S01.E03: Living Dead Things

[Pop Tart]

Quote

A surprising discovery leaves Elizabeth feeling isolated and alone, but she finds comfort in her new friendship with Harriet.

Air date: 10.20.23

[MerBearHou]

Late tonight (Thursday, about 11p CST) I decided to see if the new episode was up, and surprisingly it was.  I won’t say anything more till others have had a chance to see it.  

[shapeshifter]

Very sad, but I will continue to watch, although the personification of the dog is a bit much for me. I do see dogs as socialized animals, but this show does not seem to be the right venue for what amounts to a talking dog, even if the dog's words aren't really outside of a dog's comprehension.

I wonder if the dog narration occurs in the book too, but I don't plan to read it. Maybe someone who has read it could reply here to just that one point in spoiler tags?

One more book question to reply to briefly with spoiler tags:
Is Elizabeth supposed to be on the autistic/Asperger's spectrum?

Edited October 20, 2023 by shapeshifter

[Guest]

I have a real love/hate relationship with this show. A lot of the scenes are hard to watch but they are scenes that should be hard to watch. The sexism she is facing is realistic and should be infuriating which is good but it makes me want to throw things at my tv.

I love that Brie Larson is willing to let her appearance reflect the emotional turmoil in Elizabeth. Too many times the actors have to still look perfectly made up at times where it is unrealistic. 

I like that we are seeing more than just awful supporting characters at Hastings. 

The show suffers some from the rushed plot issues that plague most book adaptations. It feels like the connective tissue of the story suffers whenever a book is adapted leaving the show feeling somewhat disjointed and incomplete. 

The entire subplot with the reporter did not work for me. 

[EtheltoTillie]

10 hours ago, shapeshifter said:

One more book question to reply to briefly with spoiler tags:
Is Elizabeth supposed to be on the autistic/Asperger's spectrum?

I'm not answering in relation to the book.  I think it's more about trauma.  She seems socially stunted because of various traumas.  She comes across as potentially on the spectrum, but I don't know if that is the intent. 

10 hours ago, MerBearHou said:

Late tonight (Thursday, about 11p CST) I decided to see if the new episode was up, and surprisingly it was.  I won’t say anything more till others have had a chance to see it.  

These episodes are supposed to drop on Fridays, but they seem to drop them some time late Thursday--I haven't figured out exactly when. 

[MerBearHou]

@EtheltoTillie I was so surprised when I decided to just check and there it was!  

[aghst]

They're going to keep showing how much sexism there was in the '50s in each episode.

Latest outrage, they are going to fire her for being pregnant, especially as an unmarried woman.  Is that why Elizabeth tried to hide it?

But the fact that Elizabeth and Calvin were living together would have also raised eyebrows then because living together before marriage didn't become common until the '70s or even later I believe -- there used to be polls showing gradually increasing social acceptance of unmarried couples living together first.

So she arranged the funeral and inherited the home?  Because she's demolishing it as if it's hers to do as she pleases.

Yeah I didn't feel the dog soliloquies or narration.  Maybe if he revealed that he deliberately distracted Calvin because he wanted him out of the way, wanted all of Elizabeth's attention or something like that.

It seems likely that she's not going to be able to complete her research or have her work validated and be recognized and praised as a scientist.

So she's going to leave Hastings but are they going to drag it out  until the end of the season?

This is suppose to be a one and done limited series so how much is the Hastings phase of the story going to last?

Though now there's a subplot about Donatti trying to steal their research, to get the credit and the grant.

[EtheltoTillie]

5 minutes ago, aghst said:

So she arranged the funeral and inherited the home?  Because she's demolishing it as if it's hers to do as she pleases.

This made no sense.  If they were not married, he'd have had to arrange for her to inherit the house, either with a will or having added her to the deed earlier (speaking as a trusts and estates attorney).  She wouldn't automatically become the owner (although I suppose she could live there with no one else coming along to claim it).  Still, I hate loose ends like this.  

