S01.E05: 5

[Maximona]

It's the same day.  It has to be for the sake of narrative continuity -- otherwise the scriptwriters could start presenting wildly different memories within the Allison/Noah bookends.

 

I don't think Allison remarried.  The detective calls her MIZZ Bailey.

 

I like the idea that Allison and Noah are each other's alibi, and in the present tense of the detective interrogation, they now not-so-cordially dislike each other.  Their memories of one another certainly do seem to mix dislike and blame with attraction.

 

I agree that Dominic West's McNulty was the weakest link in The Wire, but I think he's really good in this.  I think the whole point is that he's not devastatingly attractive.  Allison isn''t looking just for someone to have sex with.  She's looking for someone to rescue her from the trap of Montauk life.

[Constantinople]

Of course, the most obvious answer is that Alison and Noah divorce their current spouses, marry one another, have a child and live comfortably in NYC because Noah's book is a best- seller. I just don't think any of this is that simple.

I hope not it's not that simple because it would be too pat.

Plus, it better be one blockbuster best seller. Noah may not owe Helen much, if any alimony, since much of their lifestyle is funded by Helen's parents -- though the brownstone was purchased using a loan from the parents, so who knows what a divorce court will say about that -- but he's still on the hook for child support for 4 children, some of whom are quite young.

[stillshimpy]

Given that Scotty was just a little too interested in Whitney, Whitney might be a suspect.  Given that Whitney and Scotty first met after she drove-up to the Lockhart ranch, would it not be poetic if they last saw each other while Whitney turned Scotty into street pizza?  (Answer: No, but it seems like the kind of thing that Noah would put in one of his novels).  Or Noah or Helen might be suspects, or at least, the police might want to rule them out as suspects.

 

Well, the story did just take some pains to show that Whitney struggles with things like empathy, compassion and the way she regards other people. So basically a fairly typical teen. It doesn't seem like it is outside of the realm of possibility that Whitney did something like accidentally run him down and then flee the scene, possibly to wherever Alison and Noah were, thereby involving them and part of the reason that Alison seems so much more on edge is that she has less emotional investment in trying to make sure Whitney walks.  

 

But I agree, that seems rather convoluted. Admittedly, Whitney is the only one of the kids who has been given several details in her characterization to sort of establish her as a person, vs. one of the herd of children.  I can't remember any of the other kids names.  Not even the little turd who faked the hanging, which I am absolutely positive my own parents would have actually murdered me if I'd done anything even remotely similar to that.  

 

Perhaps the detective is calling Alison "Ms. Bailey" vs. "Miss"?  

 

This was the first episode in which I could feel some of why Noah feels distant from Helen in a lot of ways.  I can't imagine anything stinging more than Helen's casual dismissal of the worth of Noah's job.  There's some logic ot the entire "what does it matter how much money we take from them...." except that Helen is there, bearing witness to how her parents regularly treat Noah when he's still trying to make his own living.  Plus, when someone outside the story is able to spot from miles away what the answer to the "close the shop" thing would be (hire someone for the afternoons, guys, it's not difficult math ) it's got to be readily apparent to someone within the story.  So it felt like Helen's entire thing about closing the shop was just a set-up to segue into "quit teaching, would you?"  

 

Basically that rather than figuring out the fairly simple "hire someone, duh" Helen had done that math and figured she'd just stay at the store and have her parents essentially hire Noah, with all the loss of dignity that would entail for him. 

 

I like Helen just fine and I also like Cole (who, if we're taking a poll, I find much more attractive than his brother....who looks like he was manufactured by some male model distributing company) , but I also like that the more subtle "well, that would be wearing" aspects of both have been peeking through.

 

Cole's tendency to declare the sanctity of whatever it is he holds dear.  Whereas I'm sure his mother took very good care of Alison when she was a complete wreck, it's wildly unfair to use her real distress as a bludgeon to win an argument or silence another person.  It had the ring of the old tactic of mother's "I carried you in my body for nine months, for this?  This is gratitude for all the times I bathed you and wiped your butt, never leaving your side..." and all the other guilt-screws that cliche mom's put to their kids. Except it was Cole wielding that against both Alison and Athena in that moment.    Before that the speech about the beauty and simplicity of the days of yore and how he's the salt of that Earth and will rest his weary bones there for eternity.  

 

I mean, he's cute, but he's a little prone to lecturing.  

 

Then Helen, who is pretty kind overall, also just discounts much of Noah's discomfort around her parents and her family as being something that doesn't matter and if Cole has a tendency to condescend with too much lecturing, he's nothing compared to Team  Disdain at the beachfront home.  One thing I do like that the story has managed is that they've rendered both of Helen's parents in very different, but equally shriveling detail.  Helen's dad telling Noah -- like he's a child who isn't keeping his room picked up -- about not going to play tennis until after he'd written ten pages ('cause nothing fuels the creative process like having someone else create your writing process for you, I guess) -- is pretty much nothing compared to Helen's Mom telling Whitney that she didn't want Helen to marry Whitney's dad...in Noah's hearing.  

 

A privileged edge to her civility; a way she hints at wielding a status based in more than cash.

 

Yeah, there's something very studied and a little too varnished to her air of privilege and she looks wary as hell a lot of the time.  

Edited November 11, 2014 by stillshimpy

[Neurochick]

I really understand why Noah and Allison are together.  

 

Because of crappy childhoods, Noah and Allison married very young, not because of love, but because of need.

 

Noah said that his mother died, his father started drinking, his sister took off with a Sherpa.  He wanted love, he wanted to feel part of a family; so he asked Helen to marry him; Noah knew Helen loved him, and that was important.

