[S03.E01: The Great War and Modern Memory / S03.E02: Kiss Tomorrow Goodbye]

7 hours ago, WaltersHair said:

When I as very young, I used to work at a craft store in the 80's and those corn husk dolls are spot on. The dolls came as basic models and then you purchased the craft books to make them into whatever seasonal item was appropriate. Gave me the shivers to go back to that time in my head.

“Nan Dolls.”  I’m from the Ozarks, those were very hot when I was a kid.  Mainstay of middle class decorating!

 

So I’m guessing the uncle drilled the closet peephole to the girl’s room?  

[S04.E02: Do No Harm]

I fell asleep during last week’s ep and didn’t feel compelled to re-watch, and I stopped watching this one. I’m disappointed that we’re back to Claire-getting-threatened, Jamie-getting-beaten, general torture porn from seasons past. Despite the purported stakes, Claire doesn’t mind mouthing off at/offending their only ally/family on the continent.  Lather, rinse, repeat, but this time in “North Carolina.”  

 

Also, Jamie’s bangs are terribles. 

[S01.E08: Milk]

21 minutes ago, Schmolioot said:

That interview with Flynn is obnoxious. She even admits that they didn’t really leave any clues that you’d notice in rewatch and then said that she consulted with people on the “physics” of Amma being able to commit the murders. 

Please

You mean the physics of the girl who we abruptly and suddenly learned was being poisoned and an invalid killing someone her own size, pulling teeth, and transporting the bodies?  Which is it, show?  I agree, the “physics” research is dumb. 

[S01.E07: Falling]

1 minute ago, Schmolioot said:

Camille may not have intended to have sex with him but she gave him some horrible advice that led them to that hotel room where it probably became inevitable.

She told him that he shouldn’t turn himself in drunk so he should hide out at the hotel until he sobered up. Sounds reasonable enough, but all he really needs to do is turn himself in and ask for a lawyer. Then the problem is solved. Maybe she just saw a kindred spirit or something and wanted to help, but it was horrible advice that ultimately put them both in a bad spot.

Then again, this same woman was in a weird, creepy and near sexual situation with her 13 year old sister less than 24 hours earlier so this is a consistent problem for her

Im starting to think Camille has some really deep psychological issues she needs to work on lol

I wanted Camille to tell John as they led him away in handcuffs not to say anything without a lawyer!!!

[S01.E07: Falling]

11 hours ago, Buttless said:

The double standard argument that a man who slept with a 18 year old would be gross, and so a woman should be too, is in bad faith. There  are power differentials already set up, thanks to our culture, that make these unequal comparisons from the start. At the root of why it's bad,  is a power differential between the partners, where someone is getting played; coerced; groomed. None of those things were at play in this story between Camille and John. She checked him in, gave him a bottle of water and told him to sleep it off. John was the one who initiated everything. And at 18, he is not too young to have sex. If youre worried about the law, the law OKed John to have sex too. Camille didnt lead John on. John didnt force Camille, or promise her anything ... the consternation and disgust over this point in the story is overwrought and irrelevant.

Not sure it is really an irrelevant point, as it’s engendered so much discussion.  I would respectfully disagree there are cultural power differentials that make it acceptable, say, for a 25 year old female teacher to sleep with an 18 year old senior, but unacceptable if the genders are flipped.  Camille may not be in a position of authority over John, but she’s old enough that I find her thing with John to be squiffy, regardless of their genders.  Mileage certainly may vary, of course. I see the John thing as just one more in a long line of bad decisions Camille has made since returning home, fueled by vodka, triggers, memories, and Mommy Dearest. 

[S01.E07: Falling]

It always bugged me that for someone so “overprotective” and controlling as Adora, she and her husband take apparently no steps to ensure Anna does not sneak out, given there’s a killer on the loose. That mansion doesn’t have an alarm?  Dad can’t sleep on the couch to make sure she isn’t creeping down the stairs (lord knows he ain’t in Adora’s room)?

