S01.E07: Irresistible Change

[Affogato]

19 minutes ago, Shermie said:

And I have doubts that someone as thirsty as Turner would be content being someone’s beck-and-call girl. I don’t like the character, but I admire her chutzpah for going after what she wants. Someone that ambitious isn’t going to be happy sitting around waiting for her man to come home.

Well, yes, like Bertha she has designs above her station and isn't ashamed to make an open play for what she wants.

[StatisticalOutlier]

On 3/8/2022 at 9:33 AM, MerBearHou said:

Yes, how about THAT??!!  Billy Clyde is so memorable and when Christine married Matthew Cowles, I was so stunned because I couldn’t picture anyone falling for Billy Clyde, especially the amazing CB — yes, his family history is Old New York.

I learn the craziest things on these forums.  This is right up there with finding out that the Sewing With Nancy lady had died -- I was reading the Battlebots forum. 

[emmawoodhouse]

Nancy Zieman died? Say what? 

[MizLottie]

On 3/7/2022 at 9:55 PM, OtterMommy said:

There is a certain style of acting that most in the "upstairs" cast employs (except Ada--and Foghorn Leghorn, which is a whole other issues) which is very stilted.  The thing is, there are some great actors there and I know that they are capable of performing the same lines far better than they are here.  The only one who is pulling it off is Christine Baranski and it almost seems like she is having fun with it.  I can only assume that the actors are directed to act like this, but I cannot understand why.

There's a difference between acting for the stage and for the screen, Christine Baranski is very experienced in both.  Different energies.

[LegalParrot81]

5 hours ago, MizLottie said:

There's a difference between acting for the stage and for the screen, Christine Baranski is very experienced in both.  Different energies.

I agree with this.  I've never been a big fan of Nathan Lane on screen, but have seen him on stage multiple times and adore him in that arena.  He's one of those actors that has a hard time making the adjustment from being big so the back row can hear you to pulling back so you don't overwhelm the screen.  It's a whole different presence.

Like Christine Baranski, Cynthia Nixon also makes the transition very well.

Edited March 11, 2022 by LegalParrot81

[StatisticalOutlier]

On 3/10/2022 at 2:52 PM, emmawoodhouse said:

Nancy Zieman died? Say what? 

Someone doesn't follow the Battlebots forum.

[Shermie]

But again, Nathan Lane isn’t overacting. The character he is playing was actually that over the top, complete with an affected accent.

It’s like those criticizing Julia Garner for Anna: she’s literally doing the weird and affected accent the real life person had.

[Fireball]

I want to like this show more than I do....

All the characters are one dimensional; they seem to have just one trait ambitious, social climber, naive, shady, conniving, stuck in the past, etc. and that's all there is to the character.

Also, there are too many characters and it's hard to be invested in any of them. 

It's disappointing the show had the potential to be really interesting. I don't hate it, but I don't love it. I'm I guess indifferent to it. My HBO renews tomorrow and I'm unsure if it's worth paying $14.99 to finish watching the rest of the episodes. 

Edited March 12, 2022 by Fireball

[kristen111]

On 3/9/2022 at 12:42 AM, BellyLaughter said:

Would someone be able to explain to me what was lighting the chandeliers in the Russell and Van Rhijn homes before electricity... 

Maybe gas?  Like in the movie “Gaslight” with Ingrid Bergman?  And “ Meet Me In St. Louis”.   In the movie Gaslight, when Ingrid was moving into her late Aunts townhouse, a guy came and opened the gas on the sidewalk.  The Edison Company had electric and gas operations.

Edited March 12, 2022 by kristen111

[kristen111]

On 3/9/2022 at 1:28 PM, poeticlicensed said:

Is it just me or is anyone else getting the idea that almost nothing will be resolved at the end of the series? Like Fellowes is trying to set us up for season 2. Is Mr Raikes an adventurer? Does Mr Russell go to prison. Does Russell junior get to be an architect? And will Gladys ever get her debutante ball?that's a lot for 2 more episodes. And why deep six Turner? Hopefully she will be back.

About how long for Season 2 to be back?  I doubt Meryl’s daughter will be canned.

[kristen111]

On 3/8/2022 at 8:45 AM, ChlcGal said:

I agree there are some loving marriages, but I will say this we have no clue if they started out loving or if that grew.

