DianeDobbler

I think Fellowes is simply not tipping his hand with Tom and Mary, while at the same time building an "it was obvious all along" or "you could see it coming" kind of thing. See it coming not via conventional means, but by showing that they're a team, each other's confidentes, etc. Romantic foreshadowing such as close-ups and lingering shots would give the game away. I had a different read. Mary's been snarky about Edith's attachment to Marigold, painting it as pathetic, although in this episode the couple of (non-Marigold) shots Mary took at Edith lacked all sting, and could not have shown less conviction. More like going through the motions, because expected. Even Edith seemed bemused, unruffled. If, as Mary has to suspect, Edith is actually Marigold's mother, then Edith's attachment to the child is anything but pathetic (not that it would have been pathetic otherwise, but I mean in Mary's eyes). Instead Edith is a woman who took a big risk to have her child, and managed to get the household on her team so she could keep her daughter with her. In that context "of course you are" is a rueful compliment; Mary acknowledging something in Edith, and seeing it in a new light, something different from Mary, something that Mary respects. The Marigold piece sort of capped something that's been evolving in Edith. Dial back a few seasons, and if Edith were meeting a man, she'd have probably insisted it was a date or implied it was, while Mary and Robert rolled their eyes, thinking the pathetic thing was deluded. Now Robert's eyes spark up when Edith mentions her appointment with her friend, and Edith is playing it down in a very Mary-like manner. Edith has a lot more assurance and confidence, she doesn't need to insecurely insist that men find her attractive, and because she doesn't, Robert is now capable of believing men do. I think finding out about Marigold just brought home to Mary how far Edith has come from the sister she thought she knew. It's been really obvious for quite some time that Tom is the person Mary respects most of her entire circle, the person in whom she has the most confidence, and almost the only person with whom she really feels at home. There isn't a lot of romantic chemistry, but there's actor chemistry; they do feel like family. Tom fits in. I don't think Fellowes is after telling the story of a great romance, as he did with Matthew and Mary. It doesn't mean we won't be meant to believe there IS (or at least accept there is), in terms of the saga of Downton, when all is said and done, but that's not the part of the story he's focused upon, as he did with Matthew/Mary. I believe Fellowes hoped to capture the romantic excitement of Mary and Matthew in S5, setting it up at the end of S4, and he completely failed. Dockery is just not sparking with these guys, or maybe it's the casting of the guys. I don't think any have had real charisma. As soon as they're off camera, I forget them, including this current guy. But, I think his vision of the show includes Mary married, happily or contentedly so, and running Downton. With how Fellowes has structured Tom and Mary, any husband other than Tom would be a third wheel in the Mary-and-Downton scenario, because Tom's in the husband spot. He's integral, both at Downton and in Mary's life. You know how in the Harry Potter series, and as annoying as it was, Harry and Hermoine both married Weaslys, so everybody was together forever? Neither Ginny/Harry nor Ron/Hermoine were exciting in themselves, IMO, but the prevailing idea was the three muskateers would never be separated; they'd be family for eternity. Marriage to Mary would cement the position Tom already occupies at Downton, it would resolve his romantic future (at the present time he has absolutely none if it's not going to be Mary), it would resolve her romantic future, and it would make step-siblings of cousins Sibbie and George, giving Sibbie a new mom and George a new dad. All very neat. I think Fellowes would have preferred Matthew/Mary Part 2 with, say, Charles Blake, and Sybil/Tom Part 2 with Tom/Rose, but when Mary face-planted with the new love interests, Tom's other options were hustled off and shut down and he was held in reserve for her as the only "satisfying" alternative Fellowes could think of if he couldn't recreate the excitement the audience had for Matthew/Mary. Mary IS the show to him.

Yes. Always meant to say that. The actor is terrific. I clocked that line as well - "You move in here with me, Daisy" and how it's nothing but fatherly. He steers completely clear of any neediness. I recall a few seasons back he had a speech about his kids all being dead, and was sort of pitching to Daisy about being a surrogate daughter, so he had somebody to pray for. It was simply genuine, intelligent, heartfelt, and not the least emotional blackmail-y or icky.

