Slovenly Muse

It's interesting. I don't really believe in "true love" or "the one," just in people finding people who are odd in the exact way they need or want. Like, in a relationship, every individual has things they need to give, and things they need to receive, in order to be happy with someone. It's like puzzle pieces: there are outie parts and innie parts (emotional, not physical), and when they match, it just clicks into place. Adam and Hannah maybe weren't some "grand love story for the ages," but they WORKED. Yes, he seemed to treat her poorly in the beginning of season one, but by the midpoint of the season, it was clear that he treated her like this because it's what SHE wanted. Her life was a mess and she needed someone to take some control for her. Adam was a "top" who needed to be in control, but also to use that control to nurture and help his partner. They may have looked screwed up from the outside, but they really were a great fit. Hannah needed someone to support and care for her without judging, and Adam found meaning and satisfaction in taking on a caretaker role. He always does, that's why he and Shiri Appleby's character were a disaster waiting to happen - the things he needed to give (light domination and caretaking) she was utterly unwilling to receive, and vice versa. It's why Mimi Rose was exactly the wrong fit for him (remember their abortion fight, and how what it boiled down to for him was "What do you even NEED me for?"), which is something Jessa would have realized immediately if she had thought for a moment about Adam or Mimi Rose, and not just had her sights set on clearing an obstacle between herself and Ace. (Was that his name? Ugh, that guy.) It's why Adam likes the idea of fatherhood, and is such a great pseudo-parent to baby Sample. And it's of course why, when he was hurt and rejected, he felt compelled to seek out someone vulnerable that he could take care of to make HIMSELF feel better, and it was Jessa (being in recovery makes her vulnerable, and you can't deny her life is a mess). Unfortunately, her issues are pretty impervious to resolution. It's also why Fran was all wrong for Hannah - he was a "nice guy," but he was also controlling, and his shade of controlling was not nurturing, like Adam's. Keeping pictures of his exes on his phone as masturbatory aides (extending his feeling of control over them beyond their period of consent) was weird enough, but the instant he began correcting Hannah's marking for her, he was dead to me. So, whether or not Adam's movie is supposed to be interpreted as "good" (we haven't seen enough to know), I think the important thing is how it reminds Hannah and Adam of just how well they fit together, when he needed to feel needed to give his life meaning, and she needed non-judgmental support to get her life on track. Was it co-dependent? Maybe a little. Was it unhealthy? I don't really think so. Or at least not insurmountably so. The fact that Hannah chose to leave to pursue her dream proves that she wasn't unhealthily dependent on Adam, IMO. And now, with the movie, they're both being reminded that no one else in their lives has ever been able to receive what they need to give, and give what they need to receive, the way they were with each other. I would not be at all surprised if they end up getting back together, or even repairing their relationship as friends, by the time the series is over.

Well, sure, all comedians have "misses" sometimes, regardless of their politics. It's their responses to the "misses" that is most telling. Do they apologize and take back what they can? Or do they stand by it, using nonsense like "Sorry you were offended," or "get a sense of humour" to try and defend themselves? I'm fine with mileage varying, but I only see Sam doing the former. Where are you seeing the latter?

I don't understand. How is this a non-apology? "Sorry for offending you" is an absolutely legitimate apology, using active voice, in which the person apologizing takes direct responsibility for causing offense. A NON-apology would be "Sorry you were offended," which uses the passive voice, and does not make any connection between the person stating the apology and the offense caused, nor does it condemn the thing that caused offense. They made a mistake when they didn't have all the information, and when they learned more, they issued a real apology and fixed their error. Making fun of someone's haircut is not appropriate when that person is a cancer survivor and is possibly not able to choose their hairstyle, and may have real sensitivity around the issue. The show seems to understand this, and took action to remove the inappropriate joke as soon as they became aware of it. I don't see any ducking or shirking of responsibility here. Making jabs at people's race, weight, sex, physical appearance (especially health-related), or other attribute that is beyond their control is cruel, but making fun of people's style choices, or how they choose to express themselves, CAN be mean-spirited, but is fairer game. It's not mocking someone's IDENTITY, only their CHOICES. And this is the foundation of a pretty large portion of entertainment on TV and online. I don't agree with it, but I don't think they were completely out of line to go there in the first place.

Finally got around to seeing this. I didn't really know ANYTHING going in, so I gotta say, if I had heard about the Tilda Swinton/whitewashing issue before this movie came out, I would have been outraged. However, now that I've seen it, I can't say Asian representation really missed out on this role of "wise mentor who gets killed so White man can become a hero." Visually, this movie was pretty cool, but racially, ugh. White man as hero, sweet White girl as love interest who doesn't really DO anything, Woman (or Asian, however you want to slice it) badass Master getting killed so white man can step up and take charge, European villain, Asian character who is there to be there (did he contribute anything important to the story, apart from exposition?), and the only Black actor plays the character who gives up all his beliefs at the slightest provocation and turns evil. It's not that I expect these cookie-cutter Marvel movies to ever take any chances, but this is the least original, most uninspired casting I've seen in a long time. It's not even anger-inducing whitewashing that's the problem here, it's just LAZINESS. It's not malice, or lack of forethought, it's just utter and complete absence of creativity. Who can we cast as the character that is.... perfect and desirable? (White woman) Expendable after sharing their wisdom? (Female, or maybe Asian) Sinister and destructive? (Dane) Likeable but unimportant? (Asian) Untrustworthy? (Black) Give me a freakin' break. I'm not even disappointed, really. I don't expect better anymore. Did I enjoy the story? I'm not sure I can tell you that! Apart from the visuals, it didn't really stand apart from the rest of Marvel's formulaic superhero movies. I'm not sorry I watched it, but I can't say it was two hours well spent. At this point, these Marvel movies are starting to feel like homework you have to do so that you will be able to understand the NEXT one.