Also, I think it's pretty clear that Bertha doesn't consider "love" an important factor in who Gladys marries and that she, Bertha, will be picking out the suitor.  If they are following along the "dollar princess" angle, Gladys is doomed.

Was it said how Bertha’s marriage came to be?

I only hope in the last episode of this season, they will show the ball.  I’ll really be pissed if they don’t.  I’m invested now.

 

Edited March 12, 2022 by kristen111

[kristen111]

On 3/8/2022 at 10:54 AM, tennisgurl said:

I loved the lighting scene, its so cool to be reminded of what a huge game changer electricity was and how incredible that must have felt to people at the time. Electricity is so unremarkable now that it can be hard for us to really understand what it must have been like for people to see it for the first time, I think the show nailed it. Everyone looked so excited, it really did feel like the dawning of a new era. You could really do a whole different show about Edison, his various rivalries as he tried to eat up patents like Pac Man eating fruit, and the battle to bring electricity to the masses, its a really interesting story.

Larry actually made a good pitch to George about why he should be an architect. George actually seemed impressed, I bet a self made man like him would respect his son wanting to make his own way in the world and create his own legacy. Although I'm not sure he wants to be associated with Stanford White, if people think that a woman touching a mans shirt is scandalous, just wait until they hear what he was getting up to in his down time. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stanford_White

I really want to know more about Aunt Ada, she seems quite a bit more worldly than Agatha seems to give her credit for. I almost wonder if she'll realize Oscar is gay before Agatha even contemplates it. 

Turner is finally gone but I cant imagine this is the last we see of her. She's such an annoying character, I have no clue what her motivations are besides become mistress to a rich guy, which I can understand, but why is she so pissed off at everyone? She's one of those Julian Fellowes characters that only seem to exist to be a shit stirrer and be evil for no reason.

I think that expression on Aurora's face was her realizes that Mr. Raikes isn't as devoted to Marian as she thinks he is. I don't even know if he's some devious schemer with a manipulative plan, he might just be a weak willed social climber who will turn his eye towards any pretty society woman who gives him some attention. I hope so anyway. I have really come to like Aurora, she is probably one of my favorite supporting characters. She's old money but she can see the writing on the wall when it comes to the new money so she is willing to play ball with them. It probably started out of pragmatism, but I think she has come to enjoy hanging out with Bertha. Never a dull moment with her.

Thanks for the link.  So interesting.

[Roseanna]

5 hours ago, kristen111 said:

I only hope in the last episode of this season, they will show the ball.  I’ll really be pissed if they don’t.  I’m invested now.

I hope there will be a fire....

[pasdetrois]

6 hours ago, kristen111 said:

Would someone be able to explain to me what was lighting the chandeliers in the Russell and Van Rhijn homes before electricity.

In the first episode they showed a young boy lighting the gas street lamps. One presumes the servants ran around turning up the gas lamps in these mansions.

[amarante]

My memory of the electric wars is a bit hazy but as I recall Edison used DC (direct current) and Westinghouse used AC (alternate current). In NYC the Edison Company fed electricity directly to the end user versus Westinghouse which used high voltage overhead (originally) to distribute light - and that is where my knowledge of electrical engineering ends. As I recall Edison had a power plant that was the hub of the distribution but it ultimately wasn't a really practical system especially for higher energy needs 😂

When the East Village still had its original non-gentrified housing stock, there were apartments that still had DC electricity and of course a toilet in the hallway and a bath tub in the kitchen. I don't remember how the residents managed to use modern electricity in the DC wired tenements. 🤷🏼‍♀️I was just there for the weed. 😂

I have a vintage chandelier that was originally gas but was wired at a later time for electricity. The bulbs point up and the shades are wide - at least mine are and there is a key at the end of each one to adjust the flame. It seems a bit terrifying to have that kind of gas apparatus in one's home.

The BBC had a weird documentary series in which they covered the various life threatening stuff that was prevalent in 19th century homes - poisonous wallpaper - gas fumes and even the early electricity killed a few people. Not to mention old fuse boxes that people reset with pennies and knob and tube wiring with paper insulation.

Edited March 13, 2022 by amarante

[txhorns79]

5 hours ago, pasdetrois said:

In the first episode they showed a young boy lighting the gas street lamps. One presumes the servants ran around turning up the gas lamps in these mansions.

Yes, I think one of the servants mentioned electricity may put them out of a job. 