 

Allison's mother is/was flighty.  She was never in one place, don't know what happened to the father.  Allison was living with her grandparents, she probably wanted stability; and there was Cole with his ranch and large family, which was probably like heaven to Allison.

 

Now Noah and Allison are adults, realizing the choices they made might not have been the right ones.  Both of them feel like aliens living someone else's life.

 

Athena told Allison that Cole's mother was tying Allison to their family and I think Allison thought that as well.  

 

Helen is a good wife, but she sided with her father over her husband, which is a no no.  Helen should have told her father that Whitney is their daughter and they are responsible for parenting her.  He needed to STFU and I didn't like that Helen couldn't tell her father that.

 

BTW, I know an RN who does Reiki; she's married to an MD and uses Reiki with Western medicine.  

[Maximona]

 

Noah and Allison married very young, not because of love, but because of need.

Excellent analysis.

 

Just so.

[stillshimpy]

Because of crappy childhoods, Noah and Allison married very young, not because of love, but because of need.

 

Perhaps in Alison's case there is something to that, because it does sound like having been denied the family structure we're told we should want, Alison set about trying to create it at too young an age. 

 

But I think they both pretty clearly loved their spouses and with good reason.  It's just hard to predict who we will become over time and it's extremely difficult to choose a good partner for your life, when you're not fully formed as an adult person yet.   Then add in the old saw, that still remains true, that familiarity breeds contempt and it can be a challenge to maintain a longstanding relationship. 

 

Maybe nearly Sainted Cole's tendency to fully and forcefully speak his mind with the framing of simple decency made him seem like a righteous crusader, but over time he become a bit of scold, prone to guilt and handing out edicts about what others are allowed to feel.  

 

Helen's sort of relaxed attitude towards conflict in most situations would seem like she was refreshingly laid back for someone so privileged, whereas overtime, it might feel like she doesn't give enough of a damn about anything to passionately commit to it, or to Noah.  

 

But I think they both fell in love, it's just hard to sustain that through continued maturation.  Seeing how someone responds to the trials of life in actuality is often different than imagining how a trait will be worn by time. 

Edited November 11, 2014 by stillshimpy

[Boundary]

I mean, he's cute, but he's a little prone to lecturing.  

 

I'm beginning to think the same. The way Cole started scolding Athena, on the surface it would seem he was defending his mother which is fine but taken together with the town hall speech and his rant about the building rising next to his house, it seems like he is a little bit too preachy. I can even see it from his view, he thinks he has this fantastic family tradition to preserve but from Alison's view over time it would grate. She's admitted she doesn't love him anymore but I think she is trapped, not only by Cole and his crusade but also by his mother, brothers and the whole small town where everyone knows her situation and assume they know how she feels. Even at this point in the affair, she still doesn't seem to believe she can escape, she probably still assumes it's a summer fling, a couple of months of feeling something. She doesn't want Noah to promise her anything.

 

Interestingly, Noah might already be looking beyond his marriage. I don't know how long he's put up with the meddling, judgmental in-laws but being told "you aren't successful" (i.e. in their tone it means "you are a failure") and "you're not good enough for our daughter" over and over again he must've reached breaking point, even without Alison in his life. Now with Alison there, who's also patently unhappy in her marriage, he can now see a possibility of getting away from the Butlers. I'd expect him to start to push this thought onto Alison more freely from now.

 

Helen is a good wife, but she sided with her father over her husband, which is a no no.  

 

I think Helen defied her parents and married below her station because she was young and in love. But with age comes a bit of reality check. Her father is a successful writer, she seems to have a successful business and yet her husband, an aspiring writer, is still rooted in his teaching job. She probably never understood his passion for teaching and therefore underplayed it whilst hyping his ambitions as a writer. But she's gotten to mid age and doesn't understand why teaching is so important to Noah, seeing that it doesn't pay for much of their lifestyle. The sad part is that she doesn't realise how big a problem this incompatibility brings. So when she sides with her father, for her it's common sense: people sue to get their hands on the money. She sympathises with Noah's frustration but still doesn't see how big an issue it is for him. She's wilfully blindsiding herself to the bleeding obvious - sooner rather than later he will find someone who understands, perhaps even appreciates, his passions. Which, ironically, then pushes Noah onto that second but more successful book. 

Edited November 11, 2014 by Boundary

[Pallas]

shimpy and neurochick: what rich depictions of the features of these characters and their marriages, as we begin to make them out, as they come into relief.  I loved how shimpy laid out just what might be "wearing" in the seeming benevolence of both Helen and Cole -- and how both stand rooted in (differently placed, yet equally established) families that Alison and Noah lack.  And the way neurochick evoked how this naturally attracted the two (differently stranded, yet equally at sea) young people who Alison and Noah once were, but now leaves each of them feeling marooned.

 

Alison may have strongly felt that Gabriel was the first person she ever knew who belonged to her, who loved her most, who must stay.  Noah may have dimly felt that every child he had with Helen would be money in the bank, joint capital, a shared project that put paid to the Butlers with their crummy marriage and their fiefdom built on potboilers.   As a teacher even more than as a literary writer, he could counter Ben's diatribes on "Here is how you go about living well by selling out: these are the protocols,  these are the responsibilities..." with a life made of investing time and learning in young people.  Now Gabriel has been swallowed by Cole's sea and Noah's children are being swallowed by the Butlers who can only now and then be bothered to try to stick a fork in him, as well.  And by his count, the Butlers are becoming three, not two.

 

Alison felt that Noah might embody one of her grandfather's voices in the wind.  In her recollections of what attracted her to him, he is always talking, always exploring a thought and turning things over: in her recollections he is more articulate than in his own. She doesn't remember him looking at her or touching her or speaking to her of her as much as she recalls him showering her with words, words that at least in the beginning, seem to come from an abundant well.  The talking and not the fucking is what is bringing her back to life.  He insists on it.  He needs it too, which feels a lot like needing her.

