DianeDobbler

Fifty Shades of Grey got horrible reviews. Justifiably, IMO, from the one excerpt I've seen, and it didn't hurt sales. If a book is poorly written but is lowest common denominator enough on elements with wide appeal, it could take off anyway.

I'm not surprised Rebecca hit it off with Paula's dad. She hits it off with everybody. She is at home wherever she goes. A reviewer said this about Midge in "Marvellous Mrs. Maisel." but with Midge it comes from unquestioned confidence plus curiosity, IMO. Rebecca meets people at their own level always, shares herself easily, takes a real interest in whatever her surroundings may be, and despite her awareness of the academic hierarchy, isn't a snob. Not sure it was about a parental thing but more like Rebecca herself has some low brow humor and is pretty earthy, so she and the dad could find common ground pretty quickly. Yeah, the song was about her and a no-risk parental figure, but he could have been a dude squatting in the shed out back and I think things would have evolved the same way. I agree - the show has told us a bunch of times that Paula is pretty checked out at home. What I've seen this season and part of last is Scott really being an equal partner but Paula not quite getting it yet, although she's shown appreciation when she wakes up enough to be in the moment with them. I'm kind of surprised her legal studies didn't help her out of her fantasy life more. Obviously she has an aptitude, obviously she's a successful law student, and she already has client rapport, as we learned when she decided to be out sick and go to the client time share. I always felt she retreated to escapism because her intellect and her talent weren't being used, but now that there's an outlet in law school, I didn't think she'd still be as escapist as she is. I also feel like I've seen her and Scott re-set their relationship and really finally appreciate it at least half a dozen times already.

I definitely think Josh's name not in the title is a turning point. Her obsession is over. I agree that this episode did remind us of Josh's personality - that he commits 100% to whatever it is and will turn out to be good at it. OTOH what he was in the beginning was a "nice guy" who was warm, good at a bunch of stuff even if that stuff hadn't yet shown a career path (sports, dance, martial arts, computer tech, coaching kids, social media). He had emotional intelligence in social situations such as Rebecca's party when she was new to town, and how he facilitated things at the Scarsdale wedding. He was also evasive emotionally, the kind of guy who, when he gave his attention, made both Valencia and Rebecca feel like glitter was exploding inside, but when they reached out to hold it, they were always left feeling that they kind of missed the last tread on a staircase. When he was dating Anna, he did that silly modeling gig in the club. That seems like a Josh thing - sure I'll model ! - and he needed the boost, but now when they write for him he's much stupider than he started out being. Stupid and immature aren't synonymous. I agree it felt way more sitcom-y. This episode didn't have much in it. After all the promo and build up for the penis song, the story backing it up wasn't much - and I'm not sure of the point, either. I guess to snap Paula out of her escapism tendencies. The sexting felt like Jane the Virgin. In fact, the entire Nathaniel/Rebecca segment felt like it was lifted straight out of JTV when JTV gets "romantic". I thought Rebecca's "one step forward, two steps back" arc was going to be more than a one liner joke at the end when she rattled off all she'd done to her therapist. I get that Paula has been a household drudge, but I also think the show has shown us that Scott has really stepped up since the cheating. The family is different now than it was when they sat around the Thanksgiving table feeling indifferent and staring at their mobile devices. I think Scott is way more of an equal partner than he was when we met them, and his feeling now is, well, is Paula on board or not? I take it on face value that her pancake efforts came after a period of not really being present for her family. I don't mean not doing the chores, but just not being there or showing interest. Meantime Scott has been trying to create family routines where they spend time together. I like that he told her how he felt without doing the "built up anger" that's such a trope. And I like that they were relaxed and sweet when she told him she'd pick him over everyone but Highlander Brad Pitt. :)

They are doing a seriously romantic overlay with Nathanial / Rebecca. It's mixed messages. Not only does Rebecca only pay lip service to "I shouldn't be in a relationship" but so does the show, while, IMO, encouraging us to want one with her and Nathanial. In the past I've always seen clearly that what Rebecca thinks is going on is not what is actually going on, but in this episode I think the show runners didn't walk the talk. "The First Penis I Saw" was the highlight, and it came in the first 10 minutes of the show.