On 3/10/2022 at 1:33 PM, Affogato said:

isn't ashamed to make an open play for what she wants.

Seriously.  The woman got naked in the bed of her boss' husband.  This is not someone for whom shame is an issue.

[Roseanna]

On 3/10/2022 at 8:11 PM, Shermie said:

And I have doubts that someone as thirsty as Turner would be content being someone’s beck-and-call girl. I don’t like the character, but I admire her chutzpah for going after what she wants. Someone that ambitious isn’t going to be happy sitting around waiting for her man to come home.

 

On 3/10/2022 at 8:33 PM, Affogato said:

Well, yes, like Bertha she has designs above her station and isn't ashamed to make an open play for what she wants.

 

4 hours ago, txhorns79 said:

Seriously.  The woman got naked in the bed of her boss' husband.  This is not someone for whom shame is an issue.

Affagato, I don't think it's fair to compare Bertha and Turner. Bertha hasn't betrayed anybody (so far as we know), but Turner betrayed Bertha. 

And she failed, as all here guessed before. Her scheme was just stupid.

Why didn't she chose a young single man like Larry? Or move to a house where spouses' marriage was only in name?  

[Affogato]

3 hours ago, Roseanna said:

 

 

Affagato, I don't think it's fair to compare Bertha and Turner. Bertha hasn't betrayed anybody (so far as we know), but Turner betrayed Bertha. 

 

It is fair. I can compare apples and oranges and fond them alike in weight and size, but not in color. 

[phoenics]

On 3/7/2022 at 10:17 PM, eejm said:

I feel the same way about Turner.  I’m fine with a character having a vengeance, but her motivations seemed to come from absolutely nowhere.  She hated Bertha because Turner sees her as an upstart, yet is desperate to not only get into George’s pants but to be his true love?  And being as snotty as possible to the rest of the staff helps her how exactly?

I feel Oscar’s flippant, “You want revenge…for some reason,” echoes the audience’s lack of interest in her story.

I find Turner's motivations completely realistic if not deplorable.  She sees herself and Bertha as equals - the same.  So to her - why couldn't it have been HER who married well and was now stinking rich?  She wants to be her and is insanely jealous of her.  She puts her down and disses her behind her back because she wants what Bertha has.

Now that she's been put out of the house - she'll try to take her down now out of revenge.

It's all very petty jealousy driving her.

 

[AntFTW]

1 hour ago, phoenics said:

I find Turner's motivations completely realistic if not deplorable.  She sees herself and Bertha as equals - the same.  So to her - why couldn't it have been HER who married well and was now stinking rich?  She wants to be her and is insanely jealous of her.  She puts her down and disses her behind her back because she wants what Bertha has.

Now that she's been put out of the house - she'll try to take her down now out of revenge.

It's all very petty jealousy driving her.

 

Agreed. In addition to that, I think Turner believes she would have been better. In Turner's mind, she would have broken into society much better than Bertha has. Turner thinks Bertha is doing everything wrong and that she would have done everything right.

[sistermagpie]

Just now, AntFTW said:

Agreed. In addition to that, I think Turner believes she would have been better. In Turner's mind, she would have broken into society much better than Bertha has. Turner thinks Bertha is doing everything wrong and that she would have done everything right.

And yet, she's obviously wrong since isn't it canon that George wasn't filthy rich when Bertha married him? Bertha took a chance on a guy without money she believed in. Turner would have turned up her nose at him. She only likes him now that he's rich.

[AntFTW]

1 minute ago, sistermagpie said:

And yet, she's obviously wrong since isn't it canon that George wasn't filthy rich when Bertha married him? Bertha took a chance on a guy without money she believed in. Turner would have turned up her nose at him. She only likes him now that he's rich.

Yes. Bertha definitely says they built one fortune together, and they can build another.

Turner isn't looking at the past. She's looking at the 'now.' "Now he's rich and I can be a better rich man's wife than Bertha can."

[Roseanna]

6 hours ago, phoenics said:

I find Turner's motivations completely realistic if not deplorable.  She sees herself and Bertha as equals - the same.  So to her - why couldn't it have been HER who married well and was now stinking rich?  She wants to be her and is insanely jealous of her.  She puts her down and disses her behind her back because she wants what Bertha has.

Now that she's been put out of the house - she'll try to take her down now out of revenge.

