S02.E06: 206

[missy jo]

Every time Noah has sex with someone there is ZERO foreplay and he's done in about a minute. Come on, who would want to have sex with a guy like this more than a few times?

 

 

He's absolutely horrible in bed. Or "in tree" or whatever.

[RedheadZombie]

Not sure what you mean by that. The show runner needs to explain something to America about her own show?

 

What if ambiguity was the point?

I love the ambiguity, but I draw the line at rape. From everything the show runners say, Noah is a character we're expected to like, and they want us to root for Noah/Alison. If she wants a portion of the audience to think her male lead is a rapist - good job! Otherwise, they need to do some damage control.

[Lemons]

I love the ambiguity, but I draw the line at rape. From everything the show runners say, Noah is a character we're expected to like, and they want us to root for Noah/Alison. If she wants a portion of the audience to think her male lead is a rapist - good job! Otherwise, they need to do some damage control.

 

What is a show runner?

[right]

I love the ambiguity, but I draw the line at rape. From everything the show runners say, Noah is a character we're expected to like, and they want us to root for Noah/Alison. If she wants a portion of the audience to think her male lead is a rapist - good job! Otherwise, they need to do some damage control.

 

If this were real life the only one who could determine if this were rape would be Allison.  Therefore, we as viewers should conclude that it isn't rape because we know that Allison decides to marry Noah.  Seriously, I understand rape is a big deal that deserves to treated as such, but my God, Allison would have had no problem saying no or screaming for help.  She is not afraid of Noah and has no problem expressing her anger with him when she feels like it.  All of the handwringing over this topic seems to be manufactured in some of the viewers minds.

[chocolatine]

What is a show runner?

 

The person who runs the show, in this case Sarah Treem.

 

Therefore, we as viewers should conclude that it isn't rape because we know that Allison decides to marry Noah.

 

 

It's not unheard of for women to marry men who have raped them, even on TV (Mad Men's Joan is one that comes to mind). I'm not saying that Noah raped Alison, but I did think the scene was deliberately borderline/ambiguous.

Edited November 11, 2015 by chocolatine

[DollyMamaB]

The first couple of episodes in season 1, I was getting the vibe that Helen's father was some kind of child molester.  The oldest boy never wanted to be around him.  Still wouldn't be surprised to find out that was the case.

 

I really can't stand Noah.  With every episode we see what a self centered prick he really is.  

[Pallas]

So we haven't learned anything about Bruce and Margaret's background ?

 

Last season (in the pilot, I think) Bruce made a point of reminding remaindered-author Noah that Bruce's earnings as a writer of best-sellers had built the oceanfront estate they were both enjoying at the moment. (Bruce more than Noah, maybe.) Near the end of the season, when Noah showed up alone for Bruce's Say What You Will, He's Loaded award in Montauk, Bruce was moved to confide that he too had married above his social standing, become a father, and then fallen in love with a younger woman who was more like his younger self. And that in losing her, he had found his muse. Even though, in the present, Margaret had already told the world that what Bruce had was a ghost, not a muse: that she, his wife, was his co-author. Unacknowledged and by now, irreconcilable.

 

So Bruce is a self-made man, says Bruce; au contraire says Margaret: not only Bruce but Bruce's books -- his net worth -- are my creation.

[Milburn Stone]

I love the ambiguity, but I draw the line at rape. From everything the show runners say, Noah is a character we're expected to like, and they want us to root for Noah/Alison. If she wants a portion of the audience to think her male lead is a rapist - good job! Otherwise, they need to do some damage control.

 

No act, not even murder, is exempt from ambiguity. (If I knowingly let a person in a vegetative state die when I could have prevented it, is it murder? If I administer a lethal drug to a person who wants to die, is it murder? If I terminate a pregnancy, is it murder? Where we land on these and other questions is a function of our perception of specific circumstances; our knowledge of the individuals involved and their motivations; our values, beliefs and convictions; and a lot of intangible "best guesses" based on our life experience and knowledge of human behavior.)

 

Second, when we rely on "everything the show runners say," we make a mistake in my judgment. The best evidence of "what the show runners say" is the show they put on the air. All the rest is noise.

[nara]

When I watched the trailer for this show, I thought it would go down the path of Allison (I didn't know names at the time) and her husband targeting Noah, seducing him, framing him for a crime, and then blackmailing him.  Once I actually started watching the show, I quickly moved away from that theory, because there was no evidence to support it.  However, for those who feel Noah raped Allison, do you think that it's likely that she might stay with him to set him up?

[RedInk]

I don't like any of the sex scenes in this show. Every time Noah has sex with someone there is ZERO foreplay and he's done in about a minute. Come on, who would want to have sex with a guy like this more than a few times?

Ha! Without wading too deep into the rape debate, I do think it's strange that we're pointing to this once scene. Almost all of the sex on this show is miserable or uncomfortable to watch. Helen and Max, Cole and the housewife, Noah and practically anyone except Helen. Allison is almost always shown as passive and conflicted, and one party always seems coerced. Even the scenes we don't see...Scotty's partners have been an essentially blackmailed subordinate and a child. It's gross all around.

[lovinbob]

If this were real life the only one who could determine if this were rape would be Allison.  Therefore, we as viewers should conclude that it isn't rape because we know that Allison decides to marry Noah.  Seriously, I understand rape is a big deal that deserves to treated as such, but my God, Allison would have had no problem saying no or screaming for help.  She is not afraid of Noah and has no problem expressing her anger with him when she feels like it.  All of the handwringing over this topic seems to be manufactured in some of the viewers minds.