I gotta say, I don't much like Westerns, but I really liked this movie. I had some issues (the typical issues with Westerns), particularly with Hamilton's gross racist behaviour being waved away as "teasing" or "male bonding," like that's a legitimate way to positively interact with people, then Alberto getting killed off just to make Hamilton feel bad about the way he'd treated him. I agree with the poster upthread who said Hamilton should have been the one shot. But the "Cowboys and Indians" issues are I suppose always going to be a problem in Westerns, as long as the "Indians" are the characters considered disposable. I also was not a fan of the comparison between banks cheating people out of their property and the actual GENOCIDE (cultural and physical) of the Aboriginal peoples. I'm sure it sounded good when they thought of it, and I'm sure some folks losing their homes feel a similar sense of helpless fury... but when you really think about it, having an Aboriginal character say "Hey, this is just like what happened to MY people," especially when, on a daily basis, this character is STILL treated like a second-class citizen by someone who is supposed to be his partner and equal (in humanity if not rank), and is subject constantly to the exact same kind of racism used to justify the colonization of the New World in the first place, it's more than a little tone-deaf. The persecution of Alberto's ancestors (and even the current generation) involved so much more than just taking land, and unless the banks are perpetuating these kinds of atrocities on their members, the comparison is insulting. Furthermore, I totally agree about some of the dialogue being a touch outlandish. And the delivery of so many lines was so ponderous... that really bugs me about a lot of "Oscar-calibre" films: the sense of drama for drama's sake. But, apart from its racial issues, I did enjoy the story a lot. I loved the touches of Southern culture, like everyone in the restaurant wearing the same hat, or the waitress asking "What DON'T you want," because everyone orders the same thing... and especially the bank scene that put the idea of "the only thing that can stop a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun" to the test, without making it into a statement! I admire movies that can create such a powerful sense of place, without also either poking fun at, or aggressively defending, that place. There's no agenda, is what I mean. Just an honest, immersive experience. I really respect that. All the characterizations were brilliant and layered. I loved Toby's plan to cheat the bank right back by paying them off with their own money, and I loved the tension between the brothers' varying levels of commitment to the violence of the plan, and I even loved Tanner making his stand, giving his life (he knew he'd never survive it) to help his brother for real, just once. No, I think he's right. Toby came up with a plan, and got his brother involved, knowing how violent he was, how many issues he was battling. And his brother's involvement got a lot of people hurt and killed, and also was probably the only reason it actually worked. And ultimately that plan got his brother killed. Toby allowed Tanner to make that stand to cover his escape, knowing he likely wouldn't survive. He willingly sacrificed his brother (and the officers Tanner took out) in order to save his children from the cycle of poverty, and yeah, he's going to have to live with that. Finally, the unsung hero of this movie was the soundtrack. I can't stand country music, and I loved every piece this movie used. The score was also completely beautiful (of course, it was written and performed by Nick Cave and Warren Ellis, and they always create the most hauntingly evocative soundscapes), and fit each scene perfectly. All in all, I understand why it didn't win Best Picture, but it was a damn good movie. And possibly the only Western I've seen that I genuinely liked.

Wow. I can absolutely see why the creators wanted to make this the last season. Everything is in place, and there's no sense in drawing it out anymore. In both the pirates AND the British Navy, you have people who work together even though they have different motivations. Typically, either self-interest/greed (money, safety - Billy, Max, Eleanor, maybe Jack?) or personal/emotional (ideals, vendettas - Madi, Flint, Rogers). And this gives them a common purpose TO A POINT. But now that ALL the money and ALL the power is on the table, and only one might be attainable, everyone has hit that point. It is glorious to see alliances unravelling, common interests dissolving, relationships restructured, and everyone coming to terms with which one they're willing to kill their "brothers" to attain: money or power. The life-changing fortune of the Urca treasure, or the politically-shattering conquest of Nassau. Watching everyone figure out for the first time where they REALLY stand, and who might be their best ally in achieving that end, is just damn brilliant. As for Eleanor, I have a different take on her. I see her as quite sympathetic, and also rather despicable. She wants to be in control, and is constantly manoeuvring herself into a position of pulling the strings behind the scenes. She likes to be the "power behind the throne" and has a hunger to control others. So finding out that the people SHE was trying to control and manipulate (Vane, her father, Rogers.... Mr. Scott?) were trying to control and manipulate her right back makes her feel frustrated and powerless (and more determined to control THEM), because maybe she doesn't understand that that's what life IS. No one is ever really on top, or really in control. Everyone uses each other, especially when money and power are involved. So she's caught in a cycle she can't win. Her attitude toward slavery is part of that. Sure, Mr. Scott was her slave, but he was also her "friend," and she controlled him not because she OWNED him, but because she used their emotional connection to manipulate him, convince him to help her. Or at least that's what she thought. Finding out she was wrong would of course come as a blow (even though it's blatantly obvious that she was wrong to keep him as a slave if it was within her power to let him go, and duh, he would betray her for his family in a second, and would be right to). And of course she's trying to control Rogers too. She's been the one REALLY calling the shots since before they arrived. But she's made a critical error here. She tipped her hand, and revealed to him that she was in control, that she was expecting him to stand aside and let her stand up and take charge, so she could attack Nassau with a scalpel and carefully extract everything she wanted. But she wounded his pride, and because of his need to be in control, he is heading her way with a wrecking ball, and this is going to be REALLY FUN YOU GUYS!