It's all very petty jealousy driving her.

 

 

4 hours ago, AntFTW said:

Agreed. In addition to that, I think Turner believes she would have been better. In Turner's mind, she would have broken into society much better than Bertha has. Turner thinks Bertha is doing everything wrong and that she would have done everything right.

 

4 hours ago, sistermagpie said:

And yet, she's obviously wrong since isn't it canon that George wasn't filthy rich when Bertha married him? Bertha took a chance on a guy without money she believed in. Turner would have turned up her nose at him. She only likes him now that he's rich.

 

4 hours ago, AntFTW said:

Yes. Bertha definitely says they built one fortune together, and they can build another.

Turner isn't looking at the past. She's looking at the 'now.' "Now he's rich and I can be a better rich man's wife than Bertha can."

A wife? 

Why would George have married Turner who offered him sex? And even if he did, the society would have never accepted a former maid.

[Roseanna]

5 hours ago, AntFTW said:

Bertha definitely says they built one fortune together, and they can build another.

That she says so doesn't make it true.

In the scene we have seen Bertha supports her husband. She doesn't invent a scheme with which George can win, George does it himself. After that, all the activities to save the company is done by solely George and his assistant. In short, George and Bertha don't work together (there were such spouses irl).

What's worse, by letting Bertha say "we built one fortune together and we can build another" Fellowes deliberately leads the audience astray. It conceals that it wasn't Bertha with whom he has created his fortune, it was workers in his company. They should have presented as opposites to him, not Old Money or servants.

[AntFTW]

16 minutes ago, Roseanna said:

That she says so doesn't make it true.

In the scene we have seen Bertha supports her husband. She doesn't invent a scheme with which George can win, George does it himself. After that, all the activities to save the company is done by solely George and his assistant. In short, George and Bertha don't work together (there were such spouses irl).

What's worse, by letting Bertha say "we built one fortune together and we can build another" Fellowes deliberately leads the audience astray. It conceals that it wasn't Bertha with whom he has created his fortune, it was workers in his company. They should have presented as opposites to him, not Old Money or servants.

I’m not making a claim that Bertha helped George build their wealth or assisted in any way.

I’m saying that they were a couple while that wealth was being built. They were together before the wealth. I’m saying that Bertha was saying they were together before the wealth and during the building of that wealth.

[Pestilentia]

4 hours ago, Roseanna said:

What's worse, by letting Bertha say "we built one fortune together and we can build another" Fellowes deliberately leads the audience astray.

I seriously doubt that you know Fellowes' intentions.   

 

"Building a fortune together" is how one states it when a couple starts with nothing and builds a successful life of wealth- the husband's purview is the business, wife's purview is the home and family. It's still a team endeavor and it's still the team that did the building- we don't start categorizing who did what. Sure they don't "work" together in the "workplace" doing workplace "work," but they do work together building their life. It is a team endeavor.

So when Bertha says "WE built one fortune..." no one is leading anyone astray. She did help build the fortune. You can't say she didn't help build the fortune purely  because she wasn't out there pounding railroad spikes. She is half of the couple. The things she provides George enables him to go be the mogul that he is, and her contribution is equal.

To deny Bertha the recognition of a woman's contribution to the success of the family is a bit "wow" to me sitting here in 2022. You can't separate the success of the husband from the success of the wife, especially not when you know they had a plan from the beginning and each a part to play.

4 hours ago, AntFTW said:

It conceals that it wasn't Bertha with whom he has created his fortune, it was workers in his company. 

Well, IMO that is an extremely literal view.  

Marriage is not that way. It takes two for one to succeed and the contribution of the less visible partner should never be waved away like this and considered of no import. That's insulting, not just to Bertha but to wives and supporting partners everywhere.

[rollacoaster]

2 hours ago, Pestilentia said:

I seriously doubt that you know Fellowes' intentions.   

 

"Building a fortune together" is how one states it when a couple starts with nothing and builds a successful life of wealth- the husband's purview is the business, wife's purview is the home and family. It's still a team endeavor and it's still the team that did the building- we don't start categorizing who did what. Sure they don't "work" together in the "workplace" doing workplace "work," but they do work together building their life. It is a team endeavor.

So when Bertha says "WE built one fortune..." no one is leading anyone astray. She did help build the fortune. You can't say she didn't help build the fortune purely  because she wasn't out there pounding railroad spikes. She is half of the couple. The things she provides George enables him to go be the mogul that he is, and her contribution is equal.