 

Once they each sought a family.  Now Alison -- mother of the lost son and daughter of the absent parents and wife of the quiet man and caretaker of the failing woman --  just wants a voice that recognizes her on good days and bad.  Now Noah wants someone, anyone  -- a wife, a child, a student, a reader -- who listens with all her heart.  They are both back to where they were before they married young, and if it turns out they go on to marry each other, it looks as if they may end up alone, aware.

[Higgs]

The interrogation takes place the number of years following the beginning of the affair that it takes Trevor to grow from the boy we saw in this episode to someone who has to write a paper on the racism of Huck Finn. Because Noah tells his son he'll "call" him later about the homework, rather than he'll "see" him later, the two are not living together. This is consistent with the detective presenting himself to Noah as divorced and single, and having lost custody of his children. By the same token, the detective presenting himself to Alison as being in a long-lasting marriage suggests she is still married to Cole. They're in NYC with his $6M share of the ranch, and she dresses the part. (Noah dresses a very, very different part: a Long Island Norman Mailer.) So why does the detective address her as Ms. Bailey, instead of Mrs. Lockhart? I'll get to that.

This episode featured another transfer of goods, this time between Scotty and Oscar, regarding which Oscar did not want to leave a trail on his cell. We have seen Alison involved in a transfer, but never Cole. Scotty has been killed in a manner made to look like an accident on his way to a club in Montauk. Whodunit, and why?

Suspect: Oscar

Motive: Silence a witness.

Likelihood: Small, he's too unimportant a character and probably just a user, not a dealer/distributor. His development beef has been with Cole, not Scotty.

Suspect: Cole

Motive: Protect Alison from Scotty's testimony regarding her involvement.

Likelihood: Moderate, only, partly because brother but mostly because not dramatically satisfying.

Suspect: Alison

Motive: See above.

Likelihood: Substantial; directly, or as accomplice, or with material knowledge. She's capable alright, and was in Montauk that night at a party (a wedding? Widow Lockhart remarrying?).

Suspect: Noah

Motive: Protect Alison.

Likelihood: High. Because undying love (cherchez la femme), self-fulfilling, unselfish, heroic deed, inverted but still resonant with his description of the proposed ending of his second novel. Was not at party but lives in Montauk.

So why "Ms. Bailey"? The psychologically-manipulative detective isn't absolutely certain if a lover had come to her rescue or if she took matters into her own hands, and wants to invoke in her a sense of separate, independent personhood so that she'll submit to her conscience and rat out the killer or confess her own guilt. (If it weren't this complicated there wouldn't be a second season.) Marriage, love, child's death, sex, betrayal, drugs, money, ambition, fame, murder - what's not to like?

Edited November 12, 2014 by Higgs

[Milburn Stone]

Deirdre O'Connell.  I know her from Nurse Jackie, where she played former-Sister Helen.  She was also on Chicago Hope, but I can't pretend to remember her from there... 

 

She can also be seen--I kid you not!--tap dancing as a ten-year old on Fernwood 2 Night. The episode's title was "Hearing Ear Dogs for the Deaf." Watch it on YouTube if you don't believe me.

[Blakeston]

I didn't notice until re-watching this episode that Alison is wearing a wedding ring in the scene where the detective tells her she can go. (It's a blink-or-you'll-miss-it kinda thing - you see it when right after the detective says, "We're done.")

 

And the detective is definitely calling her Ms. Bailey, not Miss Bailey.

 

This still leaves us a bunch of different options, of course. A few possibilities:

 

It may be that Alison's marriage to Cole ended, and now she's married to someone else, and she decided to keep her maiden name.

 

It may be that Alison's marriage to Cole ended, but she chooses to keep wearing the ring.

 

It may be that Alison is still married to Cole, and the detective is calling her by her maiden name as a tactic, like Higgs suggested.

[Boundary]

In the flashback, Alison herself answers a phone by "Alison Bailey". So I don't think her maiden name is that significant if she's been using it all along.

[JudyObscure]

This episode has made all the previous hours worthwhile.  It was as though every character became fully realized.

 

I finally see why Noah is pulling away from Helen. I could scarcely believe she was trying to talk Noah into borrowing more money from her parents, five minutes after they were throwing the house and the private school in Noah's face for the hundredth time.  Then to mention her lack of faith in his writing career.  Wow, Helen. Even little glimpses of a woman who orders her husband to go get bagels, sides with her parents against him over Whitney, and feels entitled to her parents money right now because. "It will all be mine some day."  Helen had better get over her great expectations, her father is the  greedy over-confident type, likely to fall for a Bernie Madoff scheme and lose it all in a day, or he might just leave it all to the mistress.

 

The moment when Cole came back and found Alison dressed up was so awkward it didn't seem quite real to me.  I expected her to babble a little something about realizing she needed to go shopping or whatever.  Just staring at each other made me rethink their whole relationship.  Just how open is it?  Would moralistic, traditional Cole go for that? 

 

The contrast between Alison's mother and her mother-in-law was good.  One too distant and the other too smothering.  The ring thing was horrible.

[attica]

And this is really picky of me, but nobody on the East coast refers to a place where horses are kept as a "ranch."  We say "horse farm!"  Every time I hear ranch, I roll my eyes.

 

Thank you! Yeesh. Ranch. Ranch is for cowboys and salad.

Alison is wearing a wedding ring in the scene where the detective tells her she can go.

 

 

Moreover, it's a different ring than the one she sports in the flashbacks. I'm wondering if it's Cherry's ring?