Ottermommy, me agreeing w/you all day long about every Joel scenario. As far as casting, I think he's supposed to be the boy next door but also very charming, a combination that makes not conventionally hunky guys hot. But the charm here is missing. I think they tried to show their early rapport, that he "got" Midge - enjoyed her hiring the chorus boys, they did some adventurous stuff together - going downtown to a strip club, I think, having sex outside under a tree, etc., having sex in the coffee shop bathroom. That he could "hang" with her and not get left behind. Didn't really buy it, though. Rewatching this episode, I can't remember the last time I've watched a scene as effortlessly acted and perfectly pitched as the phone conversation. Midge's career is supposedly in tatters, AND they're both hungover, AND on the phone, Suzie is being doom and gloom. But the emotional pitch is absolutely perfect vis a vis the weight of the disaster of the night before. It's not overweighted. It has the right degree of lightness. Sometimes shows just make a big drama out of things that fail, and you want to say, come on. It's just a party. Or, ok, so your plan to win over your professor bombed, get some perspective! Suzy and Midge were both very engaged in their conversation, both very focused on the write-ups Suzy was reading, but also sufficiently relaxed about it that you know, what happened here? Under an assumed name, both Suzy and Midge ran afoul of an influential talent manager and are getting knocked around in the entertainment press in a not terrible way. So it's important, but it's not earth shattering, and yet everybody is invested enough to want it to work out. The only thing I thought was overblown was the shock all of the papers seemed to feel that "Amanda Gleason" went after Sophie Lennon. Sophie Lennon has been, we're told, around for over 20 years - other entertainers would have taken a shot or two at her before, it happens to everyone. Also think they'd have focused more on her being funny as much as "oh her career is over!" Just as a MMV thing, I think Midge is very funny in the story telling stand up way. I think she's a fabulous storytelling stand-up, and her first stand-up was classic. I totally believe people listening to it and going, "Who IS this?" and "I love this part." It had rhythm. It had timing and impact.

Actually I'd agree with this - Midge seemed more bemused than angry when she left, but when she takes the stage she needs to vent. I can wank it that it took time for her to process her visit with Sophie and the anger came once that happened. The Sophie scenes were flat - maybe it was the script. The script was just exposition really, every line Sophie had there to show her as a cartoonishly posh person, but Lynch's performance was extremely stiff. What I got from that was that was her idea of what the opposite of Sophie would be, but there was no more to it, and it felt off. I also think it was flat because they went overkill on how rich and refined she was, but it sort of played as pandering - that this is what they think the audience's idea of the opposite of Sophie would be, or what we think rich people are like, so let's do that. So it felt fake.

Agree with most of this. As the show got underway, I thought omg, REALLY? We are spending all this time with the parents AND Joel? At least one reviewer mentioned that's the feedback they're getting from viewers - way too much on the Upper West Side characters and Joel, not enough on Suzy and Midge. The show runners have affirmed that it's not a show about Midge/Suzy but it's ALSO just as much about the parents and Joel. To that I say, FEH. I agree that we're supposed to be conflicted about Joel. The tell is air time. If a character is getting a lot of air time for their point of view, given their own supporting characters to support their story, gets lots of close-ups to show their emotions - this is a character we're supposed to care about and invest in, and I simply don't about Joel. I think Luke Kirby as Lenny Bruce as 1/16th the air time and yet makes a thousand times the impact. It helps that Lenny is part of the stand up story, which is the part of the show that really works.