To deny Bertha the recognition of a woman's contribution to the success of the family is a bit "wow" to me sitting here in 2022. You can't separate the success of the husband from the success of the wife, especially not when you know they had a plan from the beginning and each a part to play.

Well, IMO that is an extremely literal view.  

Marriage is not that way. It takes two for one to succeed and the contribution of the less visible partner should never be waved away like this and considered of no import. That's insulting, not just to Bertha but to wives and supporting partners everywhere.

ALL👏OF👏THIS👏!!! 

Remember it was Bertha's connection to the Red Cross along with George's money that ensured that Clara and co were there to tend to the injured after the train wreck, and help massage their image. 

[KarenX]

8 hours ago, Roseanna said:

That she says so doesn't make it true.

In the scene we have seen Bertha supports her husband. She doesn't invent a scheme with which George can win, George does it himself. After that, all the activities to save the company is done by solely George and his assistant. In short, George and Bertha don't work together (there were such spouses irl).

What's worse, by letting Bertha say "we built one fortune together and we can build another" Fellowes deliberately leads the audience astray. It conceals that it wasn't Bertha with whom he has created his fortune, it was workers in his company. They should have presented as opposites to him, not Old Money or servants.

1. It’s just an expression, with an idiomatic meaning rather than a literal meaning. Bertha means it in that way.

2. You are presenting a Marxist critique of the show. I agree that it applies here. The show is making the capitalist the hero and gives him credit for the output of the laborers. A lot of capitalists, present day capitalists included, are given praise and rewards possibly out of proportion to their contribution. A show critiquing capitalism certainly has its place in modern times. I say “possibly” for a reason and will decline all offers to debate the greatness of CEOs and their vision.

3. Is Julian Fellowes performing Marxist critique here? I doubt it. The show is using the expression totally without subtext. Bertha is half of the power couple. Power couples have power because of their coupled efforts. George owes a lot to her contributions that made his efforts so successful. Married men today make far more money than unmarried men, and I am sure that was true then too. That George and Bertha consider themselves in a partnership is something I believe is written in the show, on purpose. We have lots of marriage examples to compare to each other.

If the Morrises had a stronger partnership Mr Morris might have been more resilient and less desperate. He might still be alive.

 

Edited March 14, 2022 by KarenX

[KarenX]

On that note… here are the marriages in the show, compared to each other.

George & Bertha: True Partners. We have more info about their marriage as a marriage than anyone else.

The Fanes: Seems to me they are a “400 Family” power couple. They probably are also a mutually respectful power couple.

The Chamberlains: A love match sure, but if he’d really respected her he wouldn’t have tolerated her outcast status. At least he didn’t outwardly abuse her I guess. She also could move away and doesn’t so I don’t really know what she is punishing herself for.

The Morrises: They maybe could have been another Fanes. He sort of confided in her, sort of asked for advice, she felt like a partner, but something else was in his head that didn’t allow him to bear the shame or feel like he could let his family down/face his family. It’s very sad. If she had been more like Aurora she might have been able to intervene. (Aurora is pretty flexible and pragmatic and more fun.) But she is a different person, and the tragedy hit differently for this couple and I do not blame her for any part of that.

Agnes: We don’t know anything about her marriage except that it was ugly. I believe her hard shell and inflexibility about Marian and Raikes is a learned self-protection mechanism playing out. She is wary, overprotective, and afraid of marriages and is trying to make a good match based on what she knows.

The Scotts: They seem like a partnership to me, too. Peggy is at odds with her father but not disinherited. Her mother is playing go-between, which is problematic if the father has harmed the daughter but not if the daughter and father are just butting heads. To me it seems like the father is mad about Peggy’s Mystery Lawyer Thing more than a steady career/artistic career conflict, but arguing about the career is easier/safer. Peggy honestly doesn’t seem estranged so much as Tired Of Talking About It and so she moved out of the house to get a break. If he would let up and get over it, she wouldn’t be so exasperated. Until we find out what the Mystery Thing is though, we can’t judge the father and therefore we can’t judge the marriage.

[sistermagpie]

51 minutes ago, KarenX said:

The Chamberlains: A love match sure, but if he’d really respected her he wouldn’t have tolerated her outcast status. At least he didn’t outwardly abuse her I guess. She also could move away and doesn’t so I don’t really know what she is punishing herself for.