Well, I don't know what the show is going for, but in the book, this is DEFINITELY abuse, and not just a screwed-up relationship, or a consensual sado-masochistic one. Celeste loves Perry, and thinks of him as a good, kind, husband and father, who has sudden bursts of temper and hurts her (like a darkness taking over), and then the REAL Perry comes back and is horrified by his behaviour and treats her like a queen out of guilt until the bruises fade and it happens again. Celeste's conflict comes from the fact that she knows she should leave him, but she loves him and can't bring herself to. And she TELLS herself that because she hits back, or deliberately provokes him sometimes (to bring on an incident that she knows is coming anyway, on her terms), this means that she's an equal participant in the "twistedness" of the relationship, which makes her feel ashamed. And the fact that these incidents always end in sex makes her feel like maybe this is all a bunch of twisted foreplay, and because other couples talk about "fights" leading to sex, this could be normal. Part of Celeste's journey in the book is coming to terms with the fact that the Perry who hurts her IS the "real" Perry, and that her response to his behaviour IS normal and something experienced by many victims of domestic abuse, and that her justifications for why it really isn't a big deal, or why it's her fault too, or why she's really safe with him no matter how bad things seem, or why really she deserves this, those justifications are systematically dismantled throughout the book until Celeste can finally see Perry for who he truly is. And it's pretty great. As for Show-Celeste, I don't know what they were going for with the sex scene. Was she into it? It looked to me like Perry threw her around a little, he got turned on by it, and mauled her up against the wall. Did she stay because she wanted it? Or did she stay because if a cat is toying with you, your best option might be to stay still and give it what it wants, rather than try to slip away and risk igniting a pursuit, and a more vicious take-down? I honestly couldn't tell. It was a pretty short encounter, and she didn't seem to get a lot of pleasure out of it (seems like it ended as soon as he came?), but when she recalled it later, she seemed to be remembering it with a hint of fondness or passion. DID she enjoy it when it happened, or is this a lie she tells herself afterward, that they have this great sex life with this unfortunate foreplay? I honestly don't know, and I really hope we get some clarification on this soon!

Yeah, I really hope they make this clearer in the show, because from the sound of it in the episode thread, people are a bit confused. In the book, Celeste is VERY conflicted, thinking about her relationship as a "twisted dance" that she and Perry do together, that she is equally at fault for, because she does things like hit him back, or deliberately provoke him into hurting her when she can sense it's coming anyway and wants to get it over with... she wonders if this is normal, and asks her friends if they "fight" with their husbands, and then is frustrated when they say "yes," and don't seem to mean what she means... And when she acknowledges that it's NOT normal, she thinks it's just shameful and reflects badly on them BOTH and doesn't want anyone to know. I'm not sure if Kidman is playing it quite the same way. I'm not quite getting a read on their situation either, so I hope we get some more explicit explanation of what is going on in her head. I can feel her love for Perry, her lust for him, even with all the violence, and her wariness of his moods. And trying to get them to a counsellor is consistent with her lukewarm attempts in the book to seek help. But I'm not quite getting her conflict, her wondering if this is a normal or acceptable way to live. The shame over her role in it. Things like her conversation with Madeleine (in the book, she was sounding out Madeleine to see if her fights with Ed were physical as well. On the show, she was opening up about her and Perry's relationship, just talking around the violence, which Book-Celeste would never do), and the way she, not Perry, is the unofficial Social Media Coordinator of their household (meaning she, not he, is the one most invested in presenting a normal, happy, idyllic face to the world), seem to indicate a shift from paper to screen in this relationship and how Celeste feels about it, but I don't quite have a sense of what that is yet. But the show seems to be making good choices so far in how it's revealing the characters' inner thoughts and feelings, so hopefully we will get a clearer picture of Celeste's in coming weeks. I also have to say, I was NOT feeling Witherspoon as Madeleine in the pilot, but as of Episode 2, she is really growing on me. I saw Book-Madeleine as being quite in-control and always knowing what to do to help, just totally unable to let things go once she gets started on them. But Show-Madeleine gives a sense of being more... I guess, at the mercy of her own righteous indignation. I kinda like it! Looking forward to the next ep, for sure.