I don't know, I base it off how much air time all Joel's stuff gets, and how much time we get with him. We're supposed to invest, I think. It's not just to give us information or status. I was reading some reviews and one reviewer reported that many viewers thought there was too much uptown, not enough downtown, and the unresolved nature of Joel and Midge was a snooze. AND another review said she had way more chemistry with Luke Kirby (Lenny Bruce). Obviously and thank heaven the central relationship is Midge and Suzy, and I'd be really happy if they dialed back a lot on the other characters, who repeat themselves, particularly Midge's family. No, it wasn't wise to throw Sophie under the bus and both Midge and Suzy knew that, but it happened. Amy Palladrino said that Rachel Brosnahan gave the audition that showed a lot of stand up comes from being pissed off, and Midge left Sophie's feeling pissed off. IMO Sophie was ridiculous - the off-stage part of her character didn't come off, IMO, but within the show, Midge was pissed. Very convenient that Midge spent most of the first season not using her real name. Really disliked Jane Lynch's work in this. On stage she was fine, off stage it didn't work, although of course I got the point being made. I just didn't believe that woman.

It's not my experience that everyone who is truly funny is using it as a coping mechanism for pain. I know some really funny people. MMV of course, but I don't think Midge needs a thing. I think she's quick, extremely observant, and very confident, and has a terrific sense of the absurd.

I think we're supposed to like Joel because we see flashbacks of what I am sure is supposed to be his charming, appreciative, wonderful self. And then he's a shit, but I don't know that the show weights some of the things he does the way the audience does. For example, him bailing on Midge and leaving home the night before that huge dinner. It was dramatic, she complained about it, but I don't know if we were supposed to see him as being quite the level of asshole he was with that. I think we were supposed to see him as a miserable mid-life crisis guy. We see him all "noble" telling Abe he's stepped up at work and is going to pay for Midge's home, the kids best possible schooling, travel, etc. etc., leaving nothing for himself. And finally, while we see him pissed and upset when he watches Midge's set, he also punches out the guy who heckled her. I'm way to used to seeing a guy like Joel and thinking - well HE's a loser, and finding out the show runner thinks we're supposed to weigh all the martyr and appealing stuff just as much or even more. I think we're supposed to believe the "great guy" we see in flashbacks (who is supposed to be great) is just going through a miserable time right now. Believe me I would love love love to be wrong, but I think the show IS playing "Maybe these two crazy kids can get back together - maybe their stars will align. Look how good they were together and look at all the good that is still in Joel. He is crazy about Midge!" I agree it would be nice if she had a partner - a romantic partner - to ground her, but maybe not right away. And please not Joel. I, too, love the guy who plays Lenny Bruce, and that is the one character who should not work, given Bruce's iconic status. I imagine a bunch of people who are super familiar with his work either because they saw it or studied it don't think this guy lives up to Bruce (one reviewer didn't think so), but in the world of the show he's my favorite man and I'm always happy when he shows up. Almost wish he were playing a successful comic that the show invented, so he could get together with Midge at some point. Joel is just exhausting. The show stops dead for me when he's on, and if the writers agreed he's that bad, he wouldn't get that much airtime. They want us invested in him.

