S06.E11: Sleep No More

[Dee]

I wonder if Svetlana is genuine about her feelings for Kev & Vee.

 

She's pretty infatuated with Vee and seems to find Kev pretty amusing, but she's been much less forthcoming about her own feelings than either Kev or Vee.

 

I really like the three of them, the twins & Yev, together, so I hope they live happily ever after, instead of their relationship turning out to be an elaborate scheme of Svet's to steal the Alibi as collateral to finance her Quizno's franchise.

Edited March 29, 2016 by Dee

[Tatum]

Or, didn't he end up going to the parent's night, but he went with Sheila to talk to Karen's teacher?  He is the worst. 

 

 

Yeah, he didn't want to do that either, but Karen either offered to pay him or blackmailed him into it- I can't remember which. But the kids didn't know about that so they just knew Frank blew off Carl's teacher/principal-knowing the serious consequences it could cause- but went to Karen's school to meet with her teachers.

 

I wish they hadn't destroyed Karen's character in season 2. While I don't think she was Lip- smart, they made several references to her making decent grades. She could have been another Southside Success story.

 

 

That is interesting.  I tried to watch the UK version, and I made it through maybe half of the first episode - but the production value is so so so bad.  I couldn't make it through.  I think I saw shadows on the walls from the terrible lighting. 

 

I thought the same thing. I tried to watch as well and lost interest. I did think the UK Fiona actress fit in better with the setting. And Steve was way less irritating.

[LuciaMia]

 

Really, the kids would be much better off if Frank would take a page from Monica's book and just leave altogether.

Dont understand why he doesn't go back to the commune. Plenty of willing sex and all that opium just waiting to be harvested. (Assuming that things went back to normal after that shoot-out in the greenhouse. Or did it? Another loose end the show has left hanging.)

[Lion]

Lol, so a story someone has told today at work reminds me of why I didn't find the baby dropping so unrealistic (though of course I was horrified by it nonetheless).  Where I grew up, it was like tradition or something for mothers to get together and proudly discuss the ways they fucked up.  Actually, it still happens elsewhere that I've lived.  Nearly every baby shower or gathering of mothers includes fuck up stories.  My own mom would joyfully describe in detail how one of us rolled off the counter when having a bath or rolled off the couch or some other pretty terrifying situation.  And of course none of this was followed by a trip to the hospital or pediatrician.  That cost money and we were too poor.  Not to mention, people often have some really bizarre superstitions and notions about things.  Growing up, I always heard that you couldn't really hurt babies because they have soft bones.  My mom still believes that dropping a baby is no big deal due to soft bones.  Ignorance can be ingrained deeply, especially when there is a legitimate cause for that ignorance (like extreme poverty preventing good access to medical care).  So it just rang true that they'd not take the baby for a check up.

 

Debbie stepping away afterwards also seems straight out of parenting books.  With better understanding of things like shaken baby syndrome, it's often advised to put the baby down (usually in a safe place like strapped in a carseat, bouncy chair, or in a crib) and walk away when one is feeling stressed, frustrated, or overwhelmed.  It's better to do this and calm down than risk any (other) action that might harm the baby.

[Empress1]

My former coworker's baby (not a newborn but not ambulatory) rolled off the couch. She set her down and then went into the kitchen to start dinner. She heard the baby crying, ran in to check on her, and saw her on the floor. They didn't take her to the doctor either. When she told me and a few other coworkers about it, she was kind of like "Oops!" and embarrassed, but not devastated. It led to a few other mothers (all of whom had kids who were grown or close to it) talking about the time they did this or that.

 

Debbie's not the first parent to drop a baby and she won't be the last, but she so clearly has no business being a parent for like 75 reasons. She doesn't need to be coddled and told she's a good mother. Shit is really real for her and she needs to face it.

[Tara Ariano]

In case you missed it, here's the Previously.TV post on the episode!

 

The Gloves And Pants Come Off On Shameless
Shameless spends the season's penultimate episode doing what it does best: showcasing the very worst of humanity and catching people with their pants down.

[iMonrey]

 

One need only read a story or two about children in foster care to understand that children can and will continue to love their parents, even when their parents are their abusers.

 

Yes but those children tend to be in denial about how awful and abusive their parents are and even defend them against criticism. Or else, they have no better options. The Gallaghers truly see Frank for the scum that he is and aside from Debbie have no delusions that he's ever going to man up and be a real father to any of them. So I don't think the Gallagher children are comparable to abused children (they've never been physically abused by Frank as far as we know) when it comes to putting up with him. 

 

I think it's really more of a simple narrative problem. They didn't have much recourse in dealing with Frank always hanging around when their own claim to the house was as tenuous as his. Now that Fiona owns it outright there's simply no reason to tolerate his presence. There's certainly no reason for Fiona to be so flip about Frank stealing/using/eating Sean's stuff like it's unavoidable. 

 

That's just bad writing, frankly. (No pun intended.)