 

I feel like we were told that she was accepted in society until he died. So he probably did demand respect for her. It was just that when he died they rejected her. Unless I'm remembering incorrectly.

[AntFTW]

4 hours ago, sistermagpie said:

I feel like we were told that she was accepted in society until he died. So he probably did demand respect for her. It was just that when he died they rejected her. Unless I'm remembering incorrectly.

Right. I was just about to post this before I saw yours. When Mr. Chamberlain died, all that respect and acceptance for Mrs. Chamberlain died with him.

Edited March 14, 2022 by AntFTW

[Roseanna]

On 3/14/2022 at 8:29 AM, AntFTW said:

I’m not making a claim that Bertha helped George build their wealth or assisted in any way.

I’m saying that they were a couple while that wealth was being built. They were together before the wealth. I’m saying that Bertha was saying they were together before the wealth and during the building of that wealth.

We agree with that. And that's why Turner is wrong: she isn't equal with Bertha.  

19 hours ago, Pestilentia said:

"Building a fortune together" is how one states it when a couple starts with nothing and builds a successful life of wealth- the husband's purview is the business, wife's purview is the home and family. It's still a team endeavor and it's still the team that did the building- we don't start categorizing who did what. Sure they don't "work" together in the "workplace" doing workplace "work," but they do work together building their life. It is a team endeavor.

So when Bertha says "WE built one fortune..." no one is leading anyone astray. She did help build the fortune. You can't say she didn't help build the fortune purely  because she wasn't out there pounding railroad spikes. She is half of the couple. The things she provides George enables him to go be the mogul that he is, and her contribution is equal.

To deny Bertha the recognition of a woman's contribution to the success of the family is a bit "wow" to me sitting here in 2022. You can't separate the success of the husband from the success of the wife, especially not when you know they had a plan from the beginning and each a part to play.

Well, IMO that is an extremely literal view.  

Marriage is not that way. It takes two for one to succeed and the contribution of the less visible partner should never be waved away like this and considered of no import. That's insulting, not just to Bertha but to wives and supporting partners everywhere.

 

16 hours ago, KarenX said:

1. It’s just an expression, with an idiomatic meaning rather than a literal meaning. Bertha means it in that way.

2. You are presenting a Marxist critique of the show. I agree that it applies here. The show is making the capitalist the hero and gives him credit for the output of the laborers. A lot of capitalists, present day capitalists included, are given praise and rewards possibly out of proportion to their contribution. A show critiquing capitalism certainly has its place in modern times. I say “possibly” for a reason and will decline all offers to debate the greatness of CEOs and their vision.

3. Is Julian Fellowes performing Marxist critique here? I doubt it. The show is using the expression totally without subtext. Bertha is half of the power couple. Power couples have power because of their coupled efforts. George owes a lot to her contributions that made his efforts so successful. Married men today make far more money than unmarried men, and I am sure that was true then too. That George and Bertha consider themselves in a partnership is something I believe is written in the show, on purpose. We have lots of marriage examples to compare to each other.

I am not belittling Bertha by saying that she has supported George, but that they did not build his fortune together. Now when he is rich, she can help him in society. 

I know irl wives who were real partners with their husband at the time: an artist's wife who was his husband's model and otherwise played when he painted and a editor's wife who, instead of living comfortably by selling his shares after his death took huge debts and bought the majority of shares with their son. 

It's not a Marxist critique if one wants real problems, opposites and struggles in fiction. Balzac was a Conservative but he described honestly France of his time. 

Of course it's futile to wait for the same from Fellowes. This show is a soap and not even a good one. 

[lightninggirl]

On 3/7/2022 at 11:23 PM, ZeeEnnui said:

Turner continues to be Weak Sauce O'Brien. I love a good schemer but Turner really needs to attend a remedial course at the  O'Brien and Barrow School of Downstairs Grievances for me to care at all about her. 

Watching Marion not be invited to things apparently sparks joy for me.

I chortled. Once I saw Turner sashay 'meanly' through an early scene, I thought, "Oh, law, this slag is never going to bite like O'Brien!"

Marian needs to be taken out behind Mrs. Chamberlain's woodshed and beaten with a clue ... or perhaps the Degas statue.

