Season 2 Discussion

[zxy556575]

53 minutes ago, JudyObscure said:

Somehow I crossed over to favor the Sidney & Amanda love story this episode. I think this season showed them both trying hard to get over each other and finally accepting that they never would. What ever it was about Amanda that struck Sidney in their first meeting at the art museum is not going to go away or be covered over by another pretty woman. She touches something very deep in him and he draws her back like a homing pigeon. I wonder if we would have warmed to Amanda a little more if she had been a bit softer looking, she's always so arch browed and put together, the actress isn't built to play vulnerable very well.

I don't favor them, exactly, but I did lighten up a teensy bit on Amanda, solely because Mrs. Maguire relied on her in Sidney's time of need. I agree that the actress looks somewhat cool and reserved. Resting haughty face. (Can you imagine her trying to play someone like Kimmy Schmidt or Jess Day?)

Hildegard and Sidney's romance felt real and believable to me -- maybe because, unlike Amanda, I saw it develop from the start. I would have been interested to see which one he chose if Hildegard had remained a choice.

Whoever sells liquor in that village, both shops and pubs, needs to cut Sidney off. Feeling up that poor barmaid while drunk, ugh.

[truther]

My thought process while watching this ep:

First 30 minutes (as Sidney is stumbling around drunk and molesting the barmaid): Ugh, I'm done with this show.

Next 25 minutes (as things get wrapped up and everybody starts forgiving everyone): Yay, my happy fun show is coming back!

Final minutes (when Amanda appears): Ugh, I'm done with this show.  

[Sonja]

12 hours ago, HoodlumSheep said:

• Mrs. M loses points for supporting Sidney and Amanda, even if it's more out of desperation.
• you go, Leonard! So proud of you! Also, poor Leonard ;_;. Don't waste your time on that photographer jerk. 
• Happy for Mrs. M and Jack (that's his name, right?)
• that Sidney/Geordie awkward hug was adorable so I'm happy that they kinda patched things up. Lol @ Geordie checking to make sure no one was watching.
• Even though I can't stand Amanda and Sidney together, I AM happy that she got away from Guy. 

• I don't think Mrs M supports Sidney and Amanda as a couple, she just didn't want Amanda to be stuck in a loveless marriage.
• So, are Leonard and Phil going to become the second clergy/police duo in Cambridge now?
• Mrs M and Jack are adorable together. Did she wear make-up in this scene? I wasn't sure.
• that hug was played really well
• Same here. Her 'he's so angry' really fit with what we've seen of him so far.

 

11 hours ago, Pogojoco said:

I'm thinking, in the 1950s, they would never accept a divorcee as the vicar's wife. They couldn't even get married to each other in the church if she's been married before. Princess Margaret was in love with Peter Snowden and she couldn't marry him because the Church of England wouldn't let her marry a dude who is divorced. 

I was wondering about that. They have to know that he couldn't possibly stay on with the church and be with Amanda.

11 hours ago, whatsatool said:

What I adore about this church is how there is just the vicar doing communion with a bit of tuck pointing and strolling about the cemetery and brook, but no wedding or funeral or Sunday school or vestry or church politics. Love it!

There were funerals (were they all in S1?) and they are clearly working with children and teenagers. The only weddings so far fell through though (Isabelle's and Amanda's respectively).
 

5 hours ago, SusanSunflower said:

 Amanda's husband's reputation is destroyed (everyone assume she left him for some form of abuse.  Then Sydney is spotted and leading folks to suspect her husband kicked her out for cause -- the baby is Sydney's -- oh-la-la ...) 

I think this role is supposed to transition Norton out of his "young hottie phase" into being a steady working, reliable actor ... but Green is the more interesting, vibrant character even when he's standing still.

Do you really think back then anyone would have sided with Amanda instead of Guy? I rather suspect she would have been painted as hysterical, ungrateful floozy and he would have been the poor husband who got left despite putting a (large) roof over his wife's head. I don't know about England, but in Austria in the 1950s, Amanda wouldn't even have gotten custody of the child for being a woman and therefore not being able to properly provide for the child financially.