Couldn't disagree more with the notion that just because Alison married him means it isn't rape. People can and do rape their partners. I agree, though, that Alison certainly didn't voice objection, and she could have. I don't much like Noah, and I do think he used sex as a weapon here, but nothing I've seen has led me to believe that he would have continued (or physically forced her) if she screamed and physically pushed back.

 

I don't think those of us who are uncomfortable with the nature of that encounter, and even those who maintain that it's rape, are "handwringing."

 

Ha! Without wading too deep into the rape debate, I do think it's strange that we're pointing to this once scene. Almost all of the sex on this show is miserable or uncomfortable to watch. Helen and Max, Cole and the housewife, Noah and practically anyone except Helen. Allison is almost always shown as passive and conflicted, and one party always seems coerced. Even the scenes we don't see...Scotty's partners have been an essentially blackmailed subordinate and a child. It's gross all around.

Good point. This show really doesn't make sex and affairs look too good.

The first couple of episodes in season 1, I was getting the vibe that Helen's father was some kind of child molester.  The oldest boy never wanted to be around him.  Still wouldn't be surprised to find out that was the case.

Fair enough observation, but I don't see anything else about Bruce that would suggest it. I wonder if Martin might just be sensitive to the fact that his parents are not happy staying with the grandparents? And/or, an adolescent boy doesn't want to be away from his friends all summer.

[blixie]

 

he too had married above his social standing

 

Right, that's why I think Margaret is old money, and she was probably very wealthy herself before she married Bruce, my sense was that he married her so he had the freedom to write w/o worrying about providing a living per se, she propped them up until he made it big. It is interesting though when they had Bruce go into the whole girl from Michigan story, that he talks about how much Helen having to deal with  the fall out of such a choice lead him to not purse his muse, yet to produce his best writing ever. I just kept thinking see even ASSHOLE Bruce is more considerate of his children than Noah (not that it was the better decision, because...obviously).

[bunnywithanaxe]

When I watched the trailer for this show, I thought it would go down the path of Allison (I didn't know names at the time) and her husband targeting Noah, seducing him, framing him for a crime, and then blackmailing him.  Once I actually started watching the show, I quickly moved away from that theory, because there was no evidence to support it.  However, for those who feel Noah raped Allison, do you think that it's likely that she might stay with him to set him up?

Noah took advantage of the fact that Alison dissassotiates when yelled at to instigate sex while she was still checked out. While this is probably not covered under the legal definition of rape, it was reluctant sex, and any man who is worthy of the dick he owns would not pursue sex that was obviously so reluctant.

Because Alison disassociates, she probably has no idea what to call a moment like that. Given her default, she would probably try to retrace her steps until she could latch onto something that made it her fault.

[AmandaPanda]

Folks, the discussion of whether the sex against the tree was rape is getting very heated. This is a very sensitive subject matter for many and has a lot of gray area. The discussion is starting to veer into finger pointing territory. Some people are going to view that sexual encounter as rape and some are not. I am calling a moratorium on the rape issue for now. And as always, remember to snark the show and not your fellow posters. The last few posts were getting increasingly hostile. As such, they have been deleted.

[Pallas]

Alison says, "I'm just as committed to this relationship as you are, Noah. I don't belong to you; we're not living in your book -- you can't control me."  Noah replies, "No?"

 

The two halves of the episode are linked by that issue of control, and of finding one's voice. Helen found hers, in offering gracious terms to Noah and then banishing Margaret: aggressively, pitilessly; saying that she hated her, and sending her away to nowhere. Alison found hers, sharing a cabin with Athena at the Institute, then deftly parrying Noah when he appeared out of the blue, with news of the divorce and how he'd moved into the place she'd found for them -- speaking instead of what she'd discovered through celibacy, and with the help of his absence and her friend Sebastian, with his incredible bravery...then inviting Noah to stay and be her guest. Most of all, Alison told Noah that she'd read the sex scenes in his book and lost the stomach to read more, and, that she was pregnant.

 

Noah found his voice too. First he claimed his children from The House That Butlers Bought, for an excursion to The Bronx. Then he spent ten days in out and out of Park Slope while setting up his base in Crown Heights, and working with the liberated Helen to construct the new normal with his family. Next he left home and appeared at the Institute to claim his partner in crime. Where he found himself both welcomed and held off by Alison, and then failed to write a word al fresco; got suborned and force-fed some home truths by Alison's mother, fled this ersatz-Endora and found his muse, only to be introduced as Alison's "friend" to Alison's Bruce Butler the Junger, who persuaded him to let himself get Reikied by Athena from behind. At his wit's end (or at the mercy of his now-conscious kundalini), Noah demanded that Alison leave with him: leave her mother and her mother's turf, and make a life with him. He forced the issue -- 'Yes we are a couple, to answer your damn question: we each have power over the other' -- and received the news that his fiancee was previously and more profoundly engaged.

 

Noah stayed at the retreat with Alison that night, and while she slept, conspired with his inner voice, to commit the murder of her alter ego. Or was it his editor's voice? Or his son's?  "I knew a girl, but she died..."

Edited November 12, 2015 by Pallas

[Neurochick]

For me, the most chilling part of this episode was the very end, when we see what the end of Noah's book will be.  

 

On some level, I think Noah wishes he could erase Alison from his life and go back to Helen, maybe Alison wishes she could go back to Cole.  But they were both caught, so they're kind of stuck with each other.  

[Boundary]

 Noah didn't do it, I'm pretty sure: but it's Noah and Helen, rather than Noah and Alison, who now share the secret of who did. 