Really good episode, all the way through, for almost all of the characters. I'm sure I've shoved some things aside but they didn't stick. I think Mary/Tom are as good as a done deal. She has next to no scenes with her supposed new love interest. I think after Fellowes tossed three suitors at her that previous season and it completely laid an egg, it was a done deal to marry Rose off in haste (who I DO think was set for Tom) and hustle her off the show, and then Tom/Mary are the Finale. I don't imagine there will be a declaration til the ultimate episode. She has said she doesn't want to be grander or richer than her husband, but Tom is a different case. He's family, and will be co-running the estate with her. It's really not uncommon among that set for a sister to marry a deceased sister's husband. In a contemporary show it might be annoying, but I think it was really common among the aristocracy. Tom and Mary have the sort of chemistry where one can imagine they've been married quite some time, versus that amped up romantic chemistry, but it's believable. I can see the show finessing the declaration of affections so it sells. I doubt it's going to be a drawn out thing - more a "finale" sort of quick thing that appears inevitable in retrospect. The odd thing is that she and Tom are far more harmonious when it comes to Downton than she and Matthew were, or maybe it's that Tom is unflappable and uses humor, whereas she'd get under Matthew's skin. Tom also knows how to inject tact into situations to help smooth Mary's intentions along when she's quizzing somebody. Loved the ulcer mess - directed really well. They pulled that one off - very dramatic, really worked. Still, Hugh Bonneville still comes across as merely middle-aged - too young too have the youngER folks take over. He's in his prime. When Mary overheard about Marigold, my impression, from how Dockery played it and seemed to be directed, was that she suspected the truth, and if she does, then Edith runs far deeper and is much stronger than Mary ever suspected, and it takes Mary aback. That's what I got from her. As well, Edith is off with her own life, not hanging round looking for validation. I think the respect her father is FINALLY showing her, that is genuine and consistent, is a terrific development. Fellowes has certainly rubbished his almost knee-jerk slagging off on Edith. In past seasons even when he sort of gave her a few wins, he couldn't help emphasizing she was much the second best. Here, Edith has definitely been given an A+, varsity love interest. In the past, with Gregson, I felt that, while they loved each other, he was absolutely a "B" story type guy, a bit older, not dashing. Bertie is Mary-calibre in the suitor department. He's funny, he's sophisticated, and since he knows the apartment belonged to Michael, I imagine that when the Marigold situation is revealed, he won't fall over in shock. Remember when whatisname knew that Gillingham and Mary had had sex - it happens. It's funny how Dockery is the female lead, but Carmichael has more natural chemistry with more men on the show, IMO. She had chemistry with Dan Stevens as well, chemistry with Allen Leech, chemistry with most people you put her with. Edith seems comfortable in her skin, sure of herself in her life, not envious of Mary's entitlements. She's very confident with the asking Bertie to the apartment for a drink. Also liked Thomas offering to teach Andy to read, and Thomas in general seeming to have come a long way in the loyalty he gets from others. He HAS been there forever. It would be a little much to have everybody side eyeing him still after twelve years.

I bailed on Downton when they married off Rose so hastily. At the time, and especially in retrospect, it appears to me that was the writing on the wall for Mary and Tom to happen. Mary is the show to Fellowes, and the rest is more or less filler. They threw a number of men at her and nobody really clicked. I think casting could have done a better job, or maybe it's just that the actors who have all the qualities needed to become the younger male lead (symbolically anyway - the real male lead is Hugh Bonneville) are busy working elsewhere. Allen Leech is really the only one whose character has the requisite masculinity, humor, history, rapport. Anyway I have caught up and more or less enjoyed this episode. Some of the dialogue is *really* strained, particularly the "witticisms" they shovel into Violet's mouth. I really like Edith's new man, I like the atmosphere at the magazine, and like that Edith's secretary comes right in to pitch in. One can see Edith opening a path for her to become a newspaperwoman/journalist as well. It's disconcerting how many years have passed since the premiere and nobody has aged. Danker has the world's worst wig.

Probably my least-favorite episode of a show I binge-watched and mostly enjoyed a lot. Jane Krawkowski isn't 100% working for me as Jacqueline Vorhees - she's just too one-note, a la Jenna Maroney. You have to believe there's a person in there somewhere and I never do. Tituss Burgess, however, basically kills - I love him in the episode where he tells Kimmy that Cindy's boyfriend Brandon is gay. I agree about Jon Hamm. He's enthusiastic in comedy, there's been a couple of things he's done well on SNL, but also stuff on SNL where, if he weren't Jon Hamm, it wouldn't have been a really successful gig. I first saw Hamm on 30 Rock, not Mad Men, and nothing about him made me think oh, I can see why he'd be a big star on another show. You forget him as soon as he's off screen. Much as I look forward to S2, there's stuff I'd love dropped, namely, the triangle with Dong and Logan (both characters can go away) and Kimmy's dad. I can only take Jacqueline in small doses, but Carol Kane works a miracle by having some equally silly material - just relentlessly silly, to where it gets tiresome, and not getting on my nerves.