[Constantinople]

And this is really picky of me, but nobody on the East coast refers to a place where horses are kept as a "ranch."  We say "horse farm!"  Every time I hear ranch, I roll my eyes.

 

 

Thank you! Yeesh. Ranch. Ranch is for cowboys and salad.

 

FWIW, IRL the Deep Hollow Ranch is in Montauk and bills itself as the "Birthplace of the American Cowboy and the oldest working ranch in the U.S.A.".  They have trail rides, boarding for horses, a pony camp and pony rides, though I'm not sure if they still have any cattle.  That may have been the part that was sold off to the CEO of J Crew.

[Pike Ludwell]

I finally see why Noah is pulling away from Helen. I could scarcely believe she was trying to talk Noah into borrowing more money from her parents, five minutes after they were throwing the house and the private school in Noah's face for the hundredth time.  Then to mention her lack of faith in his writing career.  Wow, Helen. Even little glimpses of a woman who orders her husband to go get bagels, sides with her parents against him over Whitney, and feels entitled to her parents money right now because. "It will all be mine some day."  Helen had better get over her great expectations, her father is the  greedy over-confident type, likely to fall for a Bernie Madoff scheme and lose it all in a day, or he might just leave it all to the mistress.

 

 

I think Noah came out worse in the situations you mention. Viewing as a bad thing, money that could be very helpful to his family? Noah has personal issues in that regard, apparently. His hostility to that seemed neurotic. And I think he was too eager to jump to conclusions against his daughter and became too hot-headed -- more personal issues and neurotic tendencies apparently. hear the daughter out, keep a cool head, listen to different points of view. Talk it out reasonably? Nope. He went nuts.

[Pallas]

In the flashback, Alison herself answers a phone by "Alison Bailey". So I don't think her maiden name is that significant if she's been using it all along.

 

Before I check the video-tape, does anyone remember how Alison identified herself to Mrs. Butler, at the party?  Prompting Kathy Chalfant's lovely, "Oh, you're the poor girl..."  Did she say Alison Lockhart, or Alison-I'm-married-to-Cole-Harthart?    

 

Of course even if she uses her maiden name as a rule, she might sometimes say "Lockhart" as shorthand. Maybe especially with a social dragon like Mrs. Butler, asserting her own connection to a family with far deeper roots in Montauk.   

[Milburn Stone]

And I think he was too eager to jump to conclusions against his daughter and became too hot-headed -- more personal issues and neurotic tendencies apparently. hear the daughter out, keep a cool head, listen to different points of view. Talk it out reasonably? Nope. He went nuts.

 

While Noah lacked "proof" at the time, his instincts were formed by his knowledge of who Whitney is, what kind of kid she's sadly turning out to be, etc. As we know (always with the caveat on this show of "if his account of events can be trusted"), his instincts about her guilt in the matter proved correct. So I wouldn't ascribe his acute perceptiveness to neurosis on his part.

[Constantinople]

Before I check the video-tape, does anyone remember how Alison identified herself to Mrs. Butler, at the party?  Prompting Kathy Chalfant's lovely, "Oh, you're the poor girl..."  Did she say Alison Lockhart, or Alison-I'm-married-to-Cole-Harthart?    

 

Of course even if she uses her maiden name as a rule, she might sometimes say "Lockhart" as shorthand. Maybe especially with a social dragon like Mrs. Butler, asserting her own connection to a family with far deeper roots in Montauk.

I don't think Alison identified herself by name to Margaret Butler, but I'm not sure. IIRC, Margaret said that Alison looked familiar and Alison responded she was a waitress at WhateverTheNameOfTheRestaurnt/DinerIs. Then Margaret responded that Alison was the poor girl in the newspaper.

[RimaTheBirdGirl]

 

does anyone remember how Alison identified herself to Mrs. Butler, at the party?  Prompting Kathy Chalfant's lovely, "Oh, you're the poor girl..."  Did she say Alison Lockhart, or Alison-I'm-married-to-Cole-Harthart?

Pallas and Constantinople, I just rewatched that scene, and Costantinople recalls quite correctly.  Alison does NOT identify herself, nor does Mrs. Butler ask her name.  Alison has only a stunned, oh-to-be-anywhere-but-here silence in response to the "poor girl."  

 

Mrs. Butler's failure to ask Alison's name is odd, given the sincere empathy Mrs. B. is sending.  (But yeah, she's crocked.)  The scene does kinda' prove Alison's later point, that people looking at her see only death.

[Guest Accused Dingo]

I really want to see someone elses story on some of these events; like the fight between Noah and his wife. Noah is the definition of an unreliable narrator but his recounting of the events of the fight about the daughters bullying was interesting to me. Helen demured to her parents demands and advice. The Grandparents (like always) basically said "our money our rules." And the daughter listened to everyone but him. Yes when Helen brought up leaving he said no (and we all know why) but later the wife said something else interesting as well , "when they die the money will be mine." She didn't say "ours" she said "mine".

Maybe Noah has been overly sensitive to the money issue and none of the conversations happened like they appear to him. It would be nice to get a second opinion.

Edited November 12, 2014 by Accused Dingo

[Boundary]

While Noah lacked "proof" at the time, his instincts were formed by his knowledge of who Whitney is, what kind of kid she's sadly turning out to be, etc. As we know (always with the caveat on this show of "if his account of events can be trusted"), his instincts about her guilt in the matter proved correct. So I wouldn't ascribe his acute perceptiveness to neurosis on his part.

