zobot81

I donno. I think I'm having a major problem with how stylized the cinematography and blocking is -- I also think the directing is not great. Like, why do we always need to see John Goodman's character shot from a low angle, looking up at him? Is that supposed to convince me that he's some sort of Badass Dadass, just because the camera constantly has me at an inferior angle? Also, it's sort of striking me as the evangelical version of Succession. A less good version. But I'll stick with it for a few episodes, see if I can shake the yuck.

I want to have more to say about the season and its finale, but I don't. It was fun. And while I enjoyed Renata immensely, I will give the award for most entertaining to Marie Louise. Fact is, she made me feel physically uncomfortable. Her embodiment of a coiled rattlesnake, striking out verbally and unloading emotional venom into her victims on an episodic basis was simply stunning. She floated about Monterey as a treacherous, graceful, dangerous specter, haunting these women and meaning them all harm. So when she is finally forced to eat her own delusions on the witness stand, I felt tremendous relief that it was over. And I'll admit that I cried a little bit when the boys hugged her goodbye. The ambiguity/unresolved stuff with Corey felt like a failure of editing -- or the result of the show-runners' choice not to fully resolve his story-line. I think he was intended to be "more" than just an informant, but somewhere along the lines they didn't want to dive that deeply into his backstory (for whatever reason). To this end, the truncated and choppy way that his dialogue with Jane was edited after his big "informant" reveal makes me think that they edited his arc to suit the change in post-production.

I feel like one of the things that's missing for Madelyn, when it comes to her relationship with Ed is -- and this is not an excuse to minimize her betrayal -- that she has yet to actively transform her feelings of trust, stability and safety into physical desire. A lot of people with low self-worth have an unhealthy or dysfunctional sexuality, whether it's high-risk sexual behavior (a la Celeste's ambien-induced one night stands) or a total withdrawal from sexual activity (demonstrated in the Madelyn/Ed dynamic). There are plenty of genuinely healthy, hyper-sexual or a-sexual people, but in Celeste and Madelyn's case, it seems clear that their sexual behavior comes from an insecure and out-or-control place. We did not get nearly as much information about Madelyn's backstory as we got about Celeste's. But I think we know enough about the former to assume that A) Madelyn had a childhood fraught by an ugly divorce, which included witnessing her father's infidelity at a very young age; B) she is extremely insecure about not having gone to college. Listen, I'm not here to validate the merits of those experiences -- we must assume that these events manifested as unprocessed trauma, since even she seemed totally baffled by her marital transgressions and self-sabotage. Anyway, all I'm saying is that I believe she truly, truly loves Ed, but that she's likewise unable to fully experience his love for her. She hasn't accepted that she's worthy of his love. And like it or not, Ed worships her. So, I guess I'm ruling in favor of them finding a way to move on with their marriage with greater appreciation and intimacy. And hey, for better or worse, I still just wanna see two beautiful people get it on.

All that remains that I want from the series is a red hot love scene between Ed and Madelyn. I mean, like, I really want those two to go at it...HORD. They are a couple of super sexy actors in their mid-life and I wanna see them tear each other's clothes off, goddammit, no shame.

With you 100%. I just hate those terrible computer animations. They trigger me for some reason. https://j.gifs.com/vZ4MEA.gif

Fair enough (and I do love a good 48 hours reference)! The problem for me is that the prosecution presented a simulation in which Perry literally fell further down the stairs, just because he was pushed. They didn't show him clearing the flight of stairs and launching to his death from a forceful push. And at the very least, I do not understand how the blessed hell they can distinguish between a fall or a push based on a difference of landing twelve inches up or down the stairs. It took a giant suspension of disbelief for me to go along with that piece of evidence. I'd also like to add that, being a true crime insane person, prosecutions seem to always struggle to convict the "pushed from a high place" murder case. There's so much room for doubt without any witnesses.

I want to know who's calculating fall physics for the prosecution -- because a 1 foot difference in distance doesn't seem calculable.

I'd really really like some insight as to wtf is going on between Ed and Mr. and Mrs. Director. No matter which way I slice it, that scene does not make sense to me. Wouldn't Ed get up and walk away, once he sees the object of his wife's infidelity sitting across the bar from him, apparently observing him openly engage in heavy flirtation with his own wife? Is this leading up to a weird three-way situation? Is Ed exacting some kind of "taste of your own medicine" revenge on Madeline? I just do not understand where this is going at all, or how it informs Ed's relationship with Madeline, especially if Ed is complicit in the plan. And was that dude creepily shaking his head in disapproval at him as the scene faded to black??? I mean, what is happening??

