to find out who he was and what he did. But did anyone have a thought about the show itself? Having not seen this show since it moved to a cable network that I don't get, I had forgotten about the dramatic cut to commercial thing they always do. And the leaps they take in telling a story when the only thing they have is a name on a census page.

It was her brother; but I agree Win hasn't been a very rational or happy character in her rare appearances. The story I told myself was that he hadn't been as careful about his appearance since his wife died, therefore the longer hair.

I don't know this for sure, it is just a guess. But in most instances, I remind myself of that old trope "follow the money". I wonder if there is some way this is financial? That getting a 45 minutes of British import is cheaper than the whole show.

The commercial network program Who do you think you are? (produced by Lisa Kudrow, among others) is returning to NBC for at least 1 season after spending 7 seasons on TLC. I watched it before it went to TLC. Similar to Finding Your Roots *everyone is a celebrity*, but I remember it being sort of the commercial side of Finding your Roots. In Googling the information I found out that Regina King was also a guest last season on Who do you think you are, and that her son committed suicide in January, 2022.

This. I don't know the psychology of why that happens but I recognize it happening. It is sort of like the constant commercial appeals for money for various diseases. All worthwhile, but you begin to not hear them. Or maybe that is just me. And I agree that this history needs to have light shone (shined?) on it. But on PBS, you are pretty much preaching to the choir. Folks who need to see it never will. The late Andre Leon Talley is in the last episode of this season. Although I have no doubt that his story will be exactly the same as every other (How does it make you feel to find out your ancestors were slaves? How do you feel about the person who owned them?) I'm hoping he will be interesting to watch.

I found this episode (Watchmen) unengaging. Boring, even. I didn't watch Lost and was unfamiliar with the rest of Lindelof's work, and with him. I know Regina King's name, but that's about it. But I've seen plenty of folks I don't know on this show, so I don't think that is it. Their stories, while interesting to them, were repetitive. And it was a bit of stretch to come up with the "trauma is passed down" theme to try and tie it all together.

I got the impression the home was supposed to deal with feeding issues (and the mastitis that was related to that). Trixie and Sister J. mentioned her mental state, but never identified it as postpartum depression, which I think is a modern term. Having folks around 24/7 to support her with breastfeeding would probably also help with her depression, but I didn't get the impression that that was the point of admitting her to this home. I think they covered a few too many storylines in this episode, and I couldn't bring myself to care too much about any of them. With the sisters, I'm sure their memories of how their mother treated them were completely different. The younger twin feeling constantly compared unfavorably to the older twin, the older twin noticing nothing of the sort. Was the mother really to blame for the younger twin's insecurities? It would depend on who you talk to.

I guess I'm the odd one out on this episode. I liked Nurse Nancy and Bernard's performances. The scene where she said she told them to call him Bernard Corrigan was nice. (He didn't know his last name, or he wouldn't give it? Because initially, he was pretty lucid.) But in general, I found it a bit heavy-handed and preachy, and that kind of writing is never effective, for me anyway. I guess they are portraying a world pre-rehab, and saying how horrible it was. We live in a post-rehab world, and things haven't really changed that much.

I really though they overdid the stiff, set in her ways, old maid thing. I don't think they've ever present Miss Higgins as stupid, and yet they have her displaying the emotional intelligence of an ashtray. She isn't bright enough to realize that everyone (including her) has their own idiosyncrasies? Living alone has deprived her of basic manners? I thought they could have done so much more with her story.

When I watched it, I thought it was a sort of directorial thing where the two things were happening simultaneously, but in different places. Miss Nyall was confessing to killing two babies, and telling the police that there was another infant's body hidden in the flue, in addition to the one they had already found. At the same time, the demolition/renovation continued, and they had Matthew find the other body, unaware of her confession. I thought it was strange, because if you doing demolition, why bother to check the chimney? You would just knock it down. And maybe find something in the rubble. Did they explain why Nurse Crane was allowed to stay for the questioning? And Doctor Turner was allowed to question Miss Nyall?

Trixie's rich friend funding the nuns might not be sustainable - and are they due for another move if this house is falling down? I think there is foreshadowing of the nuclear father having another health crisis before the end of this season. I missed part of the story - was it determined that Colette's lethargy was caused by not knowing who her mother was, and that is why Nurse Nancy told her now?

I guess I'm admitting to being completely unwoke, but was I the only person who thought Nathan Lane was Jewish? Nope, 100% European and Irish. And with Leslie Odom, Jr. HLG really kept overpushing the "how does that make you feel" button.

Absolutely true. I remember when Roots was a big deal. My father's mother was still alive, and I was relatively young, so I asked her something about what things were like for her growing up. She said that her parents took her out of school when she was 6 and sent her to work for some horrible old woman as a maid. I have no reason to doubt her, although I hope she was older than 6. I had already heard that her father lost his business at some point, and it was normal at that time to offload your children because you couldn't afford to feed them. Her situation at home had a lot to do with why she married my grandfather at 16, and was patently miserable with him for 60 some years. And that is just one long story. All the rest of my grandparents had similar memories that they did not wish to share or relive.

I remembered this as I was watching the Leguizamo/Waithe episode. As talented as he is, and as much as I enjoyed his early stand up, I've always gotten the impression that John Leguizamo is uncomfortable in his own skin, being himself in front of people. It didn't change last night. And with both guests, they skipped merrily over recent history and went back many generations to tell a heroic story. And HLG kept asking why they didn't know these stories. Really? Being cognizant of something that happened 500 years or more ago, when most working people, dealing with their everyday lives don't have the energy to remember last week.

Didn't he say he was going to have a therapist on speaker phone when he did it, or something like that. From Crew's first sentence (My father was addicted to alcohol, and my mother was addicted to religion) I assumed both parents were dead. Since they mentioned his maternal grandmother, but not his mother, is it safe to assume she is deceased? Re: Tony Danza's hair. Long hair on old men isn't great, but I've seen worse. I just told myself it was for an acting role. He needed some of that Toppik or some other spray-on hair to fill in his part, which was a bit sparse.

Have we ever heard him say that to any other guest who had an ancestor that owned slaves? Despite the fact that both guests seemed pleasant, I wasn't that interested either. And I'm getting a bit confused about the various types of DNA tests that they run, depending on what they are looking for.

When he said he wanted to be the Latino Dick Clark, I thought, yup, he is on his way. This is probably the main thing makes genealogy programs boring and repetitive is that everyone wants to trace themselves back to Cleopatra, and no one wants to trace themselves back to Cleopatra's butt wiper*. There was one Cleopatra, and probably a whole lot of butt wipers. They have to cater to the ego of the guest. We are always the hero of our own story, and we almost unconsciously cherry pick the facts that match that story, and ignore or explain away the ones that don't. If they didn't present the "facts" in a way that guests could accept, they wouldn't have any guests. That and the fact that every program ties every guest to slavery, on one side or the other, so that that story is repeated in every single program. I think only Ming Tsai emerged unscathed there. * no, I don't know if Cleopatra in actual fact had a butt wiper. I've heard that British royalty did, so I made a leap here to make the point.

I am not familiar with Adlon or her work, but of the two guests, I found her more appealing, and slightly more natural. Although it is especially true of the DNA investigations that they do, I think is is true of a lot of the things they find out or assume on this show, but don't really follow up on.