Probably my least-favorite episode of a show I binge-watched and mostly enjoyed a lot. Jane Krawkowski isn't 100% working for me as Jacqueline Vorhees - she's just too one-note, a la Jenna Maroney. You have to believe there's a person in there somewhere and I never do. Tituss Burgess, however, basically kills - I love him in the episode where he tells Kimmy that Cindy's boyfriend Brandon is gay. I agree about Jon Hamm. He's enthusiastic in comedy, there's been a couple of things he's done well on SNL, but also stuff on SNL where, if he weren't Jon Hamm, it wouldn't have been a really successful gig. I first saw Hamm on 30 Rock, not Mad Men, and nothing about him made me think oh, I can see why he'd be a big star on another show. You forget him as soon as he's off screen. Much as I look forward to S2, there's stuff I'd love dropped, namely, the triangle with Dong and Logan (both characters can go away) and Kimmy's dad. I can only take Jacqueline in small doses, but Carol Kane works a miracle by having some equally silly material - just relentlessly silly, to where it gets tiresome, and not getting on my nerves.

Really love these observations about Prepon's acting, CCstory. Prepon doesn't create a character-objective-driven through line - at all. She doesn't make connections, as you say. This absence of intention could work either way - make Alex come off like a sociopath, since there appears to be hardly any internal reflection/connection there, or make her not a sociopath, which is what I think we've got thanks to the stuff that Prepon does hit consistently. The affection for and warmth towards Schilling's Piper, not Alex's agenda (which Prepon doesn't play) becomes the character's through line, and the fact that Prepon's on screen persona seems genuine/immature, even when on paper it could be cagey/borderline. I agree that range can be overrated.

Ew, Red cried at Morello's wedding (couldn't bring myself to watch)?

Not strictly media, but thought I would report that this summer, and for the first time, I have seen Big Boo/Delaria impacting the (presumably) gay fashion styling in New York City. I've seen a couple of Delaria Mini Mes (not literal mini-mes, as Delaria herself is uber short), most of them looking as if they're a good 30 years younger than Delaria, but the influence on the hair, eyebrows, clothes - can't miss it. Actually looks kind of high maintenance clothes-wise, since what's being imitated is Delaria's media appearance mensuit wear, not the wife beater look. There's probably other television/film directly influencing adult fashion, but the only previous time I can recall was a little less than two years ago seeing Lena Dunhams everywhere. Waistline of the dress right under the boobs, the hem way above the knee, tights, and the hair and shoes.

Upon reflection, I do think Uzo Aduba's character became way too much of a "special person" stereotype, complete with her revirginization. They were hitting every cliche with her. But, I think she's a strong actress, on my list of the strongest on OITNB, and maybe ironically, I enjoy her most when she gets to play scenes where she's processing what others are saying and trying to tack back and forth, or assume a "listening pose" or something - it's very funny. For example, when it was her turn to be interrogated about Red's beating, she played it as sort of being very patient and cooperative with people who weren't as bright as she was. Ditto when everyone was hitting her up about the direction they wanted Suzanne's fan fic to go in, and how she played both "I'm trying to hear you out" AND "Fed up" at the same time. Enjoy this more than when it's a big Suzanne platform kind of moment, as those are written a little one note and leave the actress having to work too hard. Others on my list of the show's best all round actors are Adrienne C. Moore (Black Cindy), Taylor Schilling (Piper) and Kate Mulgrew (Red). It's been said that a performer doesn't have to have the widest range in the world if the range or note they have is matched well with their character. In that category I put Natasha Lyonne. I've seen some of her work now since OITNB, and while I wouldn't want to attend a Natasha Lyonne film festival, she's perfectly cast as Nicky and I like it a lot. Yael Stone (Morello) can be hit and miss - really good with some stuff, less so on others. Sometimes she's very technical and not so much with my feeling her, although that's certainly not true of her Morello's backstory. I also put Laura Prepon in the "Well cast" category. I think a little Samira Wiley (Poussey) goes a long way, same for, and increasingly, Danielle Brooks (Taystee). But no two actresses/characters work my nerves like Emma Myles as Leanne and the actress whose name I forget who plays her cohort. Also the singer who played Norma was/is a horrible actress. Lea Delaria just improved as the seasons went on. She's a big personality but can come off like an amateur actress telegraphing everything. I like her in scenes with Pensatucky because she just mostly focuses on her, having a conversation, and the actress/character's genuine intelligence and humanity comes across in a much more natural way.