I agree. Also, his other child just faked a suicide and I think it hit a sore point (Helen doesn't know about the "suicide vest"). Also, Whitney seems to be a bait for trouble (like any teenager) but I believe her when she said she didn't set up the twitter account. She's still culpable and needed to apologize, for her own good especially (but, as someone pointed out upthread, it is rather selfish trying to discipline your child by disturbing the other family's need for downtime). He also took the opportunity to blame the private school's part in the whole thing, a bizarre but understandable stance for him, what with the grandparents' "we're writing the checks" and him being a public school teacher. I don't know how much effort the writers have put into characterization but if we're reading all these clues right, they deserve an Emmy nom at least.

 

 

Of course even if she uses her maiden name as a rule, she might sometimes say "Lockhart" as shorthand. 

 

As others have remembered, she doesn't identify herself to Margaret by name but is obviously identified as part of the Lockhart clan by most people in town. But going by her maiden name, after marrying into what I suppose is one of the town's major families, is that significant at all? I honestly don't know. Like you said, I'd suppose she must use Lockhart as a short hand in some social settings. But what I wanted to point out was that if in an official capacity she's always wanted to be called by her maiden name then it is not significant that the detective called her Ms Bailey. However, having thought on it, shouldn't it be Mrs Bailey or Miss Bailey? The fact that the detective specifically uses Ms., which is deliberately vague, is primarily for the audience (to keep us guessing who she's married to, she's married right?) because in-universe I think the detective knows exactly her marital status. Perhaps she's still married to Cole but separated, and so Ms. would a polite way to sidestep any awkwardness. If she's divorced and single, Miss would be appropriate (which means she's not single, confirmed by the ring sighting). If she's married to Noah (or anyone else) Ms. Bailey would still be applicable.

Edited November 12, 2014 by Boundary

[shelley1234]

 

The moment when Cole came back and found Alison dressed up was so awkward it didn't seem quite real to me.  I expected her to babble a little something about realizing she needed to go shopping or whatever.  Just staring at each other made me rethink their whole relationship.  Just how open is it?  Would moralistic, traditional Cole go for that? 

 

 

 

I've thought about this and the conclusion I came to is that Cole interacts differently with Alison than he does with most other people in his life.  Cole was grandstanding with Oscar and the townsfolk at the town meeting.  Cole says with a firm finality to his family that they are NOT selling the ranch and then is called a bully by Alison's mother.  However his interactions are much softer, kinder and less dominant with Alison.  It's the one interaction where he doesn't act like he is in charge...she does.  He invites her most places he goes and doesn't balk if she doesn't want to come.  He relents to her opinion often, etc.  It may be that he is walking on eggshells around her since the loss of their son, but I just found the difference really interesting.  

[stillshimpy]

Well, there's also something else that might have caused Cole to be silent when he found Alison up and getting dressed, their son Gabriel.  It seems like Cole has been used to Alison going off and doing her own thing in order to try and deal with her grief.  

 

In the first episode, Cole tells Alison that (essentially) that he is going to be moving forward from this point on.  That he wanted to have a good day that day.  She goes to the family dinner, later than expected and he regards her in that same sort of disapproving silence, but doesn't ask her where she's been or what she was doing (she'd been to Gabriel's grave).  

 

So rather than think she was sneaking off for a hookup, it seems like a behavior he'd associate with something Alison has done in the past and may have assumed that it had to do with Gabriel (and Cole had declared he would be moving on from that in the first scenes that we met him).  

 

I think, I could be wrong on that, that he may have assumed she was off to go read Peter Pan to a headstone.  

 

While Noah lacked "proof" at the time, his instincts were formed by his knowledge of who Whitney is, what kind of kid she's sadly turning out to be, etc. As we know (always with the caveat on this show of "if his account of events can be trusted"), his instincts about her guilt in the matter proved correct. So I wouldn't ascribe his acute perceptiveness to neurosis on his part.

 

Absolutely that and then Noah's also a teacher and is around school age kids all the time. He knows the impact of bullying and sees the victims firsthand, as well as knowing them.  I think he probably would also have experience with what the perpetrators tend to do (which is deny when confronted, generally).  Plus, teachers in the middle school and high school levels know something that most parents have a hard time facing as a reality:  A lot of teenagers lie as a way of problem solving.  It can be a go to for teens.  It doesn't then mean that they are pathological liars or truly troubled, but that kids do it.  

 

Sometimes parents really convince themselves that their child wouldn't lie to them and they think it's really about character, when realistically, lying as a problem-solving technique is often just a part of adolescent development.   Meaning that Noah would have enough experience with teens to understand that the stronger the denial, the higher the likelihood that you've just busted a teen. 

[shelley1234]

Well, there's also something else that might have caused Cole to be silent when he found Alison up and getting dressed, their son Gabriel.  It seems like Cole has been used to Alison going off and doing her own thing in order to try and deal with her grief.  

 

In the first episode, Cole tells Alison that (essentially) that he is going to be moving forward from this point on.  That he wanted to have a good day that day.  She goes to the family dinner, later than expected and he regards her in that same sort of disapproving silence, but doesn't ask her where she's been or what she was doing (she'd been to Gabriel's grave).  

 

So rather than think she was sneaking off for a hookup, it seems like a behavior he'd associate with something Alison has done in the past and may have assumed that it had to do with Gabriel (and Cole had declared he would be moving on from that in the first scenes that we met him).  

 

I think, I could be wrong on that, that he may have assumed she was off to go read Peter Pan to a headstone.  

 

 

 

 

Absolutely that and then Noah's also a teacher and is around school age kids all the time. He knows the impact of bullying and sees the victims firsthand, as well as knowing them.  I think he probably would also have experience with what the perpetrators tend to do (which is deny when confronted, generally).  Plus, teachers in the middle school and high school levels know something that most parents have a hard time facing as a reality:  A lot of teenagers lie as a way of problem solving.  It can be a go to for teens.  It doesn't then mean that they are pathological liars or truly troubled, but that kids do it.  