I actually had some lingering doubts about it, even after the closing scene (and even though it went against my own theory about him being a cop).

I win!!!

You're basically recapping a conversation I had with my husband this morning. Full transparency, my husband looks like an even more Sicilian-American Adam Scott, which makes me extremely biased towards him and every character he plays. The fact that Ed's personality is frighteningly close to my own husband's (IRL...but less smug) -- and I'm no Madelyn, but I am a lot more like her the any of the other Monterey 5 -- means that their fictional marriage problems are causing me a lot of real-world distress. To be clear, there has never been a single incident of infidelity in our fifteen years together, and yet the show makes me wonder...what if there was? How would we behave? It turns out, not very differently from those two. While I do not forgive Madelyn for betraying my husb - (oops!) Ed, I also do not approve of his behavior in the aftermath of finding out. I asked my actual husband this morning, "So, what's your take on how Ed's been treating Madelyn? Do you think he is trying to torment her?" He replied, "Yes. He's definitely punishing her. Absolutely. The part that I think sucks the most, though, is that he doesn't seem to know what to do next. He should just leave -- it's not fair to her, and I don't think staying in the house is helping him figure out whether or not he wants to end the marriage. Trouble is, he's been so consumed by his adulation of her, he really can't make himself let go. I guess it's what you call a dilemma." (I'm paraphrasing, but that was the gist). To further the gist, my husband said he would probably stick around to make me feel like shit, but not for long. He seems to recognize that it's not doing Ed any good to be there. Madelyn's relentless attempts to normalize the conflict by aggressively addressing the elephant in the room -- that's me. I can see myself making similar overtures, were I in her position (let's get away together, more therapy, do you hate me, don't be mean to me, can't we deal with this and move on....you get the picture...). She's betrayed her husband in a way that she can't fix. But what she hasn't done yet -- and what I think Ed is waiting around to hear -- is why she cheated on him. Like really. Why? Well, here's the real issue: Maddie's answer to that question sucks so much that I'm not sure she can say it without losing him forever. She did it because she thought she could get away with it. She took her marriage for granted -- her husband's adulation rubbing the wrong way against her, "I'm not good enough; I'm a failure; I don't deserve to be cherished" self-narrative -- that her behavior looks a lot more like self-sabotage, than a plain reading suggests. Madelyn is right, the problem is with her. But I don't know if she realizes the extent of how her low self-esteem played a part in her betrayal. And for what it's worth, I do think that's what the therapist was getting at in their singular session -- just not very effectively. The main difference between Madelyn and I is that I've been to therapy, to a decidedly more effective end. But I get it. It's hard to accept love when you feel unlovable. And sometimes protecting that flawed sense of self makes a person do terrible, hurtful, stupid-ass things.

The show is stressing me out so much that I simply would not watch if I found it both incredibly upsetting AND incredible (beyond belief). My advice is genuine - stop watching if you think it's silly or ridiculous. Why would you stick with it, if you are not also entertained? I mean, right?? I realized last night that about 50% of the time I spend watching a S2 episode, it's with my jaw wide open. Like, holy crap...whoa...no....wtfffuuu-....o.....my...........gawwwd!! When Celeste slapped Marie Louise I almost fell off the couch. When Marie Louise came back with, "What do we call that? Foreplay?" my eyes nearly jumped out of their sockets and ran away screaming. She's too much. ML is toooooo much for me.

Boy, do I love a good Rectify crossover! Pickle makes a mean, mean trustee. Otherwise, this show is just extremely entertaining. My advice to people who are no longer enjoying it: stop watching. Because it's not worth the stress. Renata's chain link black cord sweater wins for freshest threads of the week. Looovvve.

But what is the rule if a therapist strongly suspects that one client/spouse is physically abusing the other one, and/or believes that the potential victim's life is in danger? (Edit: I see that you addressed this previously).

I think he's a cop. That's my pet theory, anyway. Please give a round of applause to Ziggy, who seems to actually understand Charlotte's intentions: Grown-ups lie sometimes to protect the ones they love. That kid gets it. Madeline, maybe, not so much.