I agree there's plenty to go to court and make noise in the media; it would depend on if it were worth it for Carol. I've seen flimsier lawsuits. As far as whether it would hurt Carol in the industry, I think it depends on Helen's reputation, and if she's gone crazypants in previous relationships. I think Carol *is* really good at her job, the sort of #2 anyone would want if they can keep themselves from literally screwing her. Whether or not she'd prevail in a lawsuit, she has a story for her lawsuit - gets involved in a loving relationship that increasingly becomes possessive with Helen getting paranoid, affects work environment, here's a dramatic example of Helen confronting Beverly and Carol on their walk, the walks they've been taking since long before Helen/Carol. Helen's increasing demands on Carol in the office for private interaction - Helen is the one in the power position and Carol can say she never felt as if she could say no in those circumstances. Also the golf cart behavior. Even if a situation is a little ambiguous, people put it in lawsuits anyway.

Renewing this thread a bit because I just finished binge watching a couple of seasons. I didn't think Helen's transition to evil, paranoid tyrant was too abrupt. The seeds were there from the first, with this incredibly charming, self-effacing youngish woman who also happened to be a hugely powerful, highly paid executive running major broadcast networks. You don't get to be in the latter position at her age and her gender without there being another shoe ready to drop. She was too charming, too accessible, too fast, right away. There was no ebb and flow with her. It was almost as if the charm made her impenetrable. For me, her initial personality with her job made me think "What's the catch." Contrast it to Bev/Sean first meeting Carol and Matt. Plenty of awkward, plenty of openly conflicting agendas, plenty of getting-to-know you space that made the ultimate friendships believable. A couple of thoughts: wouldn't Carol have a discrimination case against Helen? They were in a relationship, and Helen fired her strictly to retaliate over the relationship. It's pretty tricky to launch a lawsuit in that business because you don't want to alienate anybody, but I think Carol absolutely has a case. As to the bugs, I thought the scenario with Merc was hilarious and completely worked despite being totally unlikely. Again, lawsuits. Even The Box itself would have to be able to do the bug thing without actually hurting anybody. I'm pretty sure the show Survivor had to set itself up so nobody was in danger of actually starving, dying, becoming ill while participating.

I just spent a couple of weeks binge-watching Episodes after having caught pieces on youtube. It makes me annoyed at a few critical reviews I've read in Variety, AV Club and elsewhere. I thought some of these reviews spent too much time pointing out that Episodes travels well-worn road without crediting Episodes for being exceptionally tightly plotted, motivated, and hilarious in execution while doing so. Who cares if we've seen some exec on the treadmill in high heels three times already? It was funny every time. Even the critical reviews appear to at least appreciate Matt LeBlanc's performance. I think it's absolutely fantastic - he's got a great range and also great taste/judgment/timing. Really curious about Season 5 and hoping to see the end of Helen Bosch - she scares me to death.

I think they never found the tone for the Whispers story (I hate the "p" word). It's like they wanted to sort of play with Breaking Bad Piper but lacked conviction. They hedged their bets and ended up in this nowhere zone of half-comedy, half-maybe serious, and had Schlling hedge her bets, so it came off as Piper sort of playing/experimenting with a persona, trying it on for size, seeing if she could pull it off. Then Stella is sent to max thanks to Piper setting her up, which is a HUGE deal for a woman about to be released, and Piper says "tell your people" to Boo. Yet it still comes off as sort of a dress up game Piper is playing. It was even acted that way. But when you think of it, she had a woman on the verge of release sent to MAX. It should be a bid deal, except that Stella herself isn't very real. She's pretty much a camp construct, so the whole thing came off sort of campy. So I guess, to repeat, this plot direction lacked conviction and that's why it didn't work. You can't have it both ways. Piper is breaking bad (kind of! Maybe! She's not sure herself - she's just experimenting!) but she's also still cute! Meanwhile, Alex is in trouble in the Greenhouse! Stay tuned!

Thanks, that makes sense. Honestly, the acting in FNL doesn't strike me as extraordinary. There are some obviously outstanding efforts - Zach Gilford in The Son, most obviously from what I've seen (I've jumped ahead). I think Connie Britton is a great match with her character. I'm not as taken with Kyle Chandler as I anticipated, and some of the older character actors whose names I'm not familiar with do great work. I really think the direction and the camera work set the tone because IMO there are a whole bunch of weak links, acting-wise, and even some of the story concepts are trite, but the execution is sophisticated and visceral, the stories are told confidently and don't appear actor-dependent. IMO the camera work helps the scenes flow more than it helps the actors flow (although the number of cuts are dizzying). And the cuts help protect the actors IMO.