[SoMuchTV]

12 hours ago, MerBearHou said:

Late tonight (Thursday, about 11p CST) I decided to see if the new episode was up, and surprisingly it was.  I won’t say anything more till others have had a chance to see it.  

1 hour ago, EtheltoTillie said:

These episodes are supposed to drop on Fridays, but they seem to drop them some time late Thursday--I haven't figured out exactly when. 

In my experience, it's pretty common for Apple to drop episodes at 9ET the evening before the "official" day.  Unless of course it's something you're really looking forward to, then it's midnight for you!

1 hour ago, aghst said:

So she arranged the funeral and inherited the home?  Because she's demolishing it as if it's hers to do as she pleases.

1 hour ago, EtheltoTillie said:

This made no sense.  If they were not married, he'd have had to arrange for her to inherit the house, either with a will or having added her to the deed earlier (speaking as a trusts and estates attorney).  She wouldn't automatically become the owner (although I suppose she could live there with no one else coming along to claim it).  Still, I hate loose ends like this.  

I don't think we have any reason to think Cavin didn't update his will to make sure she gets the house.  That seems like the kind of thing he would have done, especially when it was clear she didn't want to marry him.

As for the funeral director, I'm not sure what kind of laws or codes of ethics they're under, but if nobody else was stepping forward, I'm not surprised he was willing to deal with someone who there and seemed close to the deceased and was willing to pay.  (And, that might have been something Calvin took care of in this hypothetical will.)

Edited October 20, 2023 by SoMuchTV
Left out part of a phrase

[EtheltoTillie]

3 minutes ago, SoMuchTV said:

 

I don't think we have any reason to think Cavin didn't update his will to make sure she gets the house.  That seems like the kind of thing he would have done, especially when it was clear she didn't want to marry him.

As for the funeral director, I'm not sure what kind of laws or codes of ethics they're under, but if nobody else was stepping forward, I'm not surprised he was willing to deal with there and willing to pay.  (And, that might have been something Calvin took care of in this hypothetical will.)

I'll buy your explanation as to the house--I still hate loose ends.  They could have inserted a line about this.

As to the funeral, yeah, a funeral home will take money from anyone who wants to pay.  There's no restriction! 

[aghst]

Don't forget that Elizabeth found an engagement ring when Calvin's belongings were returned to her from Hastings.

So he may have been hoping to change her mind.

But it's hard to understand the timeline.  They were only together within episode 2 but that could have been maybe weeks or months or years.

It seemed abrupt though, like they progressed very quickly, from them meeting, then her going to work for him, then him making her not feel threatened by him, then them becoming couple, then they moved in together, then he dies.

It all happened within episode 2 or maybe the tail end of episode 1 as well.

No montages showing passage of time, so it seemed sudden.  And she found out she was pregnant after he died and before she was showing.

I don't know if there were no good diagnostics, even with doctors, to determine if she was pregnant or she avoided going to the doctor because she was trying to hide it from her employers and coworkers.

But it seems like when she killed that frog, she was still in the first or second trimester, not showing at all.

So at most she and Calvin were together a couple of months, at least intimately?

If they were together only a few months, would he have changed his will?

Whether he changed the will or not, you would think some family member would have turned up.

 

Also I forgot to say, why do shows and movies use the trope of a character being killed walking into the street while distracted.

It happens so often, you'd think there would be a name for it by now.

I guess the abrupt death of a supporting character is a device to trigger changes in the lives of the main characters, maybe just to accelerate the plot.

But one would think some writers wouldn't want to do the same thing over and over?

Edited October 20, 2023 by aghst

[EtheltoTillie]

@aghst thanks for that info.  I didn't notice her unpacking an engagement ring.

I think they all kept saying his family was dead, so I guess no one expected anyone to show up.

Standing in the street:  They should not have had Harriet and Elizabeth talking in the middle of the street.  I was expecting them to get run over. 

I could have lived without the frog pregnancy test. 

