Jump to content
Forums forums


  • Content Count

  • Joined

Posts posted by BrindaWalsh

  1. I can add myself to the list who can draw comparisons to 22 year old Monica and things they did in their 20s and cringe (at the very least).  It stems from a severe lack of self-esteem, a "history" of unreciprocated relationships - the kind where he throws the bone, gets what he enjoys, and you develop feelings qnd desperately want him to feel the same so you keep coming back for more - loneliness, and other issues that will eventually get worked out in therapy.  So when somebody comes along who gives you even a glimpse of feeling worthwhile, attractive, sexy, intelligent, it knocks your world. If you didn't have that experience in your young romantic life, I envy you.  It is not easy to live through and look back on, "cringe" doesn't do it justice!

    I too have heard tales of the Bill Clinton magnetism from people who have met him.  It is allegedly sky high, and doesn't come across on tv, it is an in-person thing.  I don't get it.  I don't find him attractive at all.

    Let's also remember the timeframe of this.  It was the 90s.  Messages sent to teens and women in the 90s entangled empowerment with physical appearance and sex. We are just now looking back and realizing how anti-empowerment those messages really were.  Flashing your pink lace thong IS trashy in todays world.  But back then I bet you can find a Cosmo article entitled "Don't Let that Crush Crush You - 5 ways to let him know where he stands with YOU" or something like that which somehow highlights "give him a little flash!" as a means of taking control of your feelings and letting him know exactly what you want.  Yes, that is how messed up and conflicting those messages were back then. 

    Is there a feminist message in here?  Absolutely, it is there, just different than what we might expect.

    So is Monica unhinged?  I don't think that is the right word.  The expression in the eyes is giving certain vibes that way, but I don't think unhinged is the right word.  Does she bear some responsibility?  Absolutely.  But middle aged Bill should have known better.  It takes 2 to tango, but Bill lead the dance.

    I now do wonder if Bill and Monica did actually have sex and it just never came to light because he was saying no and she was too terrified and wanted to keep one moment as theirs, not to be dissected, mocked and picked at by the world. This went on for long time.

    Cobie as Ann freaks me out.  



    • Like 8
  2. I don't know, maybe I'm not "fashionable" enough but I find the Met Gala to be a giant bore when it comes to fashion - and I'm not sure why.  I love the glamour that comes with the Oscars, but the Met always leaves me feeling uninspired or rolling my eyes or bored.  How many times can somebody dress 80% naked on the red carpet and be considered daring?  How many times can we see some dominatrix look on the red carpet and claim that it's bold and fashion forward?  There is this article in vogue saying that this year Kim kept people guessing, it was inventive and new.  People didn't know who it was.  Yes, they did, how could you not know that was Kim? The stance, the body, the fact that she'd worn a precursor to the look twice now, you'd have to be deaf, dumb and blind to not know it's Kim.  Plus everybody knows that this is Kanye's vision, right?  I do not understand why Kanye is considered this creative genius in the fashion world.  We went from apocalyptic to non-existent fashion.  And it's all been UGLY.  All these boring browns and taupes and grays and puke greens.  Is a color and a smile really that offensive?  Maybe THAT would be refreshing, new and bold?

    • Like 10
  3. I am just a few years younger than Monica Lewinsky and find myself more sympathetic to her now than I was back then..  She was 22 at the time - her frontal cortex hadn't even finished developing at the time.  That lovely part of the brain that is involved with "motor function, problem solving, spontaneity, memory, language, initiation, judgement, impulse control, and social and sexual behavior."   But I also now find myself more interested in all of the different players around the impeachment of Bill Clinton than I was back then.  I love Washington politics in TV drama so I enjoyed this episode, even if I didn't fully remember much, or know about some of it from the outset.  


    I still don't understand why Linda Tripp isn't more vilified. I'm afraid this show might have the unintended consequence of making her more sympathetic because of how batshit she seems.


    That's interesting, I walked away from this show thinking how incredibly unlikeable she was.  Self-important, rude, judgmental, condescending.  Lonely and angry - clearly.  But that's not enough to make her sympathetic.  Although it is interesting, in the press her daughter has said that the show is more sympathetic to her than life ever was - I read that before watching the show itself, and wondered if we were watching the same thing.  

    I like the actress portraying Monica.  She does a good job of capturing both the "I'm a professional" attitude that it must require to have an internship at the white house or with the Pentagon, but show the vulnerability of the fact that this was still very much a young girl making some very stupid decisions and being influenced by some very powerful people all along the way.  What our society did to her is shameful.  Monica has long said that she saw a side of our government that she never knew existed before then when it came to influence and pressure and safety, and I'm interested to see the show expand on that and hope that they do.   