 

Sometimes parents really convince themselves that their child wouldn't lie to them and they think it's really about character, when realistically, lying as a problem-solving technique is often just a part of adolescent development.   Meaning that Noah would have enough experience with teens to understand that the stronger the denial, the higher the likelihood that you've just busted a teen. 

 

I considered it an absolute fact that Whitney was lying and was involved as soon as she threw her phone in the pool.  Kids consider their phones to be more important than their lives, so if she is chucking it in the pool....yeah, she bullied that girl something fierce.  Case closed. 

[HumblePi]

I'm wondering when they'll bring something relevant to the story about Martin the son who faked his own hanging in their Brooklyn apartment in the first episode. The kid obviously has some issues that need to be addressed, but it seems the problems of the children of this affluent family take a back seat to the selfishness of their parents.

Edited November 12, 2014 by HumblePi

[Higgs]

Correction #1: There is a possible reason for "Ms. Bailey" unrelated to the detective. There are times when a couple renegotiates the unofficial terms of their marriage. In particular, a wife whose infidelity has become known to her husband (an absolute dramatic necessity here) agrees to stay with him if changes are made, e.g., use of maiden name, financial autonomy, sharing of childcare and housekeeping duties. In any case, it would not be at all unusual for a wife to revert to her maiden name if she began a professional career in NYC. (Alison might very well become a manager/supervisor in a nursing-related field, for example).

Correction #2: When Alison delivers the "fish" to the storeroom, she mentions that Cole wants the door to be always locked. Thus Cole may indeed be in on the drug-running, and so would have a very personal motive to silence someone who might give him up (as in a plea deal, say).

The whole drug business may, of course, turn out to be a Hitchcockian "MacGuffin". The more important mystery for me is why Noah and Alison don't ultimately make it after their affair becomes known to their respective families. Noah's second novel appears to have been reasonably successful, which would provide him the initially-lacking money, self-esteem, and prospects that educated women are wise to require in a man they give up everything for. Does Noah leave because he finds out about the drugs? Does Alison leave because Noah has another affair or doesn't want more children? Or because $6M? In real life, as we all know, love and lust can just die, but that would be ending the series with a whimper, not a bang.

[Boundary]

Correction #2: When Alison delivers the "fish" to the storeroom, she mentions that Cole wants the door to be always locked. Thus Cole may indeed be in on the drug-running, and so would have a very personal motive to silence someone who might give him up (as in a plea deal, say).

 

Good point about Cole being involved, I'd forgotten that. Which brings me to another point, which might not mean anything. During the family dinner, Cole and the other brother sat at both heads of the table. Cole throws his weight around and the mother seemingly has no control over any of them. The other brother (what's his name?) was quiet, which on this show could mean it's only Alison who's underestimating him. Maybe he's the quiet one in charge. Who's the oldest?

 

Speaking of Cole, I also had another thought. What if he's having an affair of his own? We don't have access to him if Alison isn't nearby, but what if there's something to that girl who drove him back home in the first episode?

Edited November 13, 2014 by Boundary

[Corgi-ears]

Question!

 

When Alison first gets to the nursing home, she is wearing the dress that she picked out for her assignation with Noah (the one that, ahem, Cole loves her in). After she and Athena have their time with grandma, Alison and Athena leave her room -- and Alison is now in her waitress uniform. I'm either puzzled or intrigued by that. When I first watched the scene, I thought that the costume change was meant to mark that it was a different occasion, that it was a flashback to a previous time (perhaps the first time) when Alison and Athena clashed about grandma's meds. But it becomes clear -- not least because Athena is in the same outfit -- that Alison has simply changed into her waitress uniform off-screen. Now, maybe the show just didn't feel the need, understandably, to show her changing. But then again, they could have avoided this by simply having Alison get dressed in the uniform when leaving Noah, and thus arriving at the nursing home already dressed for work. 

 

What's going on? Am I overthinking this? Possibly yes. But this is also a show where changes in outfits have, if nothing else, marked divergences between Noah and Alison's memories, and in general been A Recurring Thing. (e.g., Noah getting coffee spilled on him, needing to buy a new shirt on Block Island). Curious and curiousier.

Edited November 13, 2014 by Corgi-ears

[taragel]

Sarah Treem did a Facebook Q&A today and had some interesting things to say (see the Media thread for highlights). I was surprised to learn that at least one thing we've been discussing here that I thought was a coincidence is actually an intentional theme. 

 

Also--she's said before that Cole will do anything to avoid talking about things. I said upthread that it doesn't quite jive with what we're seeing on screen. He seems quite comfortable giving his opinion on most things and even with Alison...while he does seem reluctant to confront her in the dress scene, I thought he was fairly solicitous of her and her feelings in the pilot and that he wanted them to talk. I love Joshua Jackson but he's very definitely not who you cast to be the strong and SILENT type.  

[Heathrowe99]

Suspect: Whitney

Motive: We saw Scotty sneaking upstairs with her. Sexual shenanigans go bad and she runs Scotty down outside a club in a Lizzy Grubman-esque rage.

Likelihood: I'd say substantial. 

 

Suspect: Noah

Motive: Situation gone wrong after catching Whitney and Scotty in sexual shenanigans at the club Noah claims never to have been to. He probably went looking for Whitney.

Likelihood: Not probable, but I suppose he could have done it. He seems more likely to talk Scotty to death than run him down.

 

I do think that Whitney goes to the club, Noah follows her, and Scotty dies in the vicinity.