(Despite the follow-up comment about hair lol) I would like to second the motion that, to a troubling extent, conversations about how these actresses look is starting to outweigh more substantive dialogue about performances and story -- which I do not care for.

I had to get up and leave the room a couple of times during this episode. I really felt my own emotions getting gnarled up in these characters' fictional lives -- which I suppose is the whole point of drama. But not to the extent that I'm muttering hot fury at Maryl Streep under my breath, as if Mary Louise is a real person who I genuinely loathe, for God's sake. Christ that woman is complicated and hateful. The technique Celeste's therapist uses to illicit self-compassion -- or at least the possibility of self-compassion, whether fully felt or not in that moment -- is expertly applied. It's often difficult for people who suffer from chronic low-self-worth and esteem to see themselves as deserving of love. Certainly, people who are in abusive relationships have a bleak self-image. So asking Celeste to do something as simple as to replace herself with a loved-one in the memory of an assault was shrewd and I think quite powerful to watch.

My husband and I are currently re-watching The Leftovers series, especially because of my utter dismissal of the first season. I have no great explanation for why I rejected the show at that time -- but I do remember being extremely frustrated by the nihilist cult and even more annoyed with the Holy Wayne sub-plot (I simply could not be bothered by emerging religions). Oh, I also did not care for the initial opening sequence. Something about it turned me waaaay off, I dunno why... So, during most of the first season episodes I wandered around our apartment and did various chores, while my (then) boyfriend was rapt with must-see, appointment television -- occasionally, he would beseech me to give The Leftovers another chance. I think the episode that reveals how Laurie used to be Patti's therapist finally got me to sit down on the couch. We haven't reached that episode upon re-watch, yet. I'm looking forward to the whole thing. On a side note, I marvel at the shows that we were watching concurrently, between 2013 - 2015. Rectify, The Comeback (s.2), Parks and Rec, The Leftovers, Mad Men, (great) Game of Thrones, Hannibal (for God's sake!), TWD (the Terminus years) -- I mean, how is it possible? *Sigh* I can't wait for the new season of the Terror to premier. I'm afraid I'm breaking the re-watch seal on several shows that I intended to save for much later, in an effort to stay sane.

Whatever your smart-device, you can search for it in the podcasts app. Chernobyl HBO.

It's kinda weird that anybody with a vested interest in the nuclear industry would feel remotely threatened by this series. I never once got the impression that Mazin is anti-nuclear. He frankly made no impression on me as anti-soviet, either. And in some strange way, I felt great relief when it seemed clear that Chernobyl would not be a smear campaign against either aspects -- on the contrary, I think the series at least pays heavy homage to Soviet culture, without being too pandering or delicate.

Okay, sorry, yes. I agree. I never saw any of the behind-the-scenes interviews, so I didn't know the director said that -- and it was an idiotic thing to say. And it makes me like the show less. Furthermore, I think I'll stop consuming media related to this series entirely, in the interest of preserving my overall high opinion of the show. Because the more I read (especially) the more the show gets ruined for me. Like, this article is super distressing and confusing -- it basically contradicts every "fact" that the miniseries presents about nuclear energy -- but I have no reason not to take this guy at his word: https://www.forbes.com/sites/michaelshellenberger/2019/06/06/why-hbos-chernobyl-gets-nuclear-so-wrong/#4581e164632f

I understand why you take issue with the director's comments about the pet liquidation, and I'm not trying to change your mind -- but did you also listen to the series podcast? Every episode has like an hour long interview component, between some NPR guy (I forget his name) and the series creator/writer. He speaks in much greater detail about each episode, compared to what he says in those behind-the-scenes segments. I have no expectation that you will get a different impression of that particular episode or even of him, but if you're simply interested in knowing more about Mazin's process while making Chernobyl, it's worth a go. I thought it was pretty cool.

Wow https://news.avclub.com/russia-hates-hbos-chernobyl-vows-to-make-its-own-serie-1835298424

😂 ..yyyaaa. i kinda couldn't believe what i was reading, so i had to see if he had like anything positive to say about the series (he didn't).

I was pretty indignant/incredulous when I read this New York Times article, effectively skewering the series. Hale's closing paragraph is perhaps the least professional thing I have ever heard/read a professional critic say -- that someone other than the artist who created the art should have created it. How rude.