[Lion]

Yes but those children tend to be in denial about how awful and abusive their parents are and even defend them against criticism. Or else, they have no better options. The Gallaghers truly see Frank for the scum that he is and aside from Debbie have no delusions that he's ever going to man up and be a real father to any of them. So I don't think the Gallagher children are comparable to abused children (they've never been physically abused by Frank as far as we know) when it comes to putting up with him. 

 

I think it's really more of a simple narrative problem. They didn't have much recourse in dealing with Frank always hanging around when their own claim to the house was as tenuous as his. Now that Fiona owns it outright there's simply no reason to tolerate his presence. There's certainly no reason for Fiona to be so flip about Frank stealing/using/eating Sean's stuff like it's unavoidable. 

 

That's just bad writing, frankly. (No pun intended.)

This doesn't really make sense.  You're claiming that other children are in denial about their parents, but these children aren't which conveniently affirms your premise.  I'd recommend googling something like "abused children still love their parents" or something of that nature.  It's not an issue about being in denial about abuse or neglect from parents, but about what appears to be a fairly universal need or desire to have certain connections, no matter how bad those connections might be.  Sure, this particular story is dramatized and exaggerated for the needs of the show, but that's true of all the storylines.  

[ShowPolish]

Yes but those children tend to be in denial about how awful and abusive their parents are and even defend them against criticism. Or else, they have no better options. The Gallaghers truly see Frank for the scum that he is and aside from Debbie have no delusions that he's ever going to man up and be a real father to any of them. So I don't think the Gallagher children are comparable to abused children (they've never been physically abused by Frank as far as we know) when it comes to putting up with him. 

 

 

I think the Gallaghers are in denial.   They know Frank is scum, joke about Frank being scum, accept Frank to be scum and yet still are upset when it happens.  Frank should have been cut out a while ago  (and if it wasn't for WHM he would have been -assuming competent writing).  But that doesn't negate the fact that the Gallaghers are in 'meta-denial'.  They know he'll fuck up, but at the same time expect him to do otherwise.

Edited March 29, 2016 by ShowPolish

[whiporee]

I think the Gallaghers are in denial.   They know Frank is scum, joke about Frank being scum, accept Frank to be scum and yet still are upset when it happens.  Frank should have been cut out a while ago  (and if it wasn't for WHM he would have been -assuming competent writing).  But that doesn't negate the fact that the Gallaghers are in 'meta-denial'.  They know he'll fuck up, but at the same time expect him to do otherwise.

 

They don't punish their own. 

 

It's not an uncommon sentiment among folks who don't have much and who live on the fringes. You can get away with a lot if you're made, or if you're in a gang, or if you're part of a tight knit community of any kind. Frank's a Gallagher, for better and mostly worse. And they don't turn on their own. 

 

That's why Debbie's allowed back in the house. It's why Fiona kept looking for Lip when she threw him out. It's why Carl's not back in juvie after the gun incident, even though it almost cost Fiona her relationship. It's why Fiona's back in the house despite being responsible for leaving the coke out. It's why Monica is allowed to stay and why Ian isn't institutionalized. 

 

Because they look after their own. And, for better and mostly worse, Frank's not only a Gallagher, he's the Gallagher. 

[kathe5133]

This family is so messed up, they can't even see how messed up they are. Fiona gets a job. Mind you when she is dressing for this job she pulls out a sparkly minidress, cause it's a dress, right? She gets the job, succeeds at the job. For the first time in her life she's pulling a steady paycheck, and decent money. She has access to a company car, etc. So, she flirts with the boss. Not just her supervisor, but the owner of the company. She beds him and then, sleeps with his brother. Then of course the coke, Liam, etc.

Party at the Gallaghers! She and her adult friends ar snorting coke right in front of her toddler brother. What toddler comes upon a baggie of white powder and sniffs it? A toddler who has watched all of his older siblings do the same, many times. Lip has the nerve to blame Liam on Fiona? What about Kevin and V who were right there snorting right along with her. What is wrong with these people?

Look at their father. Look and the huge pile of mess that his the father's mother. How the hell could Frank not end up the way he is after being "raised" by that hosebeast?

Every adult being portrayed on this show is fucked up. Everyone of them. Just how fucked up they are is that Kevin & V look normal in comparison.

They can't pull themselves out of this life because they don't know there is any other kind of life. Sean is also a mess. He showed some semblance of sanity when he initially rejected Fiona due to her chaos. But, like the Gallaghers, he can't help it. He's allowing his son to associate with these people even though he professes to want better for his son. His son held a gun, the tis bad, but it's equally bad that this son is allowed to associate with these people. If I were Sean's ex wife I'd be in court for a restraining order immediately.

Like a train wreck I can't turn away, but I don't believe there are any truly decent human beings being portrayed here. "Shameless" is a perfect title.

[Dee]

They don't punish their own. 

 

It's not an uncommon sentiment among folks who don't have much and who live on the fringes. You can get away with a lot if you're made, or if you're in a gang, or if you're part of a tight knit community of any kind. Frank's a Gallagher, for better and mostly worse. And they don't turn on their own. 