Well, on the plus side, they haven't really hit a false note with Suzy/Midge's friendship. I was really pleased when, in the finale, it turned out Midge and Suzy were drinking their cares away after Midge went off the reservation in her stand-up for Harry. Suzy had obviously been distraught at being blackballed / getting on Harry's bad side, but when she told Harry "She's spontaneous." I could see Suzy got it, even if it wasn't in her best interests. It probably also helped that Midge's take down of Sophie Lennon was very funny, however un-pc at the time. I think this show gets stand-up right. I have a couple of friends in sketch comedy. One is hugely talented, the other less so, but super smart (hell, won Jeopardy at her one appearnce on it). AND I knew who Lou Black was before he got his Daily Show gig and became a big name. Someone I knew dated him, so, to support her, I went to see his gig. I thought he had a great persona, but blech material (a lot of aerobics jokes, long after aerobics were kind of dead). I even told her that. I said he has to get off his ass and get some material - this is shit. He has the delivery, the attitude, but the content sucks ass, and there wasn't really enough of it - he'd stretch stuff out past what the topic really had in it. SO ff a few years, and on a New Year's Eve I see him at the West Bank, and he's extremely funny. I emailed my friend "He was hilarious!" He'd totally switched and he landed on politics. Cultural shit wasn't his thing. Sure, occasionally he'd get a good joke about it like "Is milk good - or bad?" but really, the dude who is angry about how the world works is his THING. As soon as he landed on that, it was easy for him to get a "tight twenty" (his sets weren't ten - he was big enough to be twenty) instead of taking a "tight five" and stretching it to 20. Leslie Jones of SNL had some of the same problems. She had an incredible personality, delivery, timing - not enough material. That's always an argument, and I think there ISN'T an argument, you ALWAYS need material. You can't work the same five minutes amount of shit and, if you're big enough, stretch it to fifteen or whatever. Now that she's on SNL, she gets stuff written for her as well as stuff she does herself, and she can use her personality, delivery and timing to act (I love her commercials). Not such a burden to get stand-up content because she's expanded her role - she acts. She does sketch comedy. She does a lot of other people's material. So now she's getting bigger and bigger. I totally related to the tight ten. A lot of people pad their tight five to a tight ten, and so forth. But to have a truly legit tight ten is golden. You're going to be a star if you have that.

I thought the whole Sophia thing veered too much into a showcase for Jane Lynch, and I also thought Jane Lynch was not good as the "real" Sophie. She was far more believable as the stage Sophie, fat suit and head that didn't fit the body and all. I guess I could wank it that the real Sophie Lennon was far more patrician than the stage one (went to Harvard, etc.), but it felt fake as hell. I think it was poor acting - the first time I haven't liked Jane Lynch. Poor acting by a good actress, btw, that's different than poor acting by a bad actor. :) I agree that the show veers between wanting to be period and turning anachronistic. Imogene and Midge used the term "gender specific toys" at least three times, a phrase that didn't exist at the time. I felt they said it four times because the writers thought it was funny. "Fit" as a term for a job that works for both applicant and employer wasn't a thing back there either, and Mrs. Maisel used it for both Bell Labs and B. Altman. I have no problem with Midge turning on Sophie, nor with her running roughshod over her parents. She's a brilliant, driven women who, in the past, had used all of that drive towards goals her parents wanted for her. Now she's using it in another direction, and like many parents with children who are faster, quicker, more determined, more charming than they are, they're kind of helpless to stop her, and besides, she IS 26. I have thought that at many points the show was leading us towards her parents thinking Midge was working as some sort of high class call girl - the parties, the arrests, the way she muses out loud about what message her outfit sends. It's like setting up for a joke that the show then walks away from. I love watching old movies that go back much further than the 1950s. Films went through a period of being extremely liberated, and I don't believe the 1950s was any more natural to people than the period before. The whole repression of women was a reaction to, I think, both the Catholic church having an enormous influence on movies at the time, and the way the culture and corporations promoted women in the home after World War II, so they'd go home and leave the jobs to the men. I believe those that went to the Gaslight as an audience were probably a bit more in the vanguard than those listening to Sophie Lennon. Women talked and griped among themselves about the stuff Midge says on stage, and I think it was more in the culture than we think - after all, a rebellion is coming very soon (The Feminine Mystique, the 1960s). Midge is moving among those in the culture - including audiences - who will have had a big influence on what's to come.

Yeah, I'm right here - I don't like Joel. All the flashbacks supposedly show his best self, but I just think he's nowhere in Midge's league. Even when he was in a position to make a ton of money and was talking about how great she was, he was just not in his league. The guy playing Lenny Bruce IS, and effortlessly. Too bad he's playing Lenny Bruce - but I think a guy like that, laid back, confident, but appreciative of Midge, would be a better fit. I just read an interview and heard that the show runners consider the show to be about Midge's husband and her parents as much as about Midge, so forearmed is forewarned, I guess. I'm afraid of the show shoving Joel down our throats to force us to sympathize, so we'll get MORE material saying "FEEL for the guy!" - you know, gambits like when he was devastated over Midge's stand-up but still punched her heckler. I don't care. I don't care. He doesn't deliver.