 

Allison is trying to cover for Noah, because maybe...just maybe...the affair hasn't been discovered yet and they are both still trying to hide it.  Whitney and Scotty link their families in a more public way that both of them would want to avoid.

 

Unless in the future they are married to each other, but I kind of doubt that.

 

Side note-one post mentioned that you don't hire Josh Jackson to play silent...I don't know, he has very soulful eyes. I think it is telling that his one comment "I've always loved that dress on you" seems to have suckerpunched a number of us. I hope we get to see some manly tears from him on this show. I do think his character is supposed to have a self-righteous edge.

Edited November 13, 2014 by Heathrowe99

[Higgs]

Suspect: Whitney

Motive: We saw Scotty sneaking upstairs with her. Sexual shenanigans go bad and she runs Scotty down outside a club in a Lizzy Grubman-esque rage.

Likelihood: I'd say substantial.

Suspect: Noah

Motive: Situation gone wrong after catching Whitney and Scotty in sexual shenanigans at the club Noah claims never to have been to. He probably went looking for Whitney.

Likelihood: Not probable, but I suppose he could have done it. He seems more likely to talk Scotty to death than run him down.

The murder occurs four or five years later, when Whitney is a college junior/senior and has hooked up with most of the hot guys in her coed dorm and a professor or three, a few of whom were not married. If Scotty were still around he'd be road kill. Modern young women are not what they used to pretend to be, and if, in the highly improbable event her adulterous, non-custodial father ever attempted to interfere with her sex life, Whitney would get a restraining order. Edited November 13, 2014 by Higgs

[Boundary]

LOL.

 

If Whitney is involved, it's coz Scotty got her mixed up in the drug trade.

[bunnywithanaxe]

*lightbulb*

Maybe Scotty is another reason that phone went in the pool.

[stillshimpy]

Maybe Scotty is another reason that phone went in the pool.

 

Ooooohhh.  Good call!  I bet you're right.  

[Pallas]

Maybe Scotty is another reason that phone went in the pool.

 

Nice!  And in an episode where, on the other side of the narrative, we see Oscar seem to maneuver not to call Scotty/have Scotty's number on his phone.  

[Higgs]

Maybe Scotty is another reason that phone went in the pool.

And what if it were? What difference would it make to the main narrative even if it were found out? (Not a rhetorical question.) And btw, data can be recovered from a drowned iPhone:

http://www.transfer-iphone-recovery.com/recover-water-damaged-iphone-data.html

Edited November 14, 2014 by Higgs

[Heathrowe99]

Are we sure the murder occurs in the future?  Or is it just that Noah and Allison are being questioned in the future?

[Higgs]

Are we sure the murder occurs in the future? Or is it just that Noah and Allison are being questioned in the future?

Alison wouldn't have said "I can't believe he's gone" four or five years after the fact.

Edited November 14, 2014 by Higgs

[stillshimpy]

What difference would it make to the main narrative even if it were found out? (Not a rhetorical question.)

 

Scotty is dead and Alison and Noah are being questioned about the night he died.   We've been shown that Whitney seems to lack empathy -- and that's not my take on the situation, that was Noah's "Other people are real, they matter" -- she was largely indifferent to a peer attempting suicide so she's at that lovely stage of development when the world revolves around her to the actual exclusion of the worth of others.  

 

So the difference it would make in the narrative if Whitney is actively involved with Scotty is that it might give her some sort of motive to have run him down intentionally.   Hell hath no fury like a self-involved, spoiled teenager, would be the point of that.  What if she has been getting it on with very Creepy Scotty (any grown man who hits on a teenager and tries take her upstairs at a party stuffed with adults is a full-on creep) and , as befits his creepiness, he's also got half the women (adolescent or otherwise) of Montauk on his call list?  

 

I'm pretty sure Whitney would not handle being the spurned lover in an admirable or philosophical fashion.  So that would be the point of "maybe Scotty was another part of the reason she threw that phone into the pool" within the narrative.  At least theoretically.  

 

It will also help explain why Alison made a frantic call to someone "Where are you?  I'm at the police station being interrogated!"  and by contrast Noah seemed far more detached and on-task.  He'd have a far more vested interest in making sure Whitney wasn't held accountable if she ran Scotty down (Or whatever happened) in a fit of teenage pique.  

I don't know that that is where this story is going, but they've actually gone to some trouble to establish character traits and actions of Whitney.  
 

[Milburn Stone]

It will also help explain why Alison made a frantic call to someone "Where are you?  I'm at the police station being interrogated!"  and by contrast Noah seemed far more detached and on-task.  He'd have a far more vested interest in making sure Whitney wasn't held accountable if she ran Scotty down (Or whatever happened) in a fit of teenage pique. 

 

 

stillshimpy, I love your clear explication of why Whitney-Scotty matters, but am confused by the part above. Are you saying only that Noah has a vested interest in holding down the fort in the event Whitney is the killer, or are you also saying that Alison has a reason to be frantic? That latter part is the part I don't get--but I have a feeling you have something in mind, which will help me make sense of what's going on.

[stillshimpy]

Noah would have the more vested interest in lying to protect Whitney, and there often is no greater motivator for steely cool than desperate (perceived necessity).  So I mean that Noah would reasonably be seemingly more unflappable.  He has more on the line if Whitney is in jeopardy.  

 

Whereas Alison would have to be talked into covering it up.  She is involved in a criminal enterprise with Scotty as it stands and would have more reasons to start cracking and throw Whitney to whatever wolves exist, if she is trying to cover for Whitney.   

 

That's all just a theory, of course, but I'm telling you, if you asked me to be a criminal conspirator in something like that, I'd be a nervous wreck.  