 

But, I guess it makes some weird sense, if Adora has some MBP thing going on, or Camille’s vision her mom is involved in the murders is true, that Adora would not be that concerned so as to actually take some basic steps to avoid teenage sneaking out of the house!

[S01.E07: Falling]

2 hours ago, peach said:

I thought it had to cross state lines for the feds to get involved, but I'm just guessing.  Like you said, they would just take over the case anyway, and he's just a "Kansas City detective." It's just TV dumb.  And if they wanted a major case squad person, they would get one from St Louis.  This whole scenario was why I hated Three Billboards In Ebbing Missouri, just a sort of inexplicably sized town with no discernible leadership.  Seems like a Missouri problem of some sort.  lol

KC (or the majority of it) is in Missouri.  Now, since this is clearly filmed nowhere in Missouri, let alone the bootheel where this is supposed to be...

You’re right though that St. Louis would be closer. 

 

Quote

She has to take responsibility for her behavior and decisions. She’s an adult. She knows it’s not right to have sex with the HS kid who is wanted for murder.

Yeah, she’s had a shitty life and she needs help. That doesn’t mean you can do whatever you want consequence free. Same goes for Amma too.

Agreed. I guess this is why the age thing bugs me a bit. 40-year old Camille probably should have figured out a way to function in a way that doesn’t require constant intoxication.  CHILDREN SKATE ON THOSE ROADS LIKE IT IS XANADU!!!

[S01.E07: Falling]

2 hours ago, Empress1 said:

I remember the kerfuffle when Adams played Lois Lane and people were saying she was too old (I think she was 35). Others pointed out that she was supposed to be a Pulitzer-Prize-winning journalist, and that typically comes with age and experience - it would be LESS believable if they cast, like, Demi Lovato to play her and then had he

 

I don’t know if the source material provided an age for Camille. If so, and if it is “late 20s” as someone has suggested, I just think casting a well-known actress who is in her 40s changes things.  At that point, Camille has been away from home/Adora longer than she was at home.  I think that tells a different story than someone who is ten years or less out from under Adora’s thumb.  Both can be interesting, but they are different.  

[S01.E07: Falling]

3 hours ago, Buttless said:

Someone on an earlier thread mentioned that the actor who plays John had a body like a 30 year old. He definitely looks much older than 18.  I think this book and show could have done with a little scaling up of all the ages of the characters. It makes the viewer feel better to see Amy Adams with a n actor who is older than 18 (he's 23?), for sure (he even looks like he might be losing some hair up front?). But I dont think it's "gross" that Camille , who is supposed to be 28-29, is having sex with an 18 year old.  She's not taking advantage of him. The context makes sense. There's no weird power differential going on here, like you'd see with a 28-29 year old man and an 18 year old woman. And that's been portrayed in countless films over the years.

 

Amy Adams seems a bit old for her role, at 40ish, if Camille’s supposed to be in her late 20s.  She’s hardly a cub reporter, for one; I roll my eyes every time Curry calls her “cubby,” b/c she should be an established professional woman.  

 

Also so agree it’shard to see how she has cut words on her back.  

[S01.E07: Falling]

8 hours ago, Xantar said:

The plot of the series has turned out to be so overwrought that it's difficult to take seriously. Camille lost her sister, she went into a psychiatric hospital for self-harm where her roommate committed suicide, her mother is a murdering narcissist, and she was gang-raped in high school.

(And if I'm right, she's about to discover her little half-sister is also a murdering psychopath)

You could have picked any two of those and created a great story centered around a character dealing with those issues. When you put all of them together, it just looks like you're playing Trauma Conga Line. It's unnecessary and it stretches credulity that this woman is capable of doing anything as complex as investigating a crime and writing an article about it. 

And, with the quick flashback cuts and vague timeline, it’s super-hard to piece together what she’s remembering, what happened, when, and what’s real/imagined. I feel the show has waaaaay promoted style over content. Like, I got it already. Southern gothic vibe. Now, can you tell the story already?