 

I think Alison and both Noah and Helen all share the secret. Most likely Whitney or Alison did it. When Noah got arrested I got the impression Alison knew he was not guilty (edit: add 'not'),  "Look, I'll get you out of this. I promise. Do you believe me?" The whole thing led me to believe Alison was guilty (further evidence: her phone call to Noah during the interrogation). Helen's attitude, especially in this week's flashforward, is 'Get Noah off the hook, no matter what' which could only be explained by that she either also knows Noah is innocent or still loves him/owes him a big favour. In any case, that attitude will have a limit if Whitney is the guilty party, could she fight so hard (selling her house, where would the kids live?) if Whitney was the driver of the car? Plus, there's no love lost between the lawyer and Alison, meaning that Helen hired him without caring what Alison thought, so maybe Helen knows she's guilty and is choosing to get Noah off to prove some point, Alison will have to fight her own battles. Noah seems prepared to fight the charges, but not at all costs (he won't hire an obviously results driven lawyer - which is why he's so expensive). He will rather go down than get Alison arrested.

Conclusion: Alison did it but it was probably an accident. It's still manslaughter though.

Edited November 12, 2015 by Boundary

[Ellaria]

I think Alison and both Noah and Helen all share the secret...Helen's attitude, especially in this week's flashforward, is 'Get Noah off the hook, no matter what' which could only be explained by that she either also knows Noah is innocent or still loves him/owes him a big favour. In any case, that attitude will have a limit if Whitney is the guilty party, could she fight so hard (selling her house, where would the kids live?) if Whitney was the driver of the car?

 

I made note of Helen's determination in this week's flashforward. She also has knowledge of the criminal process, evidence, etc. And while none of that is surprising, it is indicative of the fact that Helen is quite invested in making sure that Noah beats these charges.

 

So why is she so invested? There is more to it - I think - than simply defending the father of her children. There is a shared secret between Helen and Noah. Perhaps Alison shares this secret as well although I can't come up with a plausible scenario for it. However, I don't believe that Whitney is involved. Things do not quite add up yet: Noah's lie about hitting a deer, Oscar's blackmail, Noah envisioning a hit and run.

 

If I had to guess, it was Noah's car but he wasn't driving; Alison was the driver. 

Edited November 12, 2015 by Ellaria Sand

[yellowjacket]

No act, not even murder, is exempt from ambiguity. (If I knowingly let a person in a vegetative state die when I could have prevented it, is it murder? If I administer a lethal drug to a person who wants to die, is it murder? If I terminate a pregnancy, is it murder? Where we land on these and other questions is a function of our perception of specific circumstances; our knowledge of the individuals involved and their motivations; our values, beliefs and convictions; and a lot of intangible "best guesses" based on our life experience and knowledge of human behavior.)

 

Second, when we rely on "everything the show runners say," we make a mistake in my judgment. The best evidence of "what the show runners say" is the show they put on the air. All the rest is noise.

 

I very much agree with both of your points.  I have always felt that if the story has to be explained to you, the writer/directors didn't do their job.  This was especially egregious during the late-middle Mad Men years - S5, S6.  The Affair is set up to be ambiguous -  nobody knows exactly what happens, so the point is that it doesn't have to be explained to you.  Nobody knows all about what really happened.  I love it.

[Boundary]

If I had to guess, it was Noah's car but he wasn't driving; Alison was the driver. 

 

It's a plausible guess, isn't it? I don't know why my mind never settled on Alison until this week and I think it was Helen's certainty that Noah didn't do it. Which narrowed it down to Whitney or Alison or Helen herself; if Helen's in on the secret then it has to be personal. And Helen's attitude is more than helping the father of her kids - he is married with a kid of his own, he has means to defend himself and is definitely not worth the amount of trust she's putting on (that book alone should make anyone pause). So what gives? Selling a house to defend an ex husband is an extreme step.

[Ellaria]

It's a plausible guess, isn't it? I don't know why my mind never settled on Alison until this week and I think it was Helen's certainty that Noah didn't do it. Which narrowed it down to Whitney or Alison or Helen herself; if Helen's in on the secret then it has to be personal. And Helen's attitude is more than helping the father of her kids - he is married with a kid of his own, he has means to defend himself and is definitely not worth the amount of trust she's putting on (that book alone should make anyone pause). So what gives? Selling a house to defend an ex husband is an extreme step.

 

Exactly. Presumably, Noah has means to defend himself. He may not be able to afford Gottlief but that doesn't mean that he couldn't afford another criminal defense attorney. Helen's determination means something more. If its personal, what is it? I don't understand how it fits together.

[jrlr]

Alison as the killer makes no sense to me.  Even if she could live with having killed someone (which I don't see), why would she let her husband take the fall for it?  And for that matter, why would the self-centered Noah be willing to take the fall?  If Helen knows that Noah is not guilty (and isn't just trying to protect the kids from having a convicted killer as a father), then she must think or know who the real killer is and who Noah is protecting.  If we believe that the driver has to have been either Alison or Whitney (and I'm not sure it comes down to only those two), then it has to be Whitney because Helen has less than zero reasons to help Noah get released or acquitted if it isn't Whitney - she sure as hell wouldn't care if Alison was charged and convicted.  

[Pallas]

I don't see how the driver could have been Alison, based on one thing only: the look Noah gave Helen when she showed up at jail, with a gift-wrapped Richard Schiff, and said she'd be covering the bill.  Noah's nod was grateful, but not really surprised. If Alison had been the driver, surely Noah would be overjoyed and disconcerted that Helen was footing his defense? But he wasn't, he looked relieved, grateful, and mostly, matter-of-fact.  Not, "Helen -- come on.  Really?"  but "Thank you - well done."

 

Even if Helen somehow wanted Noah freed and Alison jailed -- and even if the idea had its subconscious appeal to Noah -- he still would have been shocked and probably, suspicious, of Helen's motives. Unless we'll soon begin to see that buying Noah a defense was only the last in a series of increasingly benevolent gestures on Helen's part toward the new couple, the culmination of a long campaign we saw her launch this past week?  