The security clearance thing was a red herring, I guess. I thought- oh boy, Midge's stand-up is going to cost Abe the Bell Lab job - that's why the built it up so much. But nope, it was just one more thing Abe kind of found out about Midge and stuck in his mental bank, I guess, but never brought up to her directly. It was fun, though, that Abe was so excited about Bell Labs, although, as ever, I think that no matter what the show insists, this is Midge's story and we don't need full blown digressions into everybody else's lives, even if stars are playing the roles. IOW, sure, Bell Labs, but not as an "A" storyline. But better this than a big digression into Joel's life.

Well, I just love looking at the Manhattan stuff. The look and vibe of the Mrs. Maisel NYC stuck around for a long time but started vanishing after 2000 - NYC's corporate/generic transformation has accelerated since then. The only thing that threw me was I was positive the Gaslight was on Bleecker - that's the street it looked like every time the exterior was on camera. Then Joel bursts out of the Gaslight, punches that guy, I see the Washington Square Park arch down the street which means it's 5th Avenue, only it's running uptown for some reason and half the width it actually is. Oh well. And if only all of the women who worked at the make-up counters of NYC Department stores were all best friends, so happy in their jobs they danced, gossiped and frolicked in the break room. Love the apartments - the "bohemian" ones where the B. Altman crowd parties, the upper west side ones, and the places where Midge made the party circuit as a comic. For once, and because it's 1958, these are realistic. I've been in a million apartments like Midge's and her parents' place, apparently Suzy-type apartments are still around, and Joel's place with Penny, especially, was well done. Much smaller than where he came from, but the location of the bedroom just off the living room, the look of the lobby, and how everything was just a bit more downsized than below 96th Street was right. Talked to a friend who is a lawyer. She'd spent a lot of time hunting for an apartment in the Village. I told her about Suzy's apartment on this show, and how I figured they'd vanished, and she said "Oh no, we looked at SO many apartments that had murphy beds" and extremely cramped arrangements like that. But consider this - this is a lawyer with a rent budget many fathoms above what a Suzy could afford, and her realtor showed her places like Suzy's, until finally something with a better layout became available. So these days, a Suzy couldn't even afford her own dump. Also love the clothes, especially the stuff worn by Midge's mom.

I never really watched the Gilmore Girls - familiar with the landscape, but don't think I've watched a single full show. Everyone that reviewed Mrs. Maisel noted that it was from the Gilmore Girls creator, and let me in on what that meant. I didn't realize she had a particular style until after I saw the pilot, which I loved. I definitely saw the cute, overblown, huge coincidence and fantasy-based stuff later on. One fantasy based thing that was ok was Midge's absolutely WONDERFUL job at B. Altmann, which brought her an entirely new social set immediately, everybody loving everybody, throwing teeming, fun, bohemian parties. And boy is she lucky to have those grandparents as on-demand baby sitters! I just don't like Joel and I feel badly, because I see why we're supposed to, and the actor does a decent job, but he DOES do the sad sack a bit too much - or the script does. But dear God, the finale went full on A Star is Born. The entire episode I knew Joel and Midge would sleep together and I scrolled forward to confirm. YUP. And then stuff like Joel moping at the meeting and saying "I quit" just does the character no favors - he's undermining an entire family's financial security. I guess that's a Gilmore Girls thing - ignoring real world implications in order to deliver a peak character moment But, like others, I'm riveted by Midge's comedy world, I love Midge, I love love love Suzy, and I like how Midge's offhand friendship with Lenny Bruce (and giving him cab money back in the pilot) worked its way around to a pay off in the finale. Lenny Bruce should NOT work, but the actor has just great chemistry with Midge's character, with Suzy's character, and he pulls off that shambling kind of offhand smarts. Megan, Midge's bedroom right off the kitchen was probably meant to be a maid's room and for some reason she got it. Her parents' apartment certainly looks bigger than a one bedroom plus maid's room, but in these large upper west side pre-war apartments, the maid's room is common. There are also just weird layouts - sometimes a larger apartment has been broken up and that's where they land with the configuration.