[S01.E07: Falling]

24 minutes ago, jeansheridan said:

And until this ep, Amma looked pretty robust to me. 

Yeah, the show could have cut out 10% of the shots of Camille drinking and driving her way around town, and put in some foreshadowing of the Munchausen’s stuff before this ep.  Nothing indicated prior bouts of illness with Amma — nothing seen, no comments by the chatty folks of Wind Gap, etc. I’m not getting how Adora could have physically killed two teenage girls and hauled them around the woods and town, if that’s the turn this is taking. 

[S03.E01: The Battle Joined]

4 hours ago, cardigirl said:

Pushing the agenda is how I felt about a Harvard professor tsk-tsking at Claire reading an article from the Globe.  

Harvard, that famed bastion of Republicanism... (sarcasm)

[S03.E01: The Battle Joined]

2 hours ago, Petunia846 said:

Totally agree. Tobias is a good actor...okay, I get it. I don't need the roles of either BJR or Frank expanded or "deepened" just because they like giving him work. I thought it was super gross the way BJ's body eventually rolled partway off Jamie and then it looked like they were embracing in bed. I know Jamie was really out of it, but I don't see him just lying there with BJ's dead body on top of him or next to him. And wouldn't the British who were walking around have seen BJ's red coat and come collect his body for a respectable funeral? Sam's acting was great in those scenes, but I was distracted by all of those things.

It will be interesting to see how/if the show will keep audience interest by having so much focus on characters and events other than the central Claire-Jamie relationship.  I agree... I don't think the show really needs MORE Frank.  For those of us who haven't read all the books, Frank holds very little interest.  

 

The show seems at times to play what happened between Jamie and Jack as a variant on  coerced/reluctant consent.  That is an awfully hard thing to pull off, and do so in a way that is thoughtful and respectful, rather than exploitative,  dumb, and trashy romance novelish (the maiden kidnapped by pirates! the forced marriage to a hunky, be-kilted Scot because of fake laws!).  I don't see any more "connection" Jamie has for Jack than Mary has for her rapist.  And I bristle at that concept that a rape survivor is forever bonded with his or her rapist.  I'm just glad Jack's  dead now, finally (hopefully), so I can quit having to see him leer and grunt at Jamie, and see the show manufacture reasons why that continues to happen.

[S03.E01: The Battle Joined]

53 minutes ago, FnkyChkn34 said:

That was after the part I'm talking about. When they first see each other across the field; they are still dozens of yards away from each other.  That's when it went all slow and the lighting changed. So ridiculous, imo, I thought they were going to run towards each other like lovers in a field of wildflowers... The speed and lighting changed back to normal as they approached each other. I want to watch it again to confirm, but that's my recollection. 

I find it kinda gross how the show continues to try to emphasize a special connection between Jamie and Jack, like they have a "thing," rather than the reality.  I just don't think it's artsy or clever or whatever they're going for to portray rape survivor and rapist in that way.  

[S01.E07: You Get What You Need]

22 minutes ago, gingerella said:

does nobody else find it bizarre and incongruous that immediately after finding out that celeste's son Max was physically abusing her daughter, Renata is letting Amabella frolics on the beach with Max, her child's abuser? Yeah, this ending was just ridiculously unrealistic to me.

I think the supposition is this was several weeks later, and it was Perry's influence and example that was leading to Max's misbehavior. So, his death, and the therapy I'm sure Celeste is giving him, is probably ameliorating things.  Plus, the adult:child ratio on the beach was 5:6, unlikely Amabella's at any risk.  

[S01.E07: You Get What You Need]

18 minutes ago, lovinbob said:

How were Celeste and Jane in the same dress? They both wore black, but I thought jane's was cocktail length and A-line/flared, while Celeste's was floor length and slinky. 

I think they were both attempting to replicate the opening scene of BAT.  Jane's was more budget (i.e., a black cocktail dress) than Celeste's floor length evening gown.  I did get a kick out of the expert updo Celeste managed to do herself.