[LibertarianSlut]

Conclusion: Alison did it but it was probably an accident. It's still manslaughter though.

I'm not sure I'm comfortable calling it manslaughter regardless of who did it yet. We haven't been told enough about the circumstances of the incident. In New York, man 1 requires intent (not intent to murder, but intent to do harm, and with vehicular, high BAL or lack of proper license are elements, but that doesn't *seem* to apply here), and man 2 requires an element of negligence or recklessness. What if someone ran Scotty down and it was an accident? Like if they are driving at night and don't see him in the road and they run him over, that's not a crime, unless the driver was doing something wrong, like speeding perhaps. Or what if the perp made it look enough like an accident that there's not enough evidence to prosecute anyone besides Noah? What, exactly, does the state have on Noah? The fact that Scotty was run down plus the fact that Noah bribed a mechanic to stay silent on the fact that he had body work done on his car the next day, plus the fact that Noah had a motive? I think that's too circumstantial to make an arrest and arraign the guy. What am I missing? Or is the show purposely keeping us in the dark about some of the evidence on purpose? Sort of the way they won't show us what Oscar gave to Noah's lawyer just yet?

[RedInk]

What, exactly, does the state have on Noah? The fact that Scotty was run down plus the fact that Noah bribed a mechanic to stay silent on the fact that he had body work done on his car the next day, plus the fact that Noah had a motive? I think that's too circumstantial to make an arrest and arraign the guy. What am I missing?

Isn't that a lot, though? You don't have video, but you have motive, opportunity and evidence of a cover-up. Maybe you could prove reasonable doubt, but it seems like enough for a trial. There are so many events left to play out, I have a hard time coming up with a suspect. In about a year and a half, there's a divorce, two marriages, a baby, a death and a trial. It could have been someone we barely know.

Edited November 13, 2015 by RedInk

[Boundary]

Alison as the killer makes no sense to me.  Even if she could live with having killed someone (which I don't see), why would she let her husband take the fall for it?  And for that matter, why would the self-centered Noah be willing to take the fall?  If Helen knows that Noah is not guilty (and isn't just trying to protect the kids from having a convicted killer as a father), then she must think or know who the real killer is and who Noah is protecting.  If we believe that the driver has to have been either Alison or Whitney (and I'm not sure it comes down to only those two), then it has to be Whitney because Helen has less than zero reasons to help Noah get released or acquitted if it isn't Whitney - she sure as hell wouldn't care if Alison was charged and convicted.  

 

Noah taking the fall for Alison is probably the most plausible thing I can imagine right now. He's cheated on his wife and hurt his family but he did that all  for Alison. He fell for Oscar's trick last year and immediately tried to protect her. It's already established he can do a lot for her.

If it is Whitney who's guilty then Helen wouldn't want attention shifting to her. What if Oscar's information can lead to Whitney? I don't think Helen would choose to potentially sell her house to buy information that might inadvertently make Whitney a suspect. I also limited my suspect pool because if Helen knows Noah is innocent then she knows why (maybe Noah and Helen had a rendezvous at The End, or maybe she knows who the killer is.) If she knows it's Cole, why wouldn't she just name him? She's keeping mum because the culprit is personally connected to her or Noah. 

 

Isn't that a lot, though? You don't have video, but you have motive, opportunity and evidence of a cover-up. Maybe you could prove reasonable doubt, but it seems like enough for a trial. There are so many events left to play out, I have a hard time coming up with a suspect. In about a year and a half, there's a divorce, two marriages, a baby, a death and a trial. It could have been someone we barely know.

 

I agree that there's enough there to make Noah at least answer the charges. It's also true that there are many other people who thought Scotty was a douchebag. It's easy for a detective to pin Noah up as a suspect but a good defense lawyer can also easily put other names on the board, hence reasonable doubt. But could it be someone we barely know? In real life yes but on a tv show we have to be invested, so that's why I think it's one of the 4 or someone very close to them.

Edited November 13, 2015 by Boundary

[Nanrad]

Like I said, I prefer to see more layers. Would I say it's Helen's "fault" that Noah cheated? Clearly, no. Noah met Alison, had a little connection, tried to stay away, bumped into her again, connected some more and started an affair. None of those decisions were Helen's. And I think Noah has taken full responsibility for that, which he must. But Helen did contribute to the state of the marriage, including the influence of Margaret and Bruce. As someone has put it more eloquently, the same temptation can result in two different outcomes. That's why I keep saying I think Helen's change was profound, it went further than "I'm tired of fighting, let's mediate." It was a self awareness type of thing, Martin almost died and in her mind her own mother could have been responsible. It's a horrific thought that made her reassess who Margaret is and what she has done. And what Helen has allowed her to do. She took responsibility. I'll repeat, this Helen would not make that speech to Alison, this Helen wouldn't even need to, with this Helen Noah would've been happier, less prone to temptation and wanting out. Alison meeting Noah wasn't an inevitable affair waiting to happen, just like that young woman at Noah's swimming pool session. 

I think it's as another poster said, she was just tired of fighting and wanted it to be over rather than her wanting to be right. She did have a moment of clarity, but I don't think that Noah and Helen never had moments like that during their marriage. I think Noah just missed his old life, especially with the drama that cones with his new life. But, once he got to Alison, he didn't hesitate to try to get involved in his new life. I believe Noah described himself as happy. I believe that Noah even basically says his affair was inevitable due to the pull that Alison has (even his book says no marriage could survive her, which is artistic license slapped over the true for Noah). 