Best thing about the show so far: The soundtrack! There are some really amazing musical choices being made here, and the whole thing sounds incredible. Worst thing about the show so far: The fact that this amazing soundtrack is being delivered to us by Chloe, who is apparently being packaged as the tiny DJ of everyone's lives. Why? To call extra attention to the musical choices? All it's doing is calling attention to her wildly improbable taste in music! There is not a 6-year-old on the planet who, when put in charge of car music, would choose PJ Harvey over The Wiggles! As to the birth control issue, nobody's really right or wrong here. Well, Abigail was right to get birth control, if she's ready to take that step, and she was right to go to someone she trusted to help her. Beyond that, this kind of issue isn't really about taking sides (who's in the right), as much as it's about understanding why everyone is reacting the way they are. Madeleine is upset and scared, as any parent would be, to find that their kid is moving into sexual territory, and they (the parent) don't know anything about it and are therefore losing control of their kid's life, and losing their ability to protect their kid, just when things are getting "real." Plus, she is jealous, as any parent in her situation would probably be, of the relationship/friendship her kid has formed with her new step-mom. She's afraid of Bonnie replacing her as Abigail's mom the same way Bonnie replaced her as Nathan's wife. It's not rational, but it's understandable. Bonnie overstepped, and Madeleine hit the roof. Bonnie, as a step-parent trying to build a motherly relationship with her partner's aloof teenager, is understandably touched and excited that her step-kid has come to her, is trusting her, with something as big and personal as sexual health. Whether or not it's the responsible thing to do, no step-parent is going to turn down that kind of bonding opportunity! Should she have at least informed Madeleine of what Abigail had asked? Maybe... I actually think that was Nathan's job, as the primary co-parent of Abigail with Madeleine. But beyond that, from Bonnie's perspective, what WAS the responsible thing to do? If she had said, "you should talk to your 'real' mother about this, or maybe your father" then maybe Abigail would have not felt comfortable doing that and would have given up on the idea. Then the trust between Abigail and Bonnie would have eroded, Abigail could be caught without birth control when she needed it, and Abigail could be left feeling that she didn't have anyone in her family she could talk to about sex stuff, or that she has to keep any sexual experiences a secret from everyone lest one parent tell all the others, which is the LAST thing anyone wants for a teenager on the verge of becoming sexually active! Was it selfish of Bonnie to take on this role with Abigail without involving Madeleine? Absolutely. Was it the wrong thing to do? There's no way to know that. It's certainly a defensible, understandable choice. I like the choice to make this issue a source of conflict between Madeleine and Bonnie. Because it IS one of those situations where there is no clear right answer, and it's such an overcharged emotional subject, it really shows off who both characters are as people and as parents.

Yeah, it's both of these, I think. Sherry's totally alive. Dwight was trying to protect her. As Neegan said, if Sherry really had let Daryl go (which she did), Neegan would have hunted her down as long as it took and killed her. By shifting the blame to the Doc (who sparked Dwight's ire with his attitude towards Sherry's situation), he cleared Sherry's name, and now Neegan thinks she ran because she was afraid he would blame her, not because she actually did it, thereby saving her from being pursued and possibly saving her from execution if she DOES get recaptured. It's probably the last thing Dwight will ever be able to do to help her, which makes it almost sweet, apart from the unfortunate immolation of the doctor.

Well, I was midway through reading the book when the series premiered, so I held off watching the first episode until I finished the book (today), just in case they restructured things for the series and spoiled the ending. Interestingly, having seen the show posters but not any clips or anything, I actually assumed Reese Witherspoon would be playing CELESTE, and Nicole Kidman would be Madeleine, not the other way around. So for the last half of the book, once those posters came out, I had a very different picture in my head! I actually think it would work better that way. Kidman has the gravitas for the kind of conflict Madeleine lives for, the warm "do-it-all" mothering energy, the depth for her anger and frustration over "losing" Abigail to Bonnie, and the tough, fiery "stand your ground" fierceness of a mother bear protecting her cubs. Witherspoon is smaller, slighter, has that fragility and vulnerability that, even though it's well-hidden, makes Celeste so compelling. I think the role would suit her better, because honestly, I don't really like her as Madeleine. She doesn't quite have the range for it, and I don't get the sense from her that she has the POWER to do things like rabble-rouse an army of moms into battle, or shelter Jane and Ziggy from slander with nothing but the force of her personality. Whereas Kidman, as Celeste, seems so wise and self-aware. I can feel her love for Perry, but I don't get that helpless naivete that Celeste had in the book, her belief that she's somehow bringing it on herself, or is an equal participant in the abuse, or that the "real Perry" is truly kind and good. Kidman's Celeste seems to understand EXACTLY what is going on in her marriage, and is just doing her best to survive it. I think Witherspoon could bring that sense of innocence and optimism that makes Celeste's situation so heartbreaking as she gradually comes to terms with the truth of it. And I don't actually know how old any of these actors are, but Kidman looks to be an age where she might plausibly be in a second marriage and parenting a teenager, while Witherspoon would look more at home with other first-time mothers of 6-year-olds. I'm a bit perplexed as to why they cast it this way, other than, I suppose, because making the series was Witherspoon's idea and she probably wanted this role. Apart from the casting, I mostly like this adaptation, but I am really sorry to see people in the episode threads say the characters aren't "relateable." What I really loved about the book was that it made ALL the characters extremely relateable, and took you right inside the minds of all the various participants in the schoolyard conflict. You could see and understand the basic pain, struggles and humanity going on inside characters who could easily be dismissed as "archetypes:" the struggling, harried single mom, the gorgeous rich mom who has everything, the high-powered career woman/helicopter parent, the busybody who can't fix her problems with her daughter so tries to fix everyone ELSE'S problems instead... I think this book should be required reading for ALL parents of school-age children, it does such a good job of examining the various relationships parents have with their children, children have with each other, and parents have with other parents, and how those levels of relationships all affect each other. I'll be interested to see how those deeply personal, insightful moments play out visually, and whether that sense of "relateability" will become a hook for the series as well. I mean, the book was better. Isn't it always? But I think I'm in.