Edited October 20, 2023 by EtheltoTillie

[shapeshifter]

Regarding the sketchy timeline —
The previews for the show indicated and the IMDb Storyline states:

Quote

In the 1950s, a woman's dream of being a scientist is challenged by a society that says women belong only in the domestic sphere. She accepts a job on a TV cooking show and sets out to teach a nation of overlooked housewives way more than recipes

— which seems to indicate that in the first 3 episodes we still haven’t really gotten to the main plot.
I know flashbacks are not always preferred to linear storytelling, but I think this show should have gone that route more than the few flash-forwards we’ve seen.
Like:
Open episodes with a substantial scene of her cooking show, and then flash back to the other stuff 
— perhaps having increasingly more of the show in the present (cooking show) with each episode.

[Guest]

On 10/20/2023 at 11:28 AM, aghst said:

I don't know if there were no good diagnostics, even with doctors, to determine if she was pregnant or she avoided going to the doctor because she was trying to hide it from her employers and coworkers.

But it seems like when she killed that frog, she was still in the first or second trimester, not showing at all.

What she did with the frog was the standard diagnostic test performed by doctors to determine pregnancy at the time.

She didn’t kill the frog. Injecting a certain type of frog with the urine from a pregnant woman causes it to lay eggs 12 hours later. 

[aghst]

10 minutes ago, Dani said:

What she did with the frog was the standard diagnostic test performed by doctors determined pregnancy at the time.

She didn’t kill the frog. Injecting a certain type of frog with the urine from a pregnant woman causes it to lay eggs 12 hours later. 

I guess it was to show that she knew the science and was self-reliant.

She eventually sees the doctor who asks her why she didn't see a doctor earlier about her pregnancy.

There appears to be an element of wanting to hide her condition.  It turns out she had reasons to fear how her employer and coworkers might react.

But the bigger reason is wanting to deny the pregnancy, because she believed it would be the end of her professional aspirations, because parenting, especially by herself, would be too demanding.

So Harriet is suppose to show her a way as a single mother.  It's not clear what Harriet does for work though.  She seems to be knowledgeable about laws and has time and energy to contest the plans to run a highway through her neighborhood.

But she was speaking for other people who'd be affected, mostly black neighbors, probably because the decision-makers thought they could roll over them.  Maybe they were paying her to be their advocate.

 

 

[SoMuchTV]

3 minutes ago, aghst said:

It's not clear what Harriet does for work though.  She seems to be knowledgeable about laws and has time and energy to contest the plans to run a highway through her neighborhood.

I’m pretty sure it was mentioned at some point that she works as a paralegal. Something was said that implied she was a lawyer or at least had a law degree, but obviously nobody would hire her at that level, right?

[Guest]

9 minutes ago, aghst said:

But the bigger reason is wanting to deny the pregnancy, because she believed it would be the end of her professional aspirations, because parenting, especially by herself, would be too demanding.

I think she was denying it for exactly the reason she told the doctor. She was hoping she would have a miscarriage. She was a single, pregnant woman who didn’t want kids in a time when abortion was illegal and being an unwed mother was stigmatized. 

[aghst]

Yes, she did say that she hoped it would take care of itself.

Was she rowing fiercely to induce a miscarriage?

 

 

[EtheltoTillie]

19 minutes ago, aghst said:

Yes, she did say that she hoped it would take care of itself.

Was she rowing fiercely to induce a miscarriage?

 

 

Yes, that's what I thought.

I believe Harriet is a lawyer, not just a paralegal.  And she's not a single mother.  She's married to someone serving in the Korean War, so she is caring for the children alone.

[Eureka]

18 hours ago, shapeshifter said:

Very sad, but I will continue to watch, although the personification of the dog is a bit much for me. I do see dogs as socialized animals, but this show does not seem to be the right venue for what amounts to a talking dog, even if the dog's words aren't really outside of a dog's comprehension.

I wonder if the dog narration occurs in the book too, but I don't plan to read it. Maybe someone who has read it could reply here to just that one point in spoiler tags?

One more book question to reply to briefly with spoiler tags:
Is Elizabeth supposed to be on the autistic/Asperger's spectrum?