 

That's why Debbie's allowed back in the house. It's why Fiona kept looking for Lip when she threw him out. It's why Carl's not back in juvie after the gun incident, even though it almost cost Fiona her relationship. It's why Fiona's back in the house despite being responsible for leaving the coke out. It's why Monica is allowed to stay and why Ian isn't institutionalized. 

 

Because they look after their own. And, for better and mostly worse, Frank's not only a Gallagher, he's the Gallagher. 

 

Exactly.

 

They even allowed Sammi's toxic ass to still live in the house even after the debacle with Chuckie & Carl. It isn't until Sammi stabs them in the back, again, via Ian that they demand she leave.

 

The only time Gallaghers truly turn on their own is when the patented Gallagher insanity threatens to irrevocably destroy the entire house (Peggy being banished to Sheila's post basement meth lab explosion), they're an immediate danger to themselves (Monica slashing her wrists) or there's revenge involved (Frank, Sammi).

 

They're incredibly dysfunctional, but they're committed to scuffling to get by together.

[Empress1]

I just noticed that Ian's boss is Rhonda from The Wire. 

[iMonrey]

 

You're claiming that other children are in denial about their parents, but these children aren't which conveniently affirms your premise.  I'd recommend googling something like "abused children still love their parents" or something of that nature.

 

I don't want to get into a debate about the definition of "abused children." I would argue there's a difference between children who are physically assaulted by a parent and the Gallaghers who have largely been left to fend for themselves but were never beaten by their parents. There may be something behind the idea that "south side" kids have some twisted sense of family values that allows them to tolerate Frank more than is logical, but I honestly see no evidence whatever that any of them (aside from Debbie) harbor any delusions about Frank, or any unrealistic hope that he'll ever be anything more than what he is. 

 

For example, we have never seen any of the Gallaghers defend Frank to their friends, or deny what he does to themselves or anyone else, which is behavior that typifies abuse victims WRT their abusers. They've never expressed any belief that he will change or that what he does is somehow their fault. 

 

That's certainly the most true for Fiona - perhaps an argument could be made that she's so desensitized to Frank that she ignores him and expects Sean to as well. But I vehemently disagree she's in any kind of denial about what Frank's like or has any delusions or false hopes about him. 

 

I think there's a writing problem WRT Frank because the character should have logically run its course by now and he feels more and more shoe-horned into the story the longer it goes on. I have serious doubts the writers have any kind of psychological explanation in mind for the Gallagher kids' reactions to him.

Edited March 30, 2016 by iMonrey

[scrb]

Usually, children who've been ignored by a parent want nothing to do with him or her.  Sometimes aggressively telling that parent to get lost.

 

So the kids here want nothing to do with Monica.

 

But they seem to put up with Frank more than you'd think.  Instead they just seem to throw up their hands with a "what are you gonna do" attitude about Frank.

 

Of course the younger ones were more likely to still look up to them.

[WhosThatGirl]

I mean, Frank is never leaving the show. Let's be real. WHM is Frank and unless WHM decides he wants out, he is here to stay, and I've never heard WHM say anything bad about this show. He is not going to die next week or be in any danger (if he had ever been in danger of dying, it was season 4 when he was sick and the show kept doing almost deaths like every episode and then he was fine); it is what it is, Frank will somehow always be connected to the Gallaghers because he needs to since you know.. fitting a story and all somewhere.

 

So back to the point, if anyone is going to die next week and that's a big if, because this show, it's probably going to be Sean and even then, that's unlikely a bit or it will be a secondary character. Or, it will be a cliffhanger which leaves the writers time to test out the waters and see if they really want to kill someone off. Then they come back and hit a reset button on the death of a character plot. Or no one dies, because this show and the network loves a good fakeout. I remember all of the promos last season which ended not having anything to do with the actual story. Either way, like I said a few days ago, I cannot wait to be done until next year with this show and the more I think about it, the more I am unsure about coming back next season. 

[Dee]

So the kids here want nothing to do with Monica.

 

I think the only one that doesn't want anything to do with Monica, outright, is Lip.

 

Ian regularly kept in contact with her, Fiona allowed her back into the family on the provision she took birth control, Debs confided to Sheila that she'd forgive Monica everything if she returned and was committed to staying and Carl's been fairly amenable toward her whenever she surfaces.

 

I also don't think the Gallagher kids, Debbie included, have any illusions about Frank; but the fact that he's the custodial parent who stayed paired with his admittedly rare lucid moments and sporadic usefulness has created a powerful degree of unspoken loyalty to him, despite the fact that they'd all have been better off if they'd completely banished him from their lives years ago.

 

And it's not as if the show has been afraid to remove Frank from the Gallagher household for extended periods of time. He spent most of the first four seasons living with the Jacksons as much as he did his own family.

 

It's only been since he destroyed Sheila's house, early last season, that Shameless has struggled to believably reintegrate him back into the Gallagher fold.

Edited March 30, 2016 by Dee