I don't think the casting was that strategic. Wasn't he virtually unknown when he was first cast? He does have a first in theology from Cambridge however. That must have been intriguing for the producers and director. Green is brilliant as Geordie, he just seems to belong there.

What is it with this show and people hardly ever saying 'please', 'thank you' or apologising? Sidney you oaf, how about apologising to the woman you practically tried to bend over the bar? Not remembering doesn't mean you don't need to say you're sorry before asking her what Harding tried to tell your shitfaced self.

[wlk68]

Oy! *facepalm*

Amanda and Sidney are going to cause SUCH a scandal. Not only did she leave her husband but she did it while pregnant his child. That is SO not going to fly.  She may not be able to go home to her father but there is no way she can set up house in the vicarage. I'm envisioning Guy and Amanda's dad coming around and beating the crap outta Sidney. Not to mention that the church will be like 'yeah, no'.

ETA: That's if people don't assume that Sidney is the real father of the baby.

I had the tiniest sliver of hope when she and Guy had that conversation at the breakfast table where he recalled (to all appearances very fondly) their first date. And then his comment that that girl was right there in front of him. Granted he obviously hasn't been paying attention if he hasn't noticed a change in her but still. I thought there was a chance.

Nnnnope. 

Part of me wants to watch next season just to see how big a train wreck it will be.  

I was both 'Yay' for Leanord and 'Awww' for Leonard. Photography dude doesn't deserve him but that doesn't make it any less painful for Leonard.

And as for the communion thing during the Sunday service. I thought communion was 100% a Catholic thing. I didn't realize Anglicans did it too. *obviously not very religious, me*

Edited May 2, 2016 by wlk68

[attica]

When I was growing up, my presbyterian church did communion, but in a stay-seated, bread cube & grape juice, once-a-quarter kind of way. A ritual, but not a sacrament, in other words.

And just because I feel like complaining about it, Guy's headstyling has irritated me the whole season. Fake looking beard and over-styled eyebrows. I'd've left him long ago if he never trimmed that chin hair.

[Garnett7]

I loved this episode . . . until the last few minutes. Ugh. Will they please quit trying to force Amanda? She doesn't work as a character and her relationship with Sydney definitely doesn't work.

Next season will be all the scandal, no doubt. Guy would probably get custody of the baby if he chose to fight her because I doubt women had many rights back then, especially one who left her husband. He will use the baby to lord over her (ugh, whatever) while everyone is horrified over the vicar's relationship with her. But then it will probably be tied up in a nice "someone killed Guy" bow.

[SusanSunflower]

No one would have sided with Amanda ... but they might have assumed she was desperate and had cause ... 

In the old days, women were blamed for causing men to beat them, cheat on them ... even if he was blatantly unfaithful, it would be seen as her fault ...

however, that would not stop the gossips ... and the damage to Guy's reputation if only among the women... Remember the pitying looks Soames got wrt not being able to control his wife? 

IMDB gives Norton a page full of a-list credits |... going back (only) 2009... I'm just struck by how much older and "less hot" he appears than last season ... at least to me --- ymmv  (don't hate me).  Green looks worse for wear, possibly older or more weathered than 50 (as mentioned) might look, but still humming with vitality ... 

Edited May 2, 2016 by SusanSunflower

[sinycalone]

Well, I think Sidney is supposed to have gotten more care-worn, etc. this season...same for Geordie.

Someone mentioned above being able to understand the romance between Hildegard and Sidney because we saw it devleoping, etc.  Exactly.  Nothing we have seen of Amanda's character has made her  appear worthy of Sidney's devotion....in fact, we have seen very little positive about her.  We are expected to accept this great romance...with no real history to support it.

[One Imaginary Girl]

I'm actually antihug, though I'm glad to see the friendship between Sidney and Geordie back on track.  It just didn't seem realistic since the British are known to be not very touchy-feely, and I'd think that between two men and in the 1950s it would be even less likely.  Maybe a real Brit could weigh in on this. 

[Carrie Ann]

Well, we'll have a year to wait--a year in which I hope the producers get some external feedback--and I will hope to hear something that indicates Sidney/Amanda isn't really going to happen, or at