Spoiler

Yes, the dog narrates in the book a few times that I can remember. I don’t know if they ever mention Elizabeth being on the spectrum in the book (not that that was a thing we knew about back then) but it sure seemed that way to me when I was reading (and watching).

 

Edited October 21, 2023 by Eureka

[txhorns79]

On 10/20/2023 at 6:18 PM, EtheltoTillie said:

I believe Harriet is a lawyer, not just a paralegal. 

In the last episode, she tells the city council she is a legal aid in a lawyer's office.  She may be more like a legal secretary or clerk than a paralegal. 

I don't love the dog as narrator.  Otherwise, he seems like a very good boy!  I will say he does seem to have more personality than Zott. 

[shapeshifter]

On 10/20/2023 at 6:18 PM, EtheltoTillie said:

I believe Harriet is a lawyer, not just a paralegal. 

6 hours ago, txhorns79 said:

In the last episode, she tells the city council she is a legal aid in a lawyer's office.  She may be more like a legal secretary or clerk than a paralegal. 

Currently in California it is possible to pass the bar and become a lawyer without attending law school (my kids' stepmother did this).

Law school would have likely been beyond Harriet's financial means, as well as there being barriers to her entrance to law schools on the basis of sex and race.

IIRC, passing the Bar without graduating from Law School was a premise in the Perry Mason 2020 reboot, which was set in California in the 1930s, so I'm guessing yes, it was possible in the 1950s in California to pass the bar without attending law school.

So Harriet could be hoping to pass the bar at some time in the future, or, she might have actually passed it but cannot get a paying job as an attorney because of gender and race discrimination, including that she could not guarantee her clients a successful outcome because of the discrimination against her in the courtroom.

Edited October 22, 2023 by shapeshifter

[EtheltoTillie]

6 hours ago, shapeshifter said:

Currently in California it is possible to pass the bar and become a lawyer without attending law school (my kids' stepmother did this).

Law school would have likely been beyond Harriet's financial means, as well as there being barriers to her entrance to law schools on the basis of sex and race.

IIRC, passing the Bar without graduating from Law School was a premise in the Perry Mason 2020 reboot, which was set in California in the 1930s, so I'm guessing yes, it was possible in the 1950s in California to pass the bar without attending law school.

So Harriet could be hoping to pass the bar at some time in the future, or, she might have actually passed it but cannot get a paying job as an attorney because of gender and race discrimination, including that she could not guarantee her clients a successful outcome because of the discrimination against her in the courtroom.

Ha I thought she said she was a legal aid lawyer!  Duh. 
I know about the Perry Mason thing, as I watched that show. Also Kim Kardashian has supposedly been preparing for the same thing.  
I know someone who did the non law school thing here in New York, but it was a long time ago. He is a successful PI attorney. I think they have more rules now. 

[shapeshifter]

5 hours ago, EtheltoTillie said:

I think they have more rules now. 

Here's recent info:
https://www.lsd.law/articles/taking-the-bar-exam-without-law-school

Quote

States that let you take the bar exam without going to law school include:

1. California
2. Vermont
3. Virginia
4. Washington State

Each state has specific rules about how much studying and/or work experience is needed. To take the Bar. Some states require at least some law school, but they also allow for apprenticeships. These states include: 

1. New York
2. Maine
3. West Virginia

But there may be better sources for this information.
This site states:

Quote

LSD.Law gives you the tools needed to make every aspect of becoming a lawyer a little less terrible.

and that it is

Quote

🖖 Hand coded by two dudes in Cambridge 🖖

I glanced at the source code, and it's all there for the world to see, but I suspect these "two dudes" will move on to more lucrative endeavors at which point they may or may not pass the torch on to others who may or may not have the same vision.
Long story short, you may find a better source for current info, and Google Scholar or JSTOR would probably have some freely available and interesting material on attaining law degrees (and institutional sexism) in the 1950s. 
But did the book or script writers do that much research?
I don't know.
I mean — the show has a talking dog.