[S01.E07: You Get What You Need]

12 minutes ago, CleoCaesar said:

The nuance in the domestic violence storyline came from Celeste's simultaneous fear and love for the man, and the reasons why such a beautiful, smart, successful woman would stay with a violent loser like that.

I think there can also be nuance in the etiology and psychology of the abuser.  Not an excuse -- there is no excuse -- but that's not something I think I've ever really seen portrayed.  Abusers aren't necessarily hatched from the Villain Central Casting.  They typically evolve and escalate, as does the abuse they mete out.  I guess Perry is just a multifarious felon. 

[S01.E07: You Get What You Need]

2 minutes ago, susannot said:

So Perry thought he could fight off 5 women and still brutalize and kill his wife.  There is no doubt in my mind that he was trying to, and would have, killed Celeste in front of witnesses.  It is possible that he thought those witnesses were worthless, because they were women.  Or it is just that he was insane with rage.

I have to think insane with rage.  I mean, obviously Renata Klein, CEO of GoogleYahooAmazonApple is not worthless or inconsequential.  The police will listen to her. That's also why it's a bit hoky the women would think they'd have to lie -- they'd have the best attorneys in the Bay Area swarming the police station before you could say "double-broken urethra." It's not even clear Bonnie realized he was standing at the top of the stairs or how close he was, vs. just trying to push him off Celeste.

[S01.E07: You Get What You Need]

5 minutes ago, Xantar said:

Why exactly has that yellow police tape been on those stairs this while time? Did they ever actually say? 

I think I saw in one if the scenes of Madeline stomping up the stairs that there was some sort of crumbled spot on the steps

[S01.E07: You Get What You Need]

3 minutes ago, mochamajesty said:

I totally missed this. What makes you draw this conclusion?

Just sounded like something an engineering-type person would say.  I can't imagine it came from a friend of hers or "CHasm" Nathan.  

[S01.E07: You Get What You Need]

So I take it Ed was the one who convinced Abby not to launch her site due to the focus-pulling of her "methodology?"

[S01.E07: You Get What You Need]

6 minutes ago, Eliz said:

My one gripe is that for a story that wants to say something about sexual violence, it seems like a weird message that all of it here comes from one guy. It's been nagging at me all week -- ever since last week's episode, it seemed pretty clear that Perry was Jane's attacker and was going to be the one to die (just because the last episode would have to be all the party scene, so there was no story time left for Jane to find some new character). Which -- his death is great, I'm all for it, but the fact that it also resolves Jane's story is way too tidy. For a story that seems to want to make a point about the reality and ubiquity of sexual violence, it's almost like a cop out to have only one man be responsible.

Or, as Eliz said, more eloquently!  I also think making Perry into a completely villainous abuser diminishes the nuance that up until this episode the show was presenting re: domestic violence.  I thought it was an interesting idea that Perry abuses Celeste to see how far he can push her, to prove she's not going to leave him in some weird, psychologically effed up (that's a technical term) way.

[S01.E07: You Get What You Need]

3 minutes ago, dhilde85 said:

Why did Celeste have plastic gloves on when she was at the apartment?

I was thinking she got a manicure for the gala, and wanted to keep it from getting messed up while cleaning.

Sort of disappointed that Perry ended up the rapist.  A little much.

[S01.E05: Once Bitten]

4 hours ago, nara said:

I think that's possibly a real explanation of why she is able to live in that neighborhood and do nothing but run and drink coffee all day.

Ha!  Seriously, though, she comes across as trust-finder or parents-give-allowance, rather than struggling single mom.

[S01.E05: Once Bitten]

Quote

Does she? I know Renata does but I don't remember seeing a Nanny and I have a hard time believing that Perry would let someone else into their house that frequently considering his abuse and need to control.

Yes, she does.  She was there when C and M met up for drinks one evening and gushed over Perry's sorry-about-the-closet roses.