Yes, I understand structure and pacing and am also familiar with theatrical conventions and plotting, and the rules of the same. And this is not pacing, this is lost focus that disintegrates into self-indulgence and star showcasing for its own sake (or filler). MMV of course! I don't need this much of Joel to know what he represents, I don't need an ENDLESS and poorly done execution of "her offstage persona is the exact opposite of her onstage!" to get the point. I think what they're doing is done badly.

IMO this show suffers from hiring "name" actors for secondary parts, and over-writing for them as star-service. Tony Shaloub is a good actor, nothing really justifies all the material for this character. Just because you get Wallace Shawn for a small role doesn't mean the scene he's got has to be three times as long as it needs to be simply because it's Wallace Shawn (and I admit when I heard his voice I thought - oh come on! Wallace Shawn?!). Finally and most of all I love Jane Lynch, but dear God. That huge interlude between Miriam and the "real" Sophie Lennon. Fine, she's a successful comedienne and has been for decades, but I'm not believing 2-3 butlers and four maids plus a couture wardrobe and massive residence. A movie star would go broke with that set up. I get it - look she's the exact opposite of Sophie! I don't think we need Kensington Palace to make that point, plus the voice and demeanor Jane Lynch affected was annoying. I got the point several years before the show was done with her. I didn't believe her for a second. She was an overstated idea, not a character. Anachronisms - was "fit", as in "I don't think this job is a good fit" a thing in 1958 or early 60s, whenever this was? Was "gender specific" a thing? Lastly as far as secondary characters - what is the point of Joel? Why do the violins come out when we see him, why are we meant to cheer (I guess) when he comes into his own at work? And that bit about - hey, I'm getting a raise and now I can afford Brearley, Collegiate, a 3-bedroom apartment in a doorman building, an extensive wardrobe, probably domestic help, plus Broadway shows was ridiculous. And yeah, I get it, it leaves very little for himself, but the whole thing didn't read as narrative but as "please love Joel and look he's a man because he can provide the lifestyle all of a sudden while being a martyr!" When we'd get flashbacks of Joel/Miriam in their happy days, I did get that we were supposed to see him as charming, nice, in love and fun, so we could see why Miriam married him in the first place. Then he had his early mid-life crisis and Miriam discovered stand-up. What is his point now? He's just part of the core cast because whatever? He needs all of this material of his own because why? Actually, "he/she needs all of this material because why?" is my big issue with the Marvellous Mrs. Maisel. The core narrative - Suzy, Miriam, and Miriam's progression as a stand-up is the stuff that works best. I enjoyed watching Miriam test drive jokes and timing. I was excited when she got her tight ten. I wanted to see her open for Sophie in New Jersey but I guess that's not happening. The central relationship is Suzy/Miriam (obviously) and the show plays its ups and downs like a romance in a way. I don't care so much about all of the other characters. They're fine and well cast as support, but the extensive amount of time spent on their own stories, or padding out the scenes just because a "star" is in the role just feels like the writers are giving some of these performers good stuff for their reel. Or because the writers are in love with their own cleverness, or had a cute idea, and push it in there just for that reason and no other. PS - I enjoy Marin Hinkle's Rose more than Tony Shaloub's Abe. I like how much the mother and daughter resemble each other, and WAY more than the outburst in temple, Rose's recital of the all-pureed dinner menu to the divorce lawyer plus her remark that his teeth will wonder what they're there for was hilarious and sort of gave an inside glimpse as to where Miriam got her timing.