I find it absolutely amazing how none of Meryl Streep's acting chops passed through her placenta into that child. My god, it is absolutely painful that Jacobson's acting does not improve week after week. I've begun FFing through her scenes at this point. Did someone check to make sure Meryl's real kid wasn't swapped at birth and is working retail somewhere, robbing us of her true talent?
/sobs

On 3/8/2022 at 12:24 AM, ajsnaves said:

Speaking of Mrs. Chamberlain, while I assume her motives are pure, she needs to think about her actions in setting up a rendezvous between Marion and Tom.  Of the three of them, the only person who would be damaged if found out, would be Marion. 

I think we've established that Marian is not the brightest bulb in the tanning bed (disguised as being 'progressive' about such things), so she's not really thinking about such consequences. 😉

[heatherchandler]

On 3/7/2022 at 9:34 PM, ahpny said:

The true story of the commercialization of electrical power is a compelling saga little known by most today. It's actually more interesting than the foibles of the old moneyed crowd and ambitions of the new money people. It's not just the contribution of Lewis Lattimer (just hinted at here), but ruthless litigiousness of Edison himself (he spent more time in courts arguing about patents than he spent in any lab), his rivalry with Westinghouse and the criminally cruel sidelining of Nicolai Tesla, and the showdown between direct current (which Edison futilely pushed) and alternating current (which he savaged, but won out anyway). We all use AC today btw. The dramas write themselves and they're true!

I need to read more on this, sounds very interesting!

 

On 3/7/2022 at 9:37 PM, Atlanta said:

I'm still cheering for the Russells, Marian, Ada, and anyone not named Turner or Oscar. Please tell me that Peggy winds up with the hottie publisher.

That's funny, I am cheering AGAINST the Russells and Marian and cheering for Turner.  

 

On 3/7/2022 at 9:39 PM, CleoCaesar said:

The show still isn't clicking for me. Seven episodes in and it still feels like a mismatch of scenes that never quite gel. Seven episodes into Downton and I felt like we were privy to a whole world with well-rounded characters and drama. Did anything really happen in this episode or tell us something that we didn't already kind of know?

As long as I'm bitching, why is the acting so flat? Marion is just a black hole of charisma with her monotone delivery. I keep thinking what a better actress like, for instance, Emma Stone could do with the character of Marion.

The last scene with Edison was good. There, I said at least one nice thing.

The show is not clicking for me, it took me over a week to watch this episode... it needs more drama.  I need to care about the characters, and I do not.

 

[Scarlett45]

On 3/7/2022 at 8:31 PM, dmc said:

Oscar is woefully miscast...because honestly he doesn't have the charm or looks for me to believe anyone would be into him or machinations.  Also Bertha seems to want a prince for Gladys...is Oscar even good enough?  I just had a delicious thought what if Raikes makes a play for Gladys. Raikes is not good enough either but it would be a fun twist for a social climber looking for a rich wife.  

I agree. I don’t think Gladys would ever fall for Oscar. She grew up with parents who were a love match and still all these years later are hot for each other. Why at the beginning of her time on the marriage market (not as if she’s 30+ and fears not landing a husband ever and no chance to have children) would she want OSCAR?

No I don’t think she would catch on that he was gay, but she would be able to tell he didn’t “like her” and he’s not even cute! Much less charming. It would make more sense if he was STUPID HANDSOME or even handsome like his boyfriend and Gladys just fell in lust. 
 

edited to add- has anyone else noticed that Peggy always wears her very best to go to the newspaper office? Yes that’s her job, but I also think it’s because her editor is wicked handsome!

[DrSparkles]

On 3/7/2022 at 10:34 PM, ahpny said:

The true story of the commercialization of electrical power is a compelling saga little known by most today. It's actually more interesting than the foibles of the old moneyed crowd and ambitions of the new money people. It's not just the contribution of Lewis Lattimer (just hinted at here), but ruthless litigiousness of Edison himself (he spent more time in courts arguing about patents than he spent in any lab), his rivalry with Westinghouse and the criminally cruel sidelining of Nicolai Tesla, and the showdown between direct current (which Edison futilely pushed) and alternating current (which he savaged, but won out anyway). We all use AC today btw. The dramas write themselves and they're true!

Can you recommend a good book?!

[ahpny]

Quote

Can you recommend a good book?!