While the law in this universe is clearly a twisted version of our own, borrowed from, I assume, an evil parallel dimension, or someone's butt... I gotta say, this is the first episode I've seen in ages that I genuinely LIKED! It's all nonsense, of course, but this show was never a realistic legal drama, and yes, "The Donna" is idiotic, but at least Donna has something to do besides magically solve everyone's problems all the time always. While we still have scenes of people pointlessly yelling at each other, I feel like the quota has gone down, and many pointless tantrums are being gradually replaced this season by people actually talking reasonably about what they mean, and expressing willingness to effectively work together to achieve common goals, EVEN with people they dislike. (Staggering, isn't it?) Seeing Mike and Harvey actually talk like friends, help each other out, and pass the baton back and forth on this case... it was amazing! I didn't even care that they were doing something super illegal for sketchy reasons that had no basis in reality! I'd WATCH this show! THAT'S how deprived I've been of positive interactions between characters. It's still not, by ANY means, a "good" show, but I appreciate the efforts this season to tone down the pointless melodrama and histrionics, and have the characters behave like grownups for a change. We are slowly, so slowly, moving in the right direction, I think. ETA: Now that I think of it, I'm pretty sure I've said the same thing ("This is dumb, but it looks like it's taking a turn! This season has some good potential, and we're starting to see where it could go! I'm heartened, and I'll stick around to see what happens!") at around this point of the last three or four seasons, at least. And they always swerve away from the good stuff and fall back on their old standards: awkward mild cursing, and adolescent hissy fits. PLEASE let this one be the exception! But really, I gotta stop getting my hopes up.

I think this show quite effectively embraces the simple truth that, apart from a few outliers, there ARE no such things as good guys and bad guys. Just individual complex persons, with their own sets of goals, personalities, foibles, traumas, and dreams, each one seeking happiness and prosperity through whatever channel they think will be most successful. Some do this by violently attacking and robbing others in order to support a lifestyle that keeps them free from civilization's rules, and others attempt to enforce BAD laws poorly, seeking to crush the outlaw pirates as much out of pride as a sense of lawfulness (see Berringer's comment about the uselessness of power if others can't see you have it). No individual character seems committed to their "side" as a CONCEPT (i.e., fighting for "piracy" or fighting for "British rule"), instead each character uses the situation to advance their own agendas, be it revenge, safety, advancement, etc. Remember how many pirates were seriously swayed by the temptation of a "pardon?" Because piracy isn't their GOAL, for many it's their only means of survival, and they'd give it up in a heartbeat if they didn't think they'd hang for it. By NOT taking sides, by just sitting back and watching these individuals play their hands as best they can, we are able to simultaneously root for and against EVERYONE. We can feel the pathos of Flint when he comes closer to avenging Thomas' death, and the determination of Rogers to prove himself to his superiors and win acclaim, and the satisfaction of Eleanor to be pulling the strings in Nassau and punishing Vane for hurting her. I dislike Eleanor as a character, but I admire her as a strategist. Madi, Silver, Max, Ann, Jack, Berringer... they are all on paths of self-interest. Although the show is framed as a struggle between pirates and the Royal Navy, the truth is that nearly all the conflicts are personal, not ideological or political. The characters are motivated by their relationships to those around them, loyalty, pain.. simple, personal things. When you don't take sides, the story becomes considerably more interesting.

Her saying "why didn't you follow the law" to Max was funny. Okay, Eleanor. Yes, it's been interesting to watch her, with Rogers out of town. She has him wrapped around her finger (seriously, can he do ANYTHING without her? He's got no money, no connections, no strategy... he depends on her for EVERYTHING. Can't even properly keelhaul a damn pirate!) and without him there to manipulate, she has to work her wiles on others directly. Of course, she is still RIGHT, and is more effective at wielding power than Berringer (gets info out of Max without screaming in her face, for example), but is helpless to do anything when he won't listen to her. I dislike Eleanor as a character, but I have to admire the way she runs everyone. Her comments to Berringer about power are so poignant and true, as was his response. Typical Alpha-Male: Better to flail around like an incompetent puppet, smashing anything you disagree with, than to actually have REAL power that others don't necessarily see. This is certainly her (and Max's) approach to dealing with the men around her who think they are in charge. She is content to let them take all the credit, so that no one sees she's the one calling the shots. I've believed since last season that Eleanor is the REAL Woodes Rogers. That is, we will see that most (if not all) of the accomplishments the historical Woodes Rogers is credited with, are actually Eleanor's doing, and Rogers is just the man she allows to be the public face of their efforts so that she can assert her influence in secret. So far, this season, even though it seems like she might actually have some feelings for him, my theory still holds. He's helpless without her. (The victory over the boarding party doesn't even count. Even chasing the ship in the first place was a real dumb-dumb move on the pirates' part. The pirates have threatened to block the harbour, and the navy sends out the ONE ship they'd be sure to follow, even though ANYONE could have gone to ask for help without getting pursued by the pirates? How much more obvious a trap could that have been? I blame Teach and Jack for being idiots more than I credit Rogers with a solid plan.) I will end these thoughts with a reflection on how thankful (and mildly surprised) I am that it took us until the final season of this show before we saw a keelhauling. May it be the last!

Yeah, the names are really hard to pick up and remember! I went to start talking about this show, and realized that even though I had a really clear picture of who everyone was, I could only pull one name (Feldman). I had to go to IMDB to look them up in order to talk about the show without having to resort to adjectives to talk about characters! For easy reference, they are: AJ Feldman - the slacker/stoner brunette, weiner-truck driver Chelsea Snap - the overgrown millennial, now saddled with "hell class" Mary Louise Bennigan - the uptight religious conservative, crushing on "Hot Dad!" Cecelia Cannon - the hippy art teacher, union organizer Caroline Watson - the romantic blonde, dating a security doll Deb Adler - the badass redhead, "perverts are everywhere!" I think what makes it tough is that sometimes they are referred to by first name ("Mary Louise") and sometimes by last name ("Ms. Bennigan"), which makes it hard. I work in a school and I have the EXACT same problem in the staff room. I'll be introduced to a new teacher as "Jane" and all staff room conversations with or about her will be "Jane," and then I'll hear kids talking a lot about what they're doing in "Ms. Smith's class," and it can take literally MONTHS to figure out they're the same person, especially if they're not someone I see or have contact with very often. Plus I'm naturally not good with names. But really, this show does a great job of making every character totally distinct and vibrant, and it can really escape your notice that you don't actually know their names!