I thought everything in this episode was overdone. For example, Midge and her friend in exercise class, chatting loudly in the front row, without their chatter ever being acknowledged by the instructor or the other participants. RIdiculous and very distracting. They also hammered home Joel's dad way too hard, IMO - I don't think we needed a thousand examples of his expansive personality in his garment center, nor at home. I thought the actress playing Shirley was great, though - made the most of everything she did without overplaying. And it was nice to see Midge's mom fleshed out, the shorthand with her and Midge, and that Midge's parents had a decent marriage. I figured Tony Shaloub didn't sign up for this thing to play the one note bore we saw in the pilot. Don't know what they're doing with Joel. They're sort of running down the middle - kind of romanticizing how they were and showing that Joel's not happy, but also showing Midge moving on. I'm surprised Joel continues to be a regular - not sure what we're supposed to make of that. Suzy and Midge are great.

Possibilities, I agree with everything you wrote. I can only critique some of the handling of the subsidiary characters who at times appear to be treading water for plot reasons. I think they showed us Nathaniel's family so we'd know why he was so accepting of Rebecca; however, I thought the portrayal of his family was beyond cliche'd with the martinis, the lamb for dinner, and don't dare say anything directly about anything, and also it didn't scan with Rebecca's situation as much as maybe the show runners thought it did. His mother's deal is nothing like Rebecca's other than the two of them having had an o.d. It doesn't explain why Rebecca's personality would resonate with Nathaniel and he'd be comfortable with it, as the show runners seemed to think it would based on a post-show interview.

I think it does the opposite. She's not crazy, zany, quirky. She has an illness. That's the point - behavior that society or the culture might call crazy in women or ascribe to their love life isn't. DrBriCi - obsession can also be a sign of OCD. Persistent thoughts in the patterns you describe, etc. It gets less attention than the kind of OCD people are more familiar with - rituals and stuff. I'm glad you brought that up, and we could definitely see it in Rebecca's wedding planning.

CEG has always been an overt deconstruction of that sort of show. Always. Said plainly by the show runners in every interview. There's the story Rebecca tells herself, which might be zany girl gets in scrapes, but the story the SHOW is telling us has always been different. The information has been in every episode. Not to mention it's called Crazy Ex Girlfriend for a reason. Bloom and Brosh have explicitly said it is NOT about a crazy, zany girl doing crazy, zany things. It's a send up of the trope that portrays women like that without examining what's beneath the behavior. Remember the show when Rebecca sent the text? Part of the episode was "zany", with the "Textmergency" song, but the episode ended with "Stupid Bitch." That was a dark, despairing song of self-loathing. Sample lyrics: You ruined everything You stupid, stupid bitch You're just a lying little bitch who ruins things And wants the world to burn Bitch You're a stupid bitch And lose some weight How can a show start off with a protogonist who is on tons of medication, suffering from insomnia, a horrible relationship with her mother, drinks to medicate herself, has a panic attack when offered a promotion, and on a chance meeting with an old boyfriend, upends her entire life to go to a meh town in California to pursue the guy? Bloom is a feminist, always has been, it informs her work, always has. The youtube video that interested Aline McKenna in Bloom in the first place was the dark Disney princess video, where the princess finds herself in a "real" middle ages town, with the real suffering, starvation, torture, etc. This is not a team that was going to start with that sort of premise in the premiere and then portray her escaping to West Covina as zany. Bloom and her writers have always, always critiqued that sort of idea through Rebecca. The show was always this. It was never a zany show they decided they'd turn dark. It uses comedy to address some serious ideas, but not nihilistic ones. Human ones, with hope. But it's showing us a more honest path towards hope. I also like that they're telling a long story here, with an arc. Not setting fixed personas for the characters and cycling them through situations. It's not, let's keep Rebecca's zany actions going until she finally figures out what guy she wants to be with. It's never been that. I think once she's better she has a lot of stuff she has to figure out, including whether she wants to continue being a lawyer (I think the show has told us numerous times that she was kind of railroaded into that profession, and Bloom herself has said it's not a good fit for Rebecca.) That said, I do agree that some of the secondary characters have suffered. Josh was never a wiz kid but I think some of the dumb jokes have been cheap. He was not a dumb ass. They've regressed Paula without explaining it. I agree Darryl could use a refresh. I think they've chosen a way to write for Nathaniel that works, but his mom and Rebecca are completely different personalities, so I don't see why Rebecca would resonate with him based on that, pills or no pills. The way the two women expressed their problems was opposite. One was completely inexpressive and withheld, the other all over the place.