Indeed I can!. There are may from which to choose, but you might enjoy The Biography of Nikola Tesla:: The Captivating Life of the Prophet of the Electronic Age. The Man Who Saw the Future and Made it Reality. Hardcover – October 5, 2021

by Emory Clark 

I should have also added another intriguing tangent associated with Edison contemporary with this period, though just touched on here as window dressing. The very existence of Hollywood and the reason it arose in Los Angeles is in a way directly related to Edison, and more specifically his patents regarding movie making. In order to avoid the movie-related "patent trust" controlled by Edison, nascent movie moguls uprooted their business from the East Coast and moved out of the reach of the Edison crowd to the then-far-less accessible West Coast (which also had the advantage of strong sunlight needed for the making early films). 

[retired watcher]

On 3/8/2022 at 12:07 PM, iMonrey said:

If that's the last we've seen of Turner then her entire arc ended rather anticlimactically. If not, I have no idea where she would fit in at this point. It's not as if Agnes is going to hire her. Maybe Aurora Fane or Mrs. Chamberlain? 

Most of the attention does indeed seem to be spent on costumes and sets, I'll have to agree. Marian has never been seen in the same outfit twice. There are constant sweeping "reveals" when Bertha comes downstairs in her latest haute couture complete with majestic music. And I sense the season is gearing up for a grand culmination at Gladys's coming out ball so the costumers can outdo themselves in the final. If they put half the effort into the scripts as they do into costuming the show would be much improved.

Since Ritson is British I'm surprised the show didn't go with David Oakes, the go-to villain of all British TV shows. He actually would have been far more charming in this role too. My main quibble with Ritson is that he simply looks too old for the part.

Marian has been wearing her dresses over again. The blue and gold one has been seen a lot.

[Affogato]

7 hours ago, retired watcher said:

Marian has been wearing her dresses over again. The blue and gold one has been seen a lot.

That makes sense as she is not endlessly rich, unllike Gladys. 

[brisbydog]

On 3/8/2022 at 10:17 AM, NeenerNeener said:

I'm starting to feel sorry for Blake Ritson, the actor who plays Oscar. He's been in a villain in a number of different shows, and now he's a villain in this one too. Although type casting is still work, I guess.

He was very sympathetic as the Duke of Kent in Upstairs Downstairs. Got to play bisexual there as well. And I always thought that despite being the villain initially Riario evolved into something more interesting on DaVincis.  His character in Indian Summers was pure trash though. I hope they give Oscar more to do in Season 2, Blake is so good at nuance.

[circumvent]

No mention of Tesla...

[Kreegah]

Catching this much later than all of you, just wanted to say, when Agnes and Ada started to tell the story, what happened with Oscar, it totally reminded the beginning this song from "Mamma Mia 2" "Are you telling the story or am I?" :)

[Scarlett45]

On 8/3/2022 at 2:03 PM, Kreegah said:

Catching this much later than all of you, just wanted to say, when Agnes and Ada started to tell the story, what happened with Oscar, it totally reminded the beginning this song from "Mamma Mia 2" "Are you telling the story or am I?" :)

Or the beginning of "We Don't Talk about Bruno" from Encanto.😀

[Camera One]

I did like this episode a bit more.  I too liked the lighting of the building at the end, and it is very neat to see how amazing that was to people in the 1800s when we take it for granted today as a necessity of life.

I liked seeing a bit more of Larry and his father's relationship.  I was surprised that Mr. Russell sort of left open the possibility later.

I too cannot believe that Turner could walk into Mr. Russell's room like that so casually.  Not telling his wife what she did is a huge mistake on his part, when he's so strategic in his work life.

The Marian/Raikes rendezvous at Mrs. Chamberlain's place was a bit cringey.  I don't feel any chemistry and I am not convinced by their "love".  Hopefully, Marian sees his true colours sooner rather than later.  He jumped at the opportunity to go Newport in the carriage with that other woman.

Ada and Agnes had some funny conversations in this one.  

[Chalby]

On 3/7/2022 at 7:16 PM, eleanorofaquitaine said:

I disagree. And I think that the point is that while electricity is commonplace for us, it truly was a game-changer for people in that era.

Exactly! When I saw this scene, I felt it reflected the changes that upper society (in the gilded age) kept refusing to acknowledge.

But progress (by way of innovation) in transportation, technology, inventions, etc. showed the "old money" that the nouveau riche were bringing more clout and money to society.