 

If you put my son's life on the line like that?  I think I'd have a positively stunning level of arctic cool, because most parents would walk through the fires of hell to spare their children (and here I point out that my son has never killed anyone, I am not the kind of person to participate in any kind of cover-up, but what I'm saying is that if my son's neck was on the chopping block?  I bet I'd discover Academy Award levels of playing it cool....for myself I'd puke, confess and cry....for him?  Steely-eyed Missile Lady).  

[Milburn Stone]

I get it now. Thanks!

 

But now it occurs to me...If Noah and Alison don't want the detective to know anything about a possible Whitney motive, they wouldn't tell the detective the part about Scotty trying to take Whitney upstairs. I don't remember whose recollection this was, Noah's or Alison's, but either way, they would have conveniently omitted this event from any account if they were trying to cover up for Whitney.

 

(And why, for that matter, why would Alison share the part about Oscar wanting to use her phone, not his, to call Scotty?)

 

But this raises the more central question of how we are meant to take Noah's and Alison's flashbacks. Are we meant to understand that everything we're seeing in their flashbacks is material they're sharing with the detective? Or are the detective's questions merely prompts that cause them to dwell on their own reflections of events, to which we are privy but not the detective? Although for a while I thought it was the former, I think it really has to be the latter.

Edited November 14, 2014 by Milburn Stone

[stillshimpy]

My pleasure :-)  Sorry I wasn't being particularly clear, I'm still steeping in my daily dose of caffeine and have not yet reached coherent saturation levels :-)  

[bunnywithanaxe]

Alison wouldn't have said "I can't believe he's gone" four or five years after the fact.

It is quite normal for people to have moments of disbelief over a death that happened in the past. I had a friend who died in 2005, and last week when I walked past the place whete he worked it hit me all over again that I couldn't just stop in and say hi. So, IMO, at this point the time of the murder could go either way.

As to Whitney's phone, yes, you can retrieve data from a wet phone, but 1. if all they thought they'd find there was a bunch of mean girl texts, why would they bother? And 2. If Scotty is a drug runner-- seems certain he is at this point-- if there was stuff from him on Whitney's phone, it might contain more than sexting.

Also, the more I or anyone else takes a hardline stance on anything, the more I want Show to throw us a curveball and give us something we never could have predicted. : D

Nice!  And in an episode where, on the other side of the narrative, we see Oscar seem to maneuver not to call Scotty/have Scotty's number on his phone.

Glad you said that-- Oscar did seem to be angling to get Alison's phone in his hands. I thought he was planning to check for evidence of Noah, but your scenario seems more likely.

[Heathrowe99]

Milburn Stone, I don't think that we can consider anything in their memories of the events to be actually told to the police, unless they actually say it to him in the scene in the interrogation room. I think there are a lot of details in the recollections that they don't share with him. That's how I've been viewing it.

[RimaTheBirdGirl]

 

Are we meant to understand that everything we're seeing in their flashbacks is material they're sharing with the detective?

Nah.  I'm with Heathrowe99, the only information being shared with Detective Manipulative is what's recited in the voice-overs.  

 

Remember the second episode?  Noah's words to the Detective were all "I stayed clear of her, after that first night," while the visuals showed us Noah taking a run directly past Alison's house.

 

So we don't actually know what the Detective knows.  Other than the no-accidents thing.

[Boundary]

I think everything we're seeing is being told to the detective. What makes me think that is the transition to present day after a flashback. In this episode, for instance, after Alison saw Scotty at the restaurant, we went back to the future (?) and Alison said something like "you asked me about when I saw Oscar and Scotty together, I've just told you," to which the cop asked, "Were you worried?" and she replied "I should have been". So not only the voiceovers but the memory as well is being shared with the detective.

 

I don't know about the Whitney spec upthread but it's as credible as others we've come up with. What I noticed about this exchange is that Alison seems to be casting doubt towards Oscar, or at least agreeing it should be cast. Since Noah explicitly did so previously, this could be further evidence they are colluding, possibly. Or maybe they just hate Oscar for meddling in their business.

Edited November 14, 2014 by Boundary

[Pallas]

But this raises the more central question of how we are meant to take Noah's and Alison's flashbacks. Are we meant to understand that everything we're seeing in their flashbacks is material they're sharing with the detective? Or are the detective's questions merely prompts that cause them to dwell on their own reflections of events, to which we are privy but not the detective? Although for a while I thought it was the former, I think it really has to be the latter.

 

Agree with you and several of us above.  There is much too much detail that would never make its way into an investigation or even into most therapy sessions.

 

I think that's part of the mystery of the show -- teasing out what what we imagine Noah and Alison actually told the detective, and what they are reviewing or re-experiencing in their memories as they edit these recollections for the record, on the spot.  And of course, what in even their private recall is credible, and what is self-serving, self-blaming, revisionist, nostalgic, or just plain wrong.  

[Milburn Stone]

I think that's part of the mystery of the show -- teasing out what what we imagine Noah and Alison actually told the detective, and what they are reviewing or re-experiencing in their memories as they edit these recollections for the record, on the spot.

 

I agree that this is part of the mystery. One which there is no clear answer to, for the viewer. (About which I'm not complaining.) While I agree much of the material in the flashbacks is private, unshared-with-the-detective recall (it has to be, for the reasons you say), I can't quite sign on to the position that only those things explicitly seen by us to be said out loud to the detective are what they are sharing with him. Because some of the material in the flashbacks is not just self-serving in a preserving-my-sense-of-myself-as-a-good-person way, but self-serving in what seems to be an exculpatory-in-the-eyes-of-the-law way. The truth about "how much in the flashbacks is private, how much is sharing" has to be somewhere in the middle. Where in the middle, we may yet learn, or we may never learn.

Edited November 15, 2014 by Milburn Stone