Thank you for this thread. I'm really pleased with how CEG has progressed. I expected it to get here. They could have played her rock bottom for farce or for drama, but they played it honestly and accomplished elements of both. I've often re-watched the very first episode. It accomplishes so much - shows us her life in NYC, her history with Josh ("You awakened my sexual being for the first time"), her relationship with her mother, her meeting Josh again, relocating to West Covina, dumping a boatload of medication down the garbage disposal, meeting Greg and almost hooking up with him, starting work at Whitefeather, meeting and ultimately becoming friends with Paula. We also saw that her apartment appeared unfurnished except for the large bed, and when she moved to West Covina there weren't a lot of personal touches she set up either. Her insomnia carried over to West Covina, and so did her wine drinking. Nothing wrong with that, but when she's sad, we've seen her up late at night with the wine. There is no question that Rebecca's move to West Covina was crazy. We know what storyline Rebecca is telling HERSELF, but that is not the story the show is telling us. The show was always telling us the story we're getting now. It's just a beat, anyway, and we'll progress, and the tone will shift again. When we rewatch, we see over and over that this girl is not well. This is partly why the character of Greg bothered me (along with the performance). I like how CEG can be sad and funny at the same time. The Josh Groban song is a case in point - it was genuine and earnest, but also hilarious with how Josh Groban was really rubbing it in that you just don't sleep with your ex-boyfriend's dad. And sad because Rebecca's face was so helpless.

Yes, I agree with those who don't think the show has changed, who see this is as an earned evolution. Rebecca was a hollow-eyed mess when we met her, an insomniac who disassociated and damn near hallucinated when offered a partnership, was near-literally choking on it, and saw a lifeline in Josh Chan. As Aline Bosh McKenna said, she's been tumbling down and sort of grabbing onto branches and shrubs along the way. We learned in the very first episode that she'd had a suicide attempt, and we saw her pouring what seemed to be the contents of almost half a dozen bottles of pills into her garbage disposal. We've also seen that she knocks back the wine when she's miserable. The show isn't without flaws, but I'm finding most of them in listening to the show runners versus what I actually see on screen, although I think there are issues with Paula on screen. I think in the first season she had to set up boundaries between herself and Rebecca, and in this past episode she is worse than she's ever been, without us even knowing why or seeing her fall back. I mean, at least have her husband remark that he thought she was going to put some distance, and let's see how Paula reacts to that. The other thing is Brosh McKenna said we'd be exploring Josh, that he'd be finding out who he is, because he's defined himself by being the romantic object of this incredible, charismatic woman (who is out of his league, she implies). I disagree. The show has defined him that way and hasn't let us get to know him very well outside it, but he certainly hasn't defined himself that way. He's spent a very limited amount of time on Crazy Ex Girlfriend aware of the extent of Rebecca's obsession with him. If he defined himself via Rebecca, he'd have gone through with the wedding. He ran for dear life. Prior to that he told Father Brah it had to work because "It's the only thing going on in my life right now." But that's not the same thing. Anyway. Actually the only time Crazy Ex Girlfriend has ever made me ask "WTF" was when a homeless woman asked Rebecca for some money and she said, "I only have 20s. Which I got by WORKING." I was - oh, we're that type of show. Maybe it's not for me. But then they never cycled back to that angle of Rebecca, who has never seemed the type to say something like that (I'd love to have a more general discussion of the show but don't see a general discussion thread!)