Ha! I think you could say that about ALL these characters! But Feldman is great. She really holds a special place in my heart. I absolutely love her laissez-faire style of teaching, her "shy kid whispering," and yeah, just her mannerisms are so funny. Feldman rules.

Right there with you! I totally love this show. I can't explain it. I don't think it's FANTASTIC, but it really makes me happy. For one thing, I am a teacher, and when I saw a billboard for that sitcom "Vice Principals" awhile back, I felt really offended, because the majority of the cast on the poster was male. Education at the elementary level is an overwhelmingly female-dominated profession, and seeing that poster made me feel like this show was doing a workplace comedy, and sweeping under the rug the experiences of the people who actually WORK in that workplace, in order to focus on how this sort of job affects men. It really made me angry. If women's voices and perspectives aren't worth exploring in an elementary or middle school staff room, where ARE they worth exploring to these networks? And then I found "Teachers." This show is so refreshing and delightful, and even though it isn't perfect, it's perfect to me. THIS is how you do a workplace comedy set in a female-dominated workplace! This show is written and performed by women, and it 100% embraces the female experience and female perspective. It just feels totally different from those other male-dominated workplace comedies, the style of humour, the pacing, the dynamics between characters, the avenues it takes through the story. At no point do I ever feel like the Katydids sat around the writers' room and said "Are men going to understand this? Is this going to be funny to men?" They just express what they want to express exactly how they want to express it, without compromising their vision for the sake of a male audience they may not even have (and seem not to care if they have). Not to say that men wouldn't enjoy it, just that if they do or don't, that's up to them. The show makes no deliberate efforts to court them. I just love how the stereotypes that are often used to demean or ridicule women are celebrated here, like the "Miss Perfect" who dedicates her life to the search for a man, or the self-involved ultra-vain fashionista, or the hippie who takes love and inclusivity a step further than the people around her are always comfortable with... Instead of reducing a female character to an archetype that makes her easy to dismiss or mock, they go the other way, and turn outrageous archetypes into real women whose existence is permitted. Like, if you're an actual woman who is super into fashion and beauty, or conservative and prudish, or way too hung-up on finding a man and getting married... that doesn't make you a joke, or mean you can't be taken seriously; it's okay to be that way, and here are some of the struggles you might face from being who you are. And what's noticeably absent is the "mean girls" stereotype, the idea that if you put a bunch of women together, they will naturally all undermine, manipulate, and backstab each other in deceptively polite ways to assert their dominance. These characters have conflicts, but they always end up on each others' side, or working together for the common good, they way I consistently see in my own female-dominated workplace. All said, I'm so happy this show is back for season 2! Ms. Feldman is my spirit animal! I'm not totally convinced about Adler's new haircut... maybe it'll grow on me. But I LOVED Caroline's "romance" with her security doll! I was laughing so hard every time the music started, and saying "Why is this so funny?" because I really don't know why it made me laugh as hard as I did, and somehow that made it even funnier! But the real takeaway is, of course, that "perverts are everywhere." Don't get Tucci'd!

Yes, this. I don't recall him ever saying he was "bored" with the character. If I recall correctly, it was the opposite. I heard an interview with him where he explained that he was very conscious of the line between satire and just espousing a terrible point of view. He felt as the show went on that he was walking that line less and less easily, and was afraid that if a joke didn't land quite right, or if he wasn't completely on the ball at every moment, then he risked becoming the very thing he was trying to combat. He felt the pressure of this more and more acutely until he knew it was time to move on before he miscalculated and caused real offense. The fact that many conservatives watched the Report and genuinely thought he was on their side probably didn't help! So bringing the character out once in a while to make a point isn't hypocritical at all. Actually, it's the perfect way to use the character as intended, and for just the right effect. I'm so glad they're thumbing their noses at the lawyers and going for it!

Yeah, I don't agree that this one felt off. Yes, it seems out of character for Jules to totally go off on someone and lose control like that, but it makes perfect sense that the last shred of control she had over her inner darkness was ripped away as soon as she saw Kennedy back with Nate, and understood that her best friend had just chosen to side with a rapist and believe that she was, essentially, a lying whore. And it makes sense for Kennedy to initially side with Nate. Just like Jules couldn't bring herself to confront what had happened to her, Kennedy ALSO couldn't bring herself to confront what she knew to be the truth. Nate's blowup in the bedroom was not just a convenient way to open Kennedy's eyes - I get the sense that Nate has little incidents like this a lot. It's part of who he is. Remember early in the season when he wanted Kennedy to go with him to some special event, and she had some super-important work to do for herself that took priority over being his arm candy, and he blew up at her? It was over quickly, and he was all apologies immediately afterward, but that kind of behaviour says so much about Nate. He's not just a college boy who made a terrible drunken mistake. He's someone who, when he has a conflict or problem with a woman, responds by lashing out like a baby having a tantrum and asserting his power over her. Compare this behaviour to someone like Harris, who, when HE has a conflict with a woman (like Ophelia for being a bad employee, or the editor of the law journal for pigeonholing him as the "minority" reporter), he confronts her about it openly and honestly, they have a productive conversation about the issue, and arrive at a healthy resolution without any weird power games or bottled-up resentments. But Kennedy has gotten so used to handwaving away Nate's little blowups that of course her mind can't be changed overnight, or by one conversation. It took time (and her love for Jules, and some observation of Nate's behaviour with fresh eyes) for her to be ready to accept the truth. And when she found Jules holed up in the library, and told her that she was a person who deserved to be heard, I legit started crying. When this show first premiered, some reviewers wondered if the arc of the season would lead Jules to rain some vigilante justice down on the head of her own attacker. But over the past couple of episodes it seems like the REAL arc for Jules will not be finding the strength to confront Nate in a dark alley as some anonymous ass-kicker, but in a court of law, in the public eye, seeking ACTUAL justice for what happened to her. Which is a hell of a lot more difficult and powerful. This really is the best MTV show no one is watching. If it doesn't get a second season, I hope it at least finds some post-cancellation fame, because it is so incredibly deserving of an audience.