[EtheltoTillie]

New York now makes you take one year of school and three years of law-office study.  So you have to be able to get into some accredited school if only a crappy one--and pay for it.

Edited October 22, 2023 by EtheltoTillie

[EtheltoTillie]

I was excited for future law school aspirants to learn that the LSAT is now eliminating the dreaded logic games (apparently in mid-2024, not soon enough for my friend's son, who took the test two weeks ago). 

For those who don't know, the logic games are elimination puzzles:  e.g., Paul is wearing a brown hat.  He is sitting next to the woman with a red dress.  What is Jane wearing?  (I think the game of Clue is similar, but I have never actually played Clue.)  What a pain those were.  I had to take the Kaplan's review class to learn the trick of how to do them fast.  You learn how to make charts. 

Edited October 22, 2023 by EtheltoTillie

[EtheltoTillie]

Two dudes from Cambridge:  that can mean only two things--Harvard or MIT.  Turns out it was one of each.

 

 

[aghst]

Regardless of whether she has the legal training or the ability to pass the bar, Harriet shows composure and ability to persuasively argue for her position in public.

More than most graduates fresh out of law school, whether or not they've passed the bar.

You don't see her code switch because we don't see her conversing with other black people.

She may not be in the show any longer as Elizabeth transitions to her TV show job though.

Maybe she becomes a politician or an advocate for the community.

[EtheltoTillie]

1 hour ago, aghst said:

Regardless of whether she has the legal training or the ability to pass the bar, Harriet shows composure and ability to persuasively argue for her position in public.

More than most graduates fresh out of law school, whether or not they've passed the bar.

You don't see her code switch because we don't see her conversing with other black people.

She may not be in the show any longer as Elizabeth transitions to her TV show job though.

Maybe she becomes a politician or an advocate for the community.

Yes, she came across as a skilled advocate.  She is likely college educated.  I think the husband was said to be a doctor.  I think they were living in an upper-middle class black neighborhood, i.e., with professionals.  I have a feeling she will stay on as a character. 

[EtheltoTillie]

Lewis Pullman appears in the new Caine Mutiny movie on Showtime. 

Edited October 23, 2023 by EtheltoTillie

[SeanBug]

On 10/22/2023 at 9:53 AM, shapeshifter said:

I mean — the show has a talking dog.

Not to be argumentative, but the dog isn't "talking", we're hearing his thoughts. 

I have a bigger issue with Six Thirty being a "Labradoodle", as the first was bred in 1989.  More than likely, he's just a large poodle mix.  And why the military would use a dog like that makes absolutely no sense. Poodles can be very aggressive if they feel threatened (I've owned them) but I don't think they've ever been used as military or guard dogs.  

 

 

 

[Guest]

1 hour ago, SeanBug said:

I have a bigger issue with Six Thirty being a "Labradoodle", as the first was bred in 1989.  More than likely, he's just a large poodle mix.

I believe he’s a goldendoodle. Has the show named the breed? I think he just supposed to be a mutt from before designer dogs were a thing. 

1 hour ago, SeanBug said:

And why the military would use a dog like that makes absolutely no sense. Poodles can be very aggressive if they feel threatened (I've owned them) but I don't think they've ever been used as military or guard dogs.  

I don’t know how old Six-Thirty is supposed to be or when that flashback was set but may not be a complete stretch. There were very few military dogs when Pearl Harbor was attacked and people were encouraged to donate their pets for military use. That program was what caused them to narrow down the list of acceptable breeds for military use. I have no clue if it was intentional but my head cannon is that Six-Thirty was one of those dogs. 

[SeanBug]

5 hours ago, Dani said:

I believe he’s a goldendoodle. Has the show named the breed? I think he just supposed to be a mutt from before designer dogs were a thing. 

I don’t know how old Six-Thirty is supposed to be or when that flashback was set but may not be a complete stretch. There were very few military dogs when Pearl Harbor was attacked and people were encouraged to donate their pets for military use. That program was what caused them to narrow down the list of acceptable breeds for military use. I have no clue if it was intentional but my head cannon is that Six-Thirty was one of those dogs. 