 

Say, even if Helen played her part, was Noah cheating warranted? If she responsible for his actions and the fact that he never vocalized his feelings about her parents over involvement in their life. He was fine living in a house they paid for, going on vacations with their money, and all of those other benefits, and then leave because they were too involved. Why not early in their marriage rather than 20 years later? I doubt it got worse and he knew who they were from the beginning. 

[Boundary]

Say, even if Helen played her part, was Noah cheating warranted? If she responsible for his actions and the fact that he never vocalized his feelings about her parents over involvement in their life. He was fine living in a house they paid for, going on vacations with their money, and all of those other benefits, and then leave because they were too involved. Why not early in their marriage rather than 20 years later? I doubt it got worse and he knew who they were from the beginning. 

 

Helen is not responsible for Noah's actions, she was co-responsible for the marriage and her own actions (or lack thereof). Clearly that marriage didn't survive Alison, so Helen has to question herself about what she did/didn't do (if at all) that might have made the marriage stronger. I'm not abrogating individual responsibility here, but neither am I willing to give Helen an automatic pass.

 

We don't know for sure but I've suggested that Noah took the money, the house and the vacations because he loved Helen and for the kid's sakes. Many parents will probably put up with horrible in-laws if it means the kids get a decent education out of it. But the pressure doesn't go away, it builds and eventually cultivates resentment, in our case from both Bruce/Margaret and Noah. 20 years later when mother in-law absolutely hates him and is now a negative influence on the kids, the balance shifts and suddenly drastic action is feasible. But Noah's drastic action was selfish, he fell in love with another and decided he wanted out. After the affair ended in the summer he had a choice: cut off the grand parents, avoid Montauk like a plague and try to improve the marriage. But he didn't even get there. He had a panic attack and couldn't live with the secret; he also had fallen for Alison and preferred to be with her at that point.

[Milburn Stone]

A possibility is that the killing of Scotty was accidental, but whoever was in the car (one or more person) knew, "OMG, this was a complete accident, but I/we have so much motive to have killed him that no one will ever believe it was a complete accident." Which is related to, but not quite the same as, "OMG, this was a complete accident, but it resembles down to the letter the vehicular homicide I wrote about it in my international best-seller. I'm screwed!" Both scenarios would account for the guilty party/parties not reporting the accident.

[cardigirl]

Helen is not responsible for Noah's actions, she was co-responsible for the marriage and her own actions (or lack thereof). Clearly that marriage didn't survive Alison, so Helen has to question herself about what she did/didn't do (if at all) that might have made the marriage stronger. I'm not abrogating individual responsibility here, but neither am I willing to give Helen an automatic pass.

In lieu of the fact that Noah has not been shown to be doing any introspection at all, I'm going to go ahead and say that it could have been ANY woman, not just Allison being so spectacularly sexual and attractive that he could not resist her, that would have threatened the marriage.  In other words, to say that there were things Helen could have done to "affair-proof" the marriage, I don't think so.  

 

Tough inlaws aside, we've not been shown a lot of Helen and Noah's marriage, except for the few hours before they took off to Montauk.  And it seemed as if the marriage was percolating along just fine.  Was there complacency?  Perhaps.  I'm certain that Helen trusted Noah.  And indeed, after 4 kids, and 20+ years together a couple does begin to shorthand things.  All the evidence we've been given has pointed to it being a pretty happy family. (well, one pretty snarky teenager.) Showing Noah back at home with the kids, after Helen decided her sanity and health was more important than punishing Noah, shows that as a family they functioned pretty well.  

 

So, maybe Helen should have told her parents off sooner.  Maybe she should have tried to be more independent of their wealth, maybe she should have had a boob job and told Noah he was the most perfect man to ever walk the face of the earth.  I still think he would have cheated.  It takes a certain amount of feeling entitled to enter into an affair.  In order to not feel bad about what he has done, he then chips away at Helen.  I thought it was very interesting that when he was talking to his friend about how things were going, he said that it would all work out because Helen would only be single for about "5 minutes," thereby reducing his relationship with her to something that could easily be replaced. It wasn't that he thought Helen was so perfect, it was a way of assuaging his guilt to think that she would be fine.

 

So, in this last episode, I thought it was all too easy for Helen to blame her mother for the failure of Helen's marriage.  At this point in the divorce (which, by the way, is just a piece of paper, and doesn't mean the end of the relationship for Helen, she has to grieve through that) Helen is going to start analyzing what happened, and I hope she ends up closer to feeling as she did in the speech she gave Allison on the steps, than to the speech she gave her mother.

Edited November 13, 2015 by cardigirl

[RedInk]

In lieu of the fact that Noah has not been shown to be doing any introspection at all, I'm going to go ahead and say that it could have been ANY woman, not just Allison being so spectacularly sexual and attractive that he could not resist her, that would have threatened the marriage.  In other words, to say that there were things Helen could have done to "affair-proof" the marriage, I don't think so.  

Well said, and I agree with your entire post. Of course in Noah’s version of events, he has been above temptation (evidenced by the attractive swimmer who approached him in the first episode) until Allison, but I just can’t get onboard with this. To me, it reads like he’s whitewashing his own memory, and it doesn’t fit with the rest of the story.

We know that people enter into affairs for any number of reasons, and they happen in both good and bad marriages. What you really never see, and what Noah presents as his own experience, is a faithful, satisfied man in a solid relationship who comes across one woman with such a strong sexual pull, he’s willing to toss his happy life away to be with this relative stranger. No marriage could survive her! I think he was struggling with feelings of failure and inadequacy in that summer, and any woman that he could feel superior to would have done. Even as his relationship has progressed, he's shown to have little interest in Allison as a person beyond what she can do to make him feel better. 