This is so true. And the problem is suspension of disbelief. (Well, actually the problem is, again, wasted opportunity.) They already established, in the previous two episodes, that Eurus is capable of mimicking healthy, normal, human behaviour to perfection. She was able to embody a guilt-ridden, conscience-stricken woman so perfectly that Sherlock didn't notice she was faking. So why did we get her in this episode all wild-haired and crazy-eyed, observing her siblings like she'd never seen human emotions before, making references to being unable to tell the difference between screaming and laughing? It totally blew their premise. Because Eurus' powers of persuasion MAKE SENSE in the context of the previous two episodes, when we see her slip into people's lives unobtrusively and disrupt their routines and thought patterns. It is PLAUSIBLE that an "innocent" encounter on a bus could drive a happily-married man to distraction and plant a seed that could grow into infidelity. It is plausible that a fragile woman with an ALMOST-unsolvable mystery could cause a genius detective to go mad looking for the answer... She impersonates a therapist perfectly, and I could envision vulnerable people going to her for help, putting themselves in a mindset to trust her because they are seeking answers, and coming away with a little earworm suggesting that their family is the problem, and drastic action may be required to solve it... But trained professionals talking to someone they know is a murderous, psychotic manipulator for five minutes and coming away with a compulsion to murder their family is where suspension of disbelief fails. It's so frustrating, because they ALMOST HAD IT! They were going in completely the right direction, establishing Eurus as a genuis manipulator by showing how she had already infiltrated the characters' lives and affected their choices and their thinking. Her identity was a reveal so effective that no matter how you felt about the episode in general, you probably freaked out at the end, because whether or not you saw it coming, you felt the impact and the implications of it. And then they took what was working, re-set it in a prison for some reason, resorted to "tell, don't show" storytelling, and blasted the character to such preposterous heights of insanity/malevolence/omnipotence that it all just fell apart. (I already ranted at length about the weakness of her motivations for this, compared to what they could or SHOULD have been. Yeesh.) I don't know why I continue to expect better from Moffat at this point. I really don't.

Yeah, I gotta say, it really SUCKS to see a reboot of the Sherlock Holmes franchise helmed by someone who has no idea how to write a mystery. I mean, they used to write decent mysteries, right? What happened? Last week was so bad, with the time jumps and hallucinations (note to Moffat: Great mysteries keep the audience wondering how the events of the story could be possible! Not what the events even ARE!), but the final twist with Eurus at the end kept me around to see how they would use her in the finale. I mean, last time Moffat wrote a "powerful" female character, she was evil, her power came 100% from her sexuality, and she was undone by her delicate lady feelings. So I wasn't hopeful about Eurus, but I figured with Moffat and Gatiss co-writing, things might turn out a little better! Sadly, Eurus can't be a truly intriguing or great character, just a twisted psycho. And of course, she only kills people because she's so sad that nobody loves her! What bullshit. She had such potential - an incredibly intelligent Holmes sibling who comes back after years of imprisonment and isolation to confront her family... If she had been even the slightest bit sane or sympathetic, this story could have been fascinating. Even if she wanted to punish them or make them confront how they had mistreated her, rather than making them solve pointless puzzles so she could... watch them? For some reason?.... it could have been better. But there didn't seem to be any sort of emotional connection between the trials she inflicted on her brothers and her identity as their sister. She really was just mad that she didn't have a friend like Sherlock had and wanted them all to suffer for it! And you can't even say that Mycroft robbed her of her ability to make friends by imprisoning her and denying her any human connection for most of her life... she's been pining for a friend since back when she was killing the neighbourhood kids who liked Sherlock better than her! Did they deliberately strip this story of any nuance and subtlety? Or just forget to put any in? This episode... hell, this whole season... just feels like one big wasted opportunity.

Yeah... he says he was in as a child, and now he's out. He's said multiple times that he's out. It makes perfect sense that he can't speak up against the "church" with most of his family still inside, and that the "church" wouldn't go after a high-profile public figure when he hasn't given them cause. It's not like he was Sea Org. Regular members are able to leave, so long as they do it quietly. There is zero evidence that he is still in, and SOME evidence that he is truly out (if his word isn't good enough, his wife Amanda Palmer showed up to support the launch of Kate Bornstein's anti-Scientology memoir). Which I think outweighs a baseless suspicion.

There is some speculation that his novel "The Ocean at the End of the Lane" was a vague allegory for his experience in Scientology - young boy encounters fantastical world of immortal beings with superhuman powers and is enchanted... only to see the dangerous underside of this world when it begins to sink its dark claws into his family. There are some well-thought-out explanations of this, what all the elements of the book could represent, but it's probably not what he intended. Then again, who knows? He can't say anything directly about Scientology, or he risks getting declared and losing his family. So anything's possible.