I think he was called a Labradoodle in a review, so the show probably isn't claiming he's that specific breed. 

The show is set in the early 1950s. It says in the book description he was being trained as a explosive sniffing dog, but the show makes it look like he would have been some type of guard dog. 

I started watching thinking "oh this looks like a fun little show, I really like Brie Larson".  Then we get sexual assault, sexism, racism, death and a dog who makes me tear up just looking at him because he's so adorable, and then they add BJ Novak's narration.  Good job Apple!  I've been upset all day.  

 

[aghst]

Andy Greenwald and Chris Ryan were snarking the dog POV and narration mercilessly.

Even if it's a key part of the book, Andy suggests they shouldn't have done it because it just disrupts the narrative flow which had already been established in the previous episodes.

BTW, the voice of the dog is BJ Novak.

[Guest]

23 minutes ago, aghst said:

Even if it's a key part of the book, Andy suggests they shouldn't have done it because it just disrupts the narrative flow which had already been established in the previous episodes.

I disagree with that. Disrupting the narrative flow isn’t always a bad thing. The narrative flow of Elizabeth’s life was dramatically altered and switching the point of view allows the weight of that to be more fully felt while still moving the story along. 

[SeanBug]

14 hours ago, Dani said:

I disagree with that. Disrupting the narrative flow isn’t always a bad thing. The narrative flow of Elizabeth’s life was dramatically altered and switching the point of view allows the weight of that to be more fully felt while still moving the story along. 

I agree with you.  I don't think it disrupts the flow at all, if anything it adds a more sensitive aspect to Calvin dying, because Elizabeth is such a closed off person. She has a hard time expressing grief etc. and hearing Six Thirty's thoughts on losing Calvin and how he knew he now had to protect his family because he felt like he failed, it just broke my heart. 

I've stopped listening to The Ringer. They are way to invested in sounding "cool" and snarking. 

[MaryMitch]

On 10/20/2023 at 2:42 PM, EtheltoTillie said:

Standing in the street:  They should not have had Harriet and Elizabeth talking in the middle of the street.  I was expecting them to get run over.

That was stressful, watching that. I would think Elizabeth would have had a bad reaction - akin to her not wanting the office/lab doors closed - and insisted they go to the sidewalk.

And then she RUNS down the middle of the street at night!

Edited October 26, 2023 by MaryMitch

[anniebird]

On 10/24/2023 at 8:01 PM, aghst said:

Andy Greenwald and Chris Ryan were snarking the dog POV and narration mercilessly.

Even if it's a key part of the book, Andy suggests they shouldn't have done it because it just disrupts the narrative flow which had already been established in the previous episodes.

BTW, the voice of the dog is BJ Novak.

These two really need to write their own damn show and quit trying to rewrite this one which is staying true to the original story.

[Hanahope]

i thought it was pretty clear that Elizabeth was relatively normal* at college and became emotionally flat and closed off after she was assaulted.  she probably (at least partly) blamed herself, that she was "too friendly" to her professor and he "misunderstood."  At a minimum, everyone else likely told her that.  so by shutting off her emotions at work, she would not accidently be "too friendly" to another man who might "misunderstand" and assault her.  we see that when Calvin closed the door that one time, she went into panic mode again afraid she had been "too friendly".

she lowered her shell to Calvin once it became clear that Calvin was not like that, he respected her as an equal, and did not assault her.  the shell was still there at work with everyone else.  we now see it more now because Calvin is dead.

*it also sounds like something occurred in Elizabeth's past that contributes to her shell, with her brother dying and her not speaking with her parents since she was 17.  

 

I'm trying to figure out where this show is located.  I know Los Angeles, and likely somewhere near where I-10 runs between downtown LA and Santa Monica.  but i am not aware of any rivers in that area (or in most of LA) that would be suitable for rowing, or boat houses.

Edited May 17 by Hanahope