Edited November 13, 2015 by RedInk

[JodhaBai]

I love Maura Tierney in this role.   I hope she at least, receives an Emmy nomination

[Boundary]

In lieu of the fact that Noah has not been shown to be doing any introspection at all, I'm going to go ahead and say that it could have been ANY woman, not just Allison being so spectacularly sexual and attractive that he could not resist her, that would have threatened the marriage. 

 

 

In lieu of introspection I prefer to look at his deeds. Maybe it could've been any woman but it sure was not the young one at the swimming pool or, in absence of further information, none of the other women beforehand either. Helen married him because he wouldn't cheat, that must have had a basis somewhere. So I prefer to think he went through 20+ years without cheating, despite having opportunities to do so (as his post-marriage romps prove). Over 20 years. So Alison has got to be particular circumstances at a particular time. Was Noah looking for ANY way out of the marriage at that stage? Don't think so. Could Helen 'affair proof' her marriage? I think she did, against all these other women - except Alison. Perhaps even Alison herself, although I'm not being very definitive here.

Edited November 14, 2015 by Boundary

[SlackerInc]

We know that people enter into affairs for any number of reasons, and they happen in both good and bad marriages. What you really never see, and what Noah presents as his own experience, is a faithful, satisfied man in a solid relationship who comes across one woman with such a strong sexual pull, he’s willing to toss his happy life away to be with this relative stranger.

 

Never?  Really?  It seems like a pretty easy, nonconvoluted possibility to me.  There are plenty of people who never meet anyone they really fall head over heels in love with.  And even those of us who do meet such a someone or someones, know they are not that common.  I have dated dozens of women (not including one-time hookups) and have had, oh, eight or ten serious relationships before my current marriage.  Only two of those, in my early and mid-twenties, fit that mold of a deep love connection, which just ultimately didn't work out.

 

And of course if you're married with kids and not "on the market", it's even less likely that you'll meet someone you feel that intense connection to.  But is it so impossible to imagine that after twenty years and four kids, you just might happen to meet them, while walking on a beach at night?

 

My belief is that no long-established relationship, no matter how strong, can ward off a brand new spark of chemistry on that level.  Not for many or most people, anyhow.

[RedInk]

Never? Really? It seems like a pretty easy, nonconvoluted possibility to me. (...) But is it so impossible to imagine that after twenty years and four kids, you just might happen to meet them, while walking on a beach at night?

My belief is that no long-established relationship, no matter how strong, can ward off a brand new spark of chemistry on that level. Not for many or most people, anyhow.

Yes, weak people give into baser instincts all the time. Based on what we know of him now, Noah was a perfect candidate for an extramarital affair, which is why I think he whitewashed his version of the story in the first episodes in a way that made the events play out illogically. I concede that people in good marriages cheat; I don't believe committed people in good marriages toss their family aside for the idea of someone else. And I don't believe emotionally mature adults confuse sexual attraction with true love - that's what adolescents do. If no marriage could withstand the pull of sexual chemistry, we're all screwed. The longer you're in a relationship, the *more* likely you are to come across someone you have a strong connection with, but people can and do resist this. Why even enter into a relationship if you believe that your solid marriage could end the moment the right hot waitress serves you pancakes at a diner. Edited November 14, 2015 by RedInk

[shelley1234]

This episode was pretty horrible to watch.  I basically feel that way whenever a show tries to be so ambiguous about sexual assault.  I read above that I am not allowed to comment about that in relation to the show, so I will stop here.  

 

As for Helen, I thought her speech to her mother was horrible.  Her mother didn't ruin Helen's marriage.  Now I do think that Mother Dearest is projecting her own marriage failings and anger at her own husband and putting it on Noah.  She can dislike Noah til the cows come home.  I dislike Noah.  I think he's a horrific person, however she is on a mission to destroy him.  That's not about Noah for Mommy Dearest.  I would have preferred Helen to tell her Mom to get the heck out of her business and focus on her own life.  Instead she turned the failing of her marriage into her mother's fault.  Nope.  Glad she kicked her out though.  That toxic woman needed to leave her home.  

 

What struck me about Alison in this episode is that until last scene and the act that will not be spoken about, Alison seemed happy and at peace.  She has been a walking wound in this whole series and in the little time we saw of her at the compound, she was happy.  She had value.  She had focus and drive.  Noah was threatened by that and well...things happened.  

 

Alison is preggers.  Cole's baby obviously.  So this is a second child with Alison that he is going to lose.  

[carryanation]

What struck me about Alison in this episode is that until last scene and the act that will not be spoken about, Alison seemed happy and at peace.  She has been a walking wound in this whole series and in the little time we saw of her at the compound, she was happy.  She had value.  She had focus and drive.  Noah was threatened by that and well...things happened.

 

I don't know. Alison has always seemed cheerful in Noah's memory. That's why I didn't understand Athena's "you're attracted to her darknesss" thing. She's only had darkness in her own version of events, not Noah's. Can I reiterate he doesn't know or care to know a thing about Alison: who she is or what she thinks or feels? She's basically just a Real Doll to him.

[taragel]

I don't know. Alison has always seemed cheerful in Noah's memory. That's why I didn't understand Athena's "you're attracted to her darknesss" thing. She's only had darkness in her own version of events, not Noah's. Can I reiterate he doesn't know or care to know a thing about Alison: who she is or what she thinks or feels? She's basically just a Real Doll to him.

 

I don't think she's been exactly cheerful. She's his manic pixie dream girl-- sexual, flirtatious/playful, but always possessing an edge and air of mystery and danger. Athena could be describing the true darkness of Allison--the guilt and sorrow, the cutting, the moodiness, the lack of impulse control--and Noah may interpret that as --darkly sexual allure, mystery, and....lack of impulse control. Those latter are the things that draw him to her--so I think it is a kind of darkness, but a slightly different interpretation of it? 