Not necessarily. There are a lot of "devout" people who don't really know what's in the bible, for instance. This is purely anecdotal but in my experience a lot of Catholics are content to assign the responsibility of reading the bible to their priest so he can tell them what's in there. That's not what I mean, though. Sure, some people don't know the particularities of what's in the Bible, but they know, in general, what their religion believes: God, Jesus, sin, etc. The contents of the Bible are there for all to see, regardless of whether or not you choose to read it thoroughly. If you walk into a church off the street and ask a priest to explain their religion to you, just a basic outline of the tenets of their faith, they are usually able and willing. Heck, there's a Bible in most hotel rooms! Because Christian organizations WANT you to read it, and know and understand what they believe and why. But the actual RELIGION aspect of Scientology is so obscure that you have to reach one of the high OT levels before they even tell you what it is they (and now you) believe. The PRACTICE of Scientology (auditing) is all you actually know until you are finally let in on the RELIGION behind the practice - that Galactic Overlord Xenu came to this planet to throw a bunch of people into volcanoes and blow them up, and now we are all possessed by the spirits of dead aliens that prevent us from developing superpowers... THAT is the mythology, the religion of Scientology, and it is a carefully-guarded secret. South Park finding out about this and making an episode about it was a huge deal. When you've finally ascended to the level where you are to be let in on the secret, they take you out on a boat to the middle of nowhere, release the files from a locked briefcase, and swear you to secrecy about what you've learned. I mean (please forgive me, Catholics, this is only a thought-experiment, no offense meant!), can you imagine joining the Catholic church, going to confession for EIGHT YEARS, unburdening yourself of things you feel bad about, living by strict rules you don't fully understand, thinking this confession thing is really helping you to let go of things that are holding you back, examine your feelings and motivations around certain actions, and live a healthier and happier life (basically going to therapy and calling it church)... identifying as a Catholic, giving everything you have to the church, purging your social circle of everyone not involved in the church, and making the church your entire life... only to be told after nearly a decade that you have earned the right to know what the church believes, taken out to the middle of nowhere and secretly informed by a priest (who takes the first Bible you've ever seen out of a locked box to allow you a temporary glance) that the reason you've been confessing your little wrongdoings for so long is because... Genesis, Original Sin, virgin births, Satan, pillars of salt, arks full of animals... and that cracker you've been eating every week is really THE BODY OF CHRIST?! What I mean to say is that REAL religions don't do this! They give you a Bible or other holy scripture upfront, and make their religious beliefs the core, the really important part, of their experience and identity as a member of that religion. Sure, people are very susceptible to not reading things fully and letting others tell them what they believe based on personal bias, which is why we have religious crusaders fighting to protect marriage from those sinners who want to marry someone of their own sex, but somehow do NOT spend time fighting to protect Wal-Mart from polyester, or Christian neighbourhoods from the scourge of Red Lobster. But that's not the same thing as actively withholding the spiritual tenets of a religion from its followers until they are adequately indoctrinated. That is messed up! I think you're right on the money there. It's one thing to examine what a church DOES that is harmful, but when you start criticizing what a church believes as a way of discrediting them... well, that's a bit like (Oh, jeez, sorry again, Catholics! I'll pick on someone else next time!) It's a bit like criticizing the Catholic church's sexual abuse scandal by ridiculing the church for believing in the virgin birth. It may sound improbable to those who don't believe it, but it's not actually the PROBLEM in this situation. The harm being done to innocent children, and the church's failure to prevent it, is the problem. Practical, not spiritual. Again, Catholics, so sorry. If I were Catholic, I'd feel really guilty about this post.

You're so right. I really feel like this series has been mostly focused on former members, their experiences, and their lives now. I get the impression that the series is really speaking to people with friends and family in the "church," or who may be members themselves afraid to leave (not that they'd be watching it, but you never know). They seem to really emphasize how happy and free and successful these former members seem to be now, and how easily they reconnected with their family and loved ones outside the "church" (like Marc Headley's story of calling his dad, afraid that he'd been as "dead" to his dad as his dad had been to him, only to be told "I've been waiting for this call for years!" - a common experience among many who Leah's interviewed), to try and cut through the culture of fear that the "church" creates, making its members believe that they have nothing without the "church," nowhere to go, no one to turn to... Regarding Xenu, however, it's completely bonkers, but they are right not to delve into that topic right away. For many Scientologists, Xenu is not the root of their devotion or the reason they stay... many don't even know about him! As was pointed out in the "Going Clear" documentary, if you ask a member of ANY other legitimate religion (Christian, Muslim, Jew, Buddhist, Amish... even the other ones that sometimes don't get taken seriously, like Mormons) WHAT exactly they believe, they can tell you! In fact, most legitimate religions are happy to answer questions about their beliefs and their organizations. But Scientologists aren't even TOLD what the core religious beliefs OF THEIR RELIGION are until they've already been in for 8 years, given their life savings, and created a social/support circle made up entirely of other believers. At which point the Xenu stuff becomes another means of controlling people. If they don't "believe" it, there's something wrong with them, and they need to complete intensive, expensive auditing until they "Clear" that story. Questions are met with fear and punishment. Xenu makes the "church" sound wacky, but that core belief (that many members don't even know about) is not what makes them harmful and dangerous, and pointing out how kooky their religion is is not an effective way of discrediting them. Especially when they have so many darker practices and abuses that need to be exposed. I do hope they touch on it, because it is TRULY unhinged, but they are right to keep the focus on the "church's" human rights abuses. That's where they're going to do the most good.