    • Like 9
  4. Jonathan has always reminded me of the desperate high school kid. The one who wanted so badly to be part of the popular group that he just inserted himself and tagged along even though they didn't treat him well.  That kid was desperate, insecure, cared way too much, fake, and while he tried so hard to be "cool," he made himself into a douchebag.

    Jonathan is that kid.

    I so so so want Kim to be all "you can't sit with us" one day and film it for E.

    • Like 3
  5. Quote

     I remember back in the day Steve Nunno's students were not allowed to mix with Bela Karolyi's gymnasts. It was ridiculous. 

    LOL I remember that.  Shannon vs. Kim.  Then there was little Dominique just happily flipping all over the place with a big ass smile on her face.  

    I also remember when suddenly everybody had to dress and do their hair like Shannon.  I'm not sure how that happened, because the Karolyis were certainly still on the scene.  It was when Kerri Strugg was coming on up and after Kim had retired, so the time between 92 and 96 I guess?  

    I read some click bait article today about some Olympic gold medalist (I think a Russian wrestler?) saying that Simone needed some tough love or some such thing like that and should never have bowed out and the come back in.  Sure, shithead, the girl who was sexually abused for years by the team doctor and went on to win Olympic all around gold, and all other medals over the past several years, needs "tough love."  I hate these people, keep your damn mouths SHUT.  



    • Like 7
    • Laugh 1
  6. I personally am loving that we are seeing a variety of countries on the medal podium - USA, ROC, Brazil, Belgium, Great Britain, now China.  How fantastic for this sport during this games.  I know Simone was "supposed" to sweep it all, but if she had, in the GOAT way, we most likely wouldn't have Rebecca winning the first medal ever for Brazil and the first gold for an event final.  Jade wouldn't have had her gold on bars.  We we wouldn't be celebrating the first asian american to win individual gold.  There's bright and shiny gold/silver/bronze lining here.  

    That said I am THRILLED for her bronze.  Not to mention, what an extraordinary way to take a bad situation and exhibit good sportsmanship, maturity, wisdom and leadership (to all of the older and allegedly wiser athletes who claim they can better handle pressure --- Novack! --- and throw their temper tantrums, I am looking at you.  Sit down, shut it and take notes from the GOAT).  She was honest with herself and her team, made some tough decisions, worked hard to come back, and supported her fellow athletes along the way. In the future when she looks back, this will probably be the medal that is the most special. 

    GOAT indeed.    


    • Like 18
  7. I think they also need to consider the 4 gymnast rule and how they score.  And somebody please correct me if I'm wrong in my understanding of either:

    I've long said that the scoring is messed up - somebody as good as Simone can basically fall and still win gold because the degree of difficulty is so high. And as good as somebody like Simone may be, I've never agreed with that because it just seemed odd.  If I fall in competition, how am I on top of the medal podium next to somebody who is flawless, but had one less half twist or whatever?  But there's another side to that.  If people are noticing that somebody is starting to struggle, which now everybody claims they did (grain of salt there, but okay), but they knew that "hey, it's Simone, she'll pull it together, plus we even have some wiggle room because she can mess it up and we'll still come out on top, it's okay!" then there's something fundamentally wrong there.  If puts additional pressure on an already struggling gymnast and adds to the toxic environment of gold at all costs (if Simone hadn't advocated for herself, would she have been pulled out?  Imagine if she hadn't...).  For comparison - Vanessa Atler did not go to Sydney and in her case it was the mental games and they knew she couldn't do it on the world stage of the Olympics and in what was honestly a somewhat weaker quad, it was probably okay.  But if Vanessa had the talent of Simone, the current scoring system...I'm willing to be money that she would have been on that Sydney team and it would have been a horror show.  

    Which then brings me to the team of 4, 3 up, 3 scores count.  The team is too small, period.  For all the "it gives other countries a chance" talk, there are other ways to structure that opportunity without putting the pressure on the smaller team.  I'd love to see them go back to 7, or even 6.  7 and top 4 scores count, drop the bottom 3 or something.  Expand the AA or some such thing.  This 4 person team makes no sense at all and only creates a more cut-throat environment, not a better opportunity.  At least not from where I'm sitting.  