[shelley1234]

I don't know. Alison has always seemed cheerful in Noah's memory. That's why I didn't understand Athena's "you're attracted to her darknesss" thing. She's only had darkness in her own version of events, not Noah's. Can I reiterate he doesn't know or care to know a thing about Alison: who she is or what she thinks or feels? She's basically just a Real Doll to him.

 

I never saw Alison as cheerful or happy in Noah's memories.  She was adventurous and sexy as hell, but happy?  Not to me.  She was someone who seemed inherently damaged and unhappy no matter whose memory it was.  Last week, she seemed happy and at peace.  

[Boundary]

 Can I reiterate he doesn't know or care to know a thing about Alison: who she is or what she thinks or feels? She's basically just a Real Doll to him.

 

On the contrary, he's known about the cutting, Gabriel's death and what it did to her, about her grandfather and his fisherman community, he was there when her grandmother died and had known how important she'd been, he knew about Athena, he freaked out when he found out about her part in the drug dealing. In this episode he admitted that until faced with a potential tragedy with Martin, he had never *really* appreciated what Alison went through, but he's known the basic facts. A few weeks ago he saw how terrified she was of swimming, and was there to witness the change. So no, she's not just a Real Doll to him in my humble opinion.

[Armchair Critic]

Whitney was so sweet, I wonder if Helen was remembering her through rose colored glasses?

 

Dominic West used to be better looking and is starting to look rough, but maybe that works well for the character?

 

The grandmother reminds me of Betty's mother in law on Mad Men (Henry Francis' mother). I actually love that type of character, though they may rub people the wrong way I find them highly entertaining (in real life if they were my mother not so much though...HA)

 

 

 

 

 

[cardigirl]

In lieu of introspection I prefer to look at his deeds. Maybe it could've been any woman but it sure was not the young one at the swimming pool or, in absence of further information, none of the other women beforehand either. Helen married him because he wouldn't cheat, that must have had a basis somewhere. So I prefer to think he went through 20+ years without cheating, despite having opportunities to do so (as his post-marriage romps prove). Over 20 years. So Alison has got to be particular circumstances at a particular time. Was Noah looking for ANY way out of the marriage at that stage? Don't think so. Could Helen 'affair proof' her marriage? I think she did, against all these other women - except Alison. Perhaps even Alison herself, although I'm not being very definitive here.

 

And of course if you're married with kids and not "on the market", it's even less likely that you'll meet someone you feel that intense connection to. But is it so impossible to imagine that after twenty years and four kids, you just might happen to meet them, while walking on a beach at night?

My belief is that no long-established relationship, no matter how strong, can ward off a brand new spark of chemistry on that level. Not for many or most people, anyhow.

Well, both of these points kind of prove that Helen really couldn't have "affair-proofed" her marriage. I still don't think Allison is so special he couldn't resist her, he was just at the right point in time to cheat. What we have been shown of Noah and Helen's marriage was that he was beginning to feel as if his life was not what he thought it should be. But we've not been shown much of him trying to communicate that to Helen.

Helen said in a counseling session that she married him because he was safe. That may have been said to hurt him, or may have been her shock that the one person she trusted had betrayed her so thoroughly. I didn't see it as saying she thought of Noah as a wimp, but rather, as trustworthy. She could place her love and life with him and not fear getting hurt. Not an unreasonable quality to look for in a life partner. From Noah's perspective at the time, he may have seen it as her saying he wouldn't be able to cheat as no other woman would have him. But I don't think Helen felt that way at all.

To say that Helen is at fault for Noah's cheating is too simplistic. He wanted 'something' and decided that a new love was what he needed. I doubt that Helen could have done anything to 'fix' that 'wanting something' and really, it wasn't up to her to fix things for him. Now that he has left her, it is up to her to rebuild her life into something she wants. She didn't want to do it without him, but he's left her no choice, and the healthiest thing for her is to accept it and move on.

But I still want to punch Noah most of the time.

[Pallas]

A possibility is that the killing of Scotty was accidental, but whoever was in the car (one or more person) knew, "OMG, this was a complete accident, but I/we have so much motive to have killed him that no one will ever believe it was a complete accident." Which is related to, but not quite the same as, "OMG, this was a complete accident, but it resembles down to the letter the vehicular homicide I wrote about it in my international best-seller. I'm screwed!" Both scenarios would account for the guilty party/parties not reporting the accident.

 

And to either of these, add a secondary consideration: "And my ex-wife was in the car with me: not something we need my wife, or our kids, or the world at large, to know."

 

I love Maura Tierney in this role.   I hope she at least, receives an Emmy nomination.

 

Absolutely, and then again: there's Boundary's speculation that Helen might be determined to free Noah and perhaps -- not incidentally -- turn the investigation toward a culpable Alison...Last season we discussed Maura Tierney's matter-of-fact appeal, and how it might be working against what the showrunners wanted to imply about Helen. But maybe that dissonance is deliberate. Maybe we're not supposed to perceive Helen as the noirish spurned wife who could devise such a plan. As someone who could want Noah back: or at least, want Noah humiliated, deprived of his second wife, in a position to keep sweating out best-sellers to provide child support, and all the while, still feeling indebted to Helen. As someone who would want Alison to pay so dearly -- and, nominally, for the death of man Helen loathed.

 

If that's who Helen becomes, casting Maura Tierney would be a  great way to disguise her in plain sight.

[Superpole2000]

Subtlety is out the window on this show. This episode is the latest in a growing series of shouting matches, awkward sex scenes, character assassinations,  and character/plot 180's.