I disagree with most of that article. Not the principle behind it, but the false comparisons. The author describes Piper as, ultimately (but not solely) a brat. When shows present men like Walter White and Don Draper, they're iconic demi-gods. The "oh-the-humanity" aspects of their experience is always taken VERY seriously, and after every (rare) serving of humble pie they return with the afterburners on and win. Or they get to be noble in passing the baton. They're anti-HEROIC but really heroic. Even when these guys are petty, self-serving little shits it's this "They're human too!" skew on it. That's not Piper. We still don't have a Walter White/Don Draper/House-type female on TV. I mostly enjoy Piper. I think Taylor Schilling is really funny. I think the Whispers story has problems and in thinking on it, I think maybe Schilling could have made different choices (provided she wasn't directed to make many of the tonal choices she made). I wish her "inspiring the troops" speech had been directed differently, more energized, more madly improvising - mostly more real energy. Anyway, a male Piper would be maybe a very young Hugh Grant finding himself in a minimum security guy's prison, not quite catching onto himself. I don't think Piper and Alex are toxic and dysfunctional. I believe their respective circumstances ARE, but that their relationship could thrive perfectly well and probably better than it does, outside those circumstances. I think it actually has the potential of being a healthy love. I think the two as people connect. Obviously, for it to work long term, both would need to be out of jail, and both would need to find something sustainable as far as work or career. But those are the ingredients any relationship needs. P.S. - For me Piper could never get worse than "love to hate" (and I'm nowhere near that) because Schilling is so good, so smart, so perfectly suited to this part, same as we can stay in story with some leading man because the actor is so good. Schilling's just funny, and also very generous as a performer. She's on point with lots and lots of clarity. When I hate characters who are sort of Piperish, it's often because something about the performance wears thin and can't keep me interested in some character who is basically a spoiled douchebag and all the actress (or actor) can think of to do it play it like the character thinks they're right. It gets insufferable. Schilling knows exactly what she's doing and exactly what's right about Piper and what's off about her, and she works it.

I've been watching FNL for the first time, and I think it's a fallacy that improvisation produces better acting, more raw, or more real moments. It produces more improvised moments that may or may not be better quality, depending. Scripted and blocked doesn't = stilted. Lots of times fantastic blocking, even in cinema, assists the actor the same way any foundation or structure facilitates freedom. I believe on Friday Night Lights the camera style gave it a documentary feel and that immediacy, but I believe creative blocking, or even a more conventional way of shooting wouldn't have inhibited the acting. The acting from the cast ran the same spectrum of excellent to mediocre as any other show. Since actors are actually pretending, an improvisational style can sometimes get in the way because they have more to think about when the blocking is up to them. I've seen that happen. Unpopular opinions or reactions of mine that surprised me: I've always been "she's okay" with Connie Britton while semi-worshipping Kyle Chandler despite not having seen FNL before. Now, watching FNL, I'm not loving coach the way I thought I would, and I love love love Tami. Mika Kelly is terrible. Upthread someone says that the camera work may prevent them from continuing with FNL. The realization that Lyla is going to stay on the show as a major character could be my bête noir with FNL. In the early going I wanted to scream in every scene she shared with Street, and when Higgins was taking Street AWOL and they ran into Lyla and invited her along, I wanted to scream some more. Damn it! Another - watching this show is sort of solving the - OH, these are the actors whose names I know from gossip sites and stuff but have no idea what they've ever done. Taylor Kitsch in particular. You know with Taylor Kitsch, when I was watching Higgins I had no idea whatsoever Higgins was supposed to be hot instead of some missing link type guy. On second look I'm, okay, he's got symmetrical features and a jawline and cheekbones - but something stopped me from noticing any of that until I realized his name as one of the up and coming heartthrob guys of the past five years. To me he's flat faced with teeny eyes. I think the style of FNL can mask the fact that some of the story ideas are pretty conventional. But it does have nice, naturalistic dialogue. Some early stuff, though, can be seen coming up the road miles away, like the type of guy Street's rehab roomie was, and exactly the sort of role that guy would play in his rehab, and the sorts of scenes between them. The scene where he "provokes" him into using his hands and says "I knew you had fight in you." could have been scripted by a grade schooler.