    Simone stepping down is probably the goatiest thing a GOAT could do for so many reasons.  I LOVE the support she is getting from the athletic community, it's amazing. 

    • Like 9
  8. AA selection is only based on performance in the qualifying round.  I remember this being a big point of discussion when Aly beat Jordan, everybody kept hammering home that unless Aly or Gabby dropped out or were pulled for "injury", there was no way to get Jordan in there even though she placed easily in the top 8 because of the 2 gymnast rule.  The team final doesn't impact who goes to AA at all. 

    • Like 2
  9. 5 minutes ago, Sarahsmile416 said:

    Reading these posts have made me see the Wolf turns so differently.  Now every time I see one, I roll my eyes.  Especially in floor routines…come on. 

    My least favorite gymnastics move is the weird lay on your back, put your legs in the air on the Floor.  They look like my four year old having a tantrum lol.  Give me some leaps ANYDAY!

    My least favorite is the weird side ariel with bent legs on the beam (I don't know the official name).  We hear all about clean lines, straight legs, pointed toes, yet somehow we have this clunky thing that looks like a mistake.

    Speaking of the beam, the Russian who fell, her mount and leap series was beautiful. 

    • Like 7
  10. I have never understood wolf turns.  Are the arms supposed to do something specific?  I feel like everybody waves their arms around differently.

    • Like 3

    53 minutes ago, AuntieDiane6 said:

    So?  I don't mind.  I would do the same thing if I was directing the show.  Explain what happened.  Everyone watching isn't an insider.  Most viewers have had no idea exactly what happened. I loved hearing the team cheering everyone on... 

    But that's not what they did, at least not IMO.  The switch is really clear - they lead up to her vault, without real explanation but instead false "prediction," then switch back to the original commentary where you can tell that they are somewhat stunned and confused by what was going on.  Yes, they can draw on past examples of the mental game and pressure gone wrong in the olympic games and draw conclusions about what happened, but they were quite finite in their mental game analysis, the "lost in the air" statements, the Simone blooper reel, the warmup predictions, etc.  Then they switch to "what's happening?" and "here is what usag says, a health issue" and "I texted the coach, it is not physical."  

    NBC can do what they want, it just feels gross.  

    Team USA was amazing.  After all the upheaval of the past years, after a pandemic -- they WON silver.  Go USA.  And I love the sportsmanship between all of the athletes.  I remember the Kim Zmeskal/Svetlana Boginskaya cold war, stretching their splits and deliberately ignoring each other in their own HBIC ways.  


    • Like 14
  12. 4 minutes ago, Jenniferbug said:

    The nighttime commentary is very disingenuous. Acting like they saw this breakdown coming from months away, after hyping her up and calling the gold a lock with Simone on the team. 

    They re-recorded.  I'm convinced.  And they switched to their original commentary just a minute ago where they are expressing confusion over rules, will she stay on the floor, etc.

    • Like 7
    • Sad 2
  13. Wtf NBC?

    Did they go back and re-record the commentary?  That montage of her recent slips, Tim and his "lost in tbe air" comment.

    It is like in their effort to "explain," they are rooting for her to fail.

    She looks devastated.  


    • Like 8
    • Sad 1
  14. This show lacks everything that the OG had.

    The original show, especially season 1, was bright.  It had energy, fun, frivolity and dare I say it, charm.  This is just drab, unlikeable, and lacks any spirit whatsoever.

    In other words, they are trying WAY too hard to be...well, I don't actually know what they are trying to be.


    • Like 2
  15. On 6/23/2021 at 3:13 AM, Chalby said:

    I really liked Jackie and will miss her. What did Jackie bring to the show...? She's rich; the only Jewish woman on the cast; a writer; she's very intelligent, and she confronts people on their lies and/or bad behaviour. I believe Teresa doubled down on her attacks because she didn't like that Jackie was, and had attained, everything Teresa wanted, but will never achieve.

    "You will miss her" - is she leaving the show?

    Teresa would never tolerate sexual harassment in the workpalce but she tolerated Joe Giudice calling her a c*nt on national television, telling her he never wanted to marry her and got rid of her on national television, telling her to shut up more times than I can count.  But nobody would dare to harrass her because she wouldn't tolerate it.  Oooookkkaaayyy.

    Luis is skeevy and slimy looking.  That said, so is Tre a lot of the time. So they do match in that regard. Tre said on the reunion that he had watched every episode.  Of course he knew exactly who she was and her story.  He may not need her money but that doesn't mean he isn't an opportunistic sleaze.  