 

The character/plot 180's really bother me. I didn't buy Alison staying with her mother for six weeks instead of coordinating futures with her fiancé. I didn't buy Helen dramatically turning on her mother to the point where she was telling her mom that she hated her. I also didn't buy Helen, Noah, and the kids getting along for any length of time exceeding five seconds. And Helen's dad divorcing her mom seemed ridiculous for reasons the show explained to us just this episode.

 

But ultimately it's the growing unlikability of the characters that is moving this show down my list of watches. Who am I cheering for? Stacy? I might need more than that.

[SlackerInc]

The longer you're in a relationship, the *more* likely you are to come across someone you have a strong connection with, but people can and do resist this. Why even enter into a relationship if you believe that your solid marriage could end the moment the right hot waitress serves you pancakes at a diner.

 

Why even move to a new city when you get an exciting career opportunity, and buy a house there, if in twenty years you might leave that job/city/house for somewhere else that excites you more by that point?

 

See how silly that sounds?

 

On the contrary, he's known about the cutting, Gabriel's death and what it did to her, about her grandfather and his fisherman community, he was there when her grandmother died and had known how important she'd been, he knew about Athena, he freaked out when he found out about her part in the drug dealing. In this episode he admitted that until faced with a potential tragedy with Martin, he had never *really* appreciated what Alison went through, but he's known the basic facts. A few weeks ago he saw how terrified she was of swimming, and was there to witness the change. So no, she's not just a Real Doll to him in my humble opinion.

 

Right?  I mean, it's one thing to watch the same events and just have different opinions about what you see, but it irks me to see such egregious misrepresentations of what has transpired.

[Boundary]

To say that Helen is at fault for Noah's cheating is too simplistic.

 

Yes it is and I've said nothing of the sort. All I've said is that, given her marriage breakdown, Helen should at least look in the mirror. Maybe my opinion is too nuanced but when I say I don't believe talking about fault is useful when the milk is already spilt - wipe the mess and look to prevent future spills - I really believe it. Helen might not ultimately have done anything to prevent Noah leaving but that shouldn't be an automatic conclusion. Her mother, her support for Noah's aspirations, her snobbishness, etc. might all not be instructive after all but it should be encouraged that she at least review. In this episode, she saw what Margaret's influence for what it was, but we still don't know if she extrapolated that to her married years too.

 

Absolutely, and then again: there's Boundary's speculation that Helen might be determined to free Noah and perhaps -- not incidentally -- turn the investigation toward a culpable Alison...Last season we discussed Maura Tierney's matter-of-fact appeal, and how it might be working against what the showrunners wanted to imply about Helen. But maybe that dissonance is deliberate. Maybe we're not supposed to perceive Helen as the noirish spurned wife who could devise such a plan. As someone who could want Noah back: or at least, want Noah humiliated, deprived of his second wife, in a position to keep sweating out best-sellers to provide child support, and all the while, still feeling indebted to Helen. As someone who would want Alison to pay so dearly -- and, nominally, for the death of man Helen loathed.

 

If that's who Helen becomes, casting Maura Tierney would be a  great way to disguise her in plain sight.

 

And it was Tierney's performance that clued me up. That scene was short but MT makes me believe that, while Helen wanted the best for Noah, there's something more to the character. It might not be as well thought out and as premeditated but there's a catch somewhere. Selling your house for your rich ex husband's benefit? Where did that come from? It really means there's something more to this. And all those things Pallas that you point out are still at play (for instance, why did Noah lie about staying at The End, was he with Helen?) But who knows, in a few episodes I might have an egg on my face.

[right]

Why even move to a new city when you get an exciting career opportunity, and buy a house there, if in twenty years you might leave that job/city/house for somewhere else that excites you more by that point?

 

See how silly that sounds?

 

 

Right?  I mean, it's one thing to watch the same events and just have different opinions about what you see, but it irks me to see such egregious misrepresentations of what has transpired.

 

I think you're comparing "apples and oranges" when you bring up taking a new job or buying and selling a home.  When you make the decision to marry someone and then bring children into the world you are doing something much more profound than leaving company X for company Y.  I've never started a new job and taken vows to never forsake the company and to honor it until death due us part.  For many of us the idea of starting a life long adventure with one person we can reminisce with and look back at our children's and grand children's accomplishments is what we're on this planet for.  When one partner decides to change their mind mid-life it is a shitty, selfish thing to do.  If you can't commit for life, don't get married.

[Superpole2000]

When one partner decides to change their mind mid-life it is a shitty, selfish thing to do.  If you can't commit for life, don't get married.

I know that's the deal. Marriage is supposed to be a lifelong commitment. Nevertheless, this show and our own experiences with friends and family show that this isn't a practical expectation. Half of marriages end in divorce, and many others are unhappy and/or saddled with infidelity. People evolve, situations change, and the marriage is for life philosophy seems out of date with reality.

 

Noah is selfish, but so is everyone else on this planet. We all ultimately pursue what we want from life. More often than not, married people change their mind about their marriage and pursue something else, either in secret or out in the open.

[RedInk]

Why even move to a new city when you get an exciting career opportunity, and buy a house there, if in twenty years you might leave that job/city/house for somewhere else that excites you more by that point?

See how silly that sounds?

No, because there is absolutely no comparison between committing to a job and committing to a marriage. That job/city/house you're leaving for an exciting new opportunity (and you're using "opportunity" interchangeably with "person" in your analogy) hasn't sacrificed for you and doesn't love and/or depend on you. But your post does illustrate why you think Noah's actions are understandable while others think they're unconscionable. We just won't see eye-to-eye on this one. Edited November 15, 2015 by RedInk

[SlackerInc]

I can think of jobs I have left for greener pastures, where my bosses absolutely were upset, felt I had left them high and dry, etc.