Prepon has definitely improved. When you look at Alex's eyes, she's there. She's not like these opaque or blank types. Same with her facial expressions - they're organic. Natasha Lyonne and Judy Greer are receiving good reviews for their movie "Addicted to Fresno." In this one Lyonne plays the stable sister and Greer is the mess. It appears/I am hoping this was why Lyonne wasn't around most of Season 3.

Daya makes sense to me as a real life love object - the sort of girl real life guys might go for. She's receptive, feminine in an accessible way, meat on the bones but has a waistline. She's not a commercial look like Maritza, but I see urban girls like her attracting guys all the time. She's easy to be with. It's not, however, riveting to watch.

If memory serves, Piper's lawyer (Larry's dad) told her she'd ruined her shot at early release. Not that she'd have time added.

I think it's about the tone the show takes. The tone towards even Aleida got to be extremely sympathetic, cuing the audience to feel for her. It just didn't work. The show took a "isn't this adorable" tone towards Morello having Christopher beaten up, her pen pal schtick and her marriage. I just think that's lazy, particularly regarding Morello, whose backstory was the most affecting. Recidivism - I bet inmates like Piper are pretty rare - an upper middle-class, early thirties white woman with lots of connections and safety nets out in the real world, first offense, infraction ten year in the past with no sign she's done anything illegal since. Look at Martha Stewart. Was in her fifties when she was sent away; don't expect her back. There are reasons there's a lot of recidivism - I think a ton of it is economic. And no network. Look what happened when Angie was mistakenly released - bus stop. Or Tasty. I think their experiences are more common and show us why inmates come back. There's also a theory that even high-performing inmates from disadvantaged backgrounds, who flourish in the structure of a prison, can't hack it without that structure on the outside. Piper's sentence is fifteen years. I don't know if she had more time added for perjuring herself, or just lost good behavior time off.

Gotta say I absolutely hate the title of this episode - squicks me out. And agree with a comment on Tom and Lorenzo's blog - pure disbelief that anybody has ever used this expression. Jenji Cohen made it up and was so self-enchanted she used it as the episode title.

Ugh, Pablo Schreiber. I think it's a very showy performance but also almost unwatchable. Lorraine Toussaint should have been nominated. OITNB is often a soap, and she gave one of the best soap opera performances of all time. She understood every turn of the screw with V.

I can't feel for Aleida either. I think it goes to the writing's failure to distinguish among the backstories. The writing sort of places them all on the same playing field, and they're not. If that's the case, then it's up to the actors to sort of balance the scales. I think Yael Stone does such a good job as Morello a lot of viewers have to mentally placemark that she's really a whole lot more dangerous and wrong than the show tells us she is. It's not that visceral because Morello's persona is appealing. I think Cindy might be the most and realistic, however shoehorned in her conversion was, because at all times IMO we can see what very justifiably got her into prison, but also see so many positive attributes. Elizabeth Rodriguez is a good actress but we haven't seen anything in her Aleida that even hints at anything more than Aleida is, a repellent narcissist who had 11 or whatever kids for narcissistic reasons, who felt some sort of pang when she experienced rejection from Daya, and was able to articulate that she'd been a narcissistic fuck-up, but nowhere was there even a suggestion that she was, not even deep inside, anything more than a toxic, narcissistic fuck-up. P.S., I've read and can see and understand what Annie Golden was to the club and music scene in the 1980s, but she's a bad actress. Absolutely everything in the meth head cult story did a face plant. There's not one person to hang your hat on. I never think, oh, this one or that one could be good, but the writing sucks. I think all the performers in the meth story, including Golden, lack whatever x factor could make their characters compelling even if the writing for them improved.

I just ff'd the whole lake thing. If there's one thing I hate, it's whimsy. The Daya storyline was just a load of bullshit. It was shoehorned in. When she got pregnant, a whole bunch of inmates conspired to pin the paternity on Pornstache, seeing as Daya understood completely that as soon as the prison discovered she was pregnant, the person responsible - Bennett - was going to jail. Bennett was all wah wah but you porked Pornstache - the whole bit of "I'd have gone to jail if you didn't set up another baby daddy" was just not computing with him for no rational reason. FF to this season and suddenly Daya is all "Own your child." "But Daya, I'd go to jail and my options for employment for the rest of my life would be shut down." Daya: Pout. Flashbacks - I thought Morello's was ridiculously on the nose and directed poorly. The child was directed into a cartoonish performance, the spinning in place, the bit about white food making you fat. I could see it working, but not as played, performed and presented. That was a joke.