    • Like 4
  16. Once again, somebody gave the writers room a copy of Daughter's of Eve.  I think they had a similar revenge scene in the woods, although not ending in death because it was a tween/teen novel afterall.  

    I get why the went the route they did in terms of the revenge killing of Fred, but I kind of rolled my eyes a bit.  I actually thought, when June and Fred were having a drink, that she was going to slip him some of the poison that she used earlier in the season - dump it into the whole bottle to kill him the next time he goes to have a drink.  I was ridiculously tense during that scene.  Instead I found myself rolling my eyes at June somehow manufacturing this entire thing in 24 hours, right down to her kissing Nick in the woods.  Not because I don't think Fred deserves it.  But because I don't know that I buy that June has that much influence or that her alliances are that strong. 

    As for the final scene with Luke, we know from The Testaments that: 


    June becomes a full blown freedom fighter/terrorist depending on your POV

    So while we didn't have an explicit conversation where Luke asks June to take a more peaceful, play by the rules route and she instead decides that her commitment is 100% to revenge and hurting Gilead, and will sacrifice everything else to do so, I think that's what they were getting at.    But my issue with this is that Luke is choosing the life that June delivered to him - NOT one he chose or created for himself.  Let's not forget that he's raising the child that she insists was born out of love with another man.  Moira has come out and said that she wouldn't have chosen that life, that she did so out of guilt.  Did Luke really have any choices there about raising Nicole?  On paper yes, in reality, not so much.  So why does June get to decide to abandon her role as Nicole's mother, when Luke isn't her father and never had a choice to become one to Nicole?  Because he got out and she didn't?  

    I don't know if I'm explaining myself well, and again, given what I know about the future of June, at least as far as the Testaments go, this falls right in line with what happens down the line.  But the steps for June to get her justice, do it her way, make her point, whatever it may be, just creates more victims along the way.  

    Can somebody please explain Lawrence to me?  I just. don't. get. him.

    • Like 14
  17. Quote

    I find myself wondering why Nick didn’t take that chance to escape to Canada? Why does he want to stay in Gilead?

    I'm not sure Nick necessarily wants to defect.  As others have said, he's essentially a war criminal.  However, pre-Gilead Nick was "a loser."  Couldn't keep a job, wasn't respected, short tempered, a nobody.  Gilead Nick IS somebody. He is respected, trusted, and whether it is warranted or not, he has power -- even if he doesn't agree with certain aspects of Gilead (and people can justify a lot in their minds when they need to), I'm not convinced he thinks going back to "freedom" is better.  



    My first thought was June would be an invaluable source of info, remember she and Serena wrote things for the council while Fred was recuperating after the Red Center bombing, she was taken to DC and had front row seats to a lot of things, she was overly involved with Commander Lawrence, dug thru files and saw where the original Handmaids kids were and knows key players in Mayday and the Martha network...why hasn't she been talking about all that to Truelo?


    I had forgotten all about that.  The show writers probably did as well.  

    But this is another place where I think they did a disservice by killing Alma. She also seemed to know a lot more than she should about how things work in Gilead.  


    • Like 4
  18. I think it is entirely possible that Nick was able to step "away" for a bit.  He is essentially a high ranking general and also an eye - an intelligence officer.  He knows how to work those situations without raising suspicion and the people around him probably don't bat an eye.  He could have told his superiors that he was meeting an informant whose identity was known by very few, maybe just 1 other, or perhaps a new informant who had just made contact recently.  He could have told his subordinates he was going somewhere else.  People like Nick are trained to be able to do this kind of thing.  And people in the military are trained on a "need to know" basis.  

    It even happens here.  My mom's brother was in the military, he was in intelligence.  That's all I ever really knew, it never occurred to me to ask anything, I just knew he was in the army.  At his wake, I met some of the people who served with and for him.  They told me they had no idea what he did, but if he was in the field, it was important.  That was it.  

    I don't think June wearing red was anything character driven.  I think it was the show doing a poor attempt at symbolism.  It reminded me of season 1 when June and Luke are meeting in some cafe and there are these little girls playing in the background all in pink while 2 older women in long coats watch on.  That was effective.  June in a red coat as some kind of symbol of either empowerment OR her inability to let go of her past as a handmaid didn't really work.  It was too in your face.  

    This episode had me going "huh" like a lot of episodes this season.  It is weird.  A lot has happened this season but it feels like not much has gone on at all. Huh.  

    • Like 6
  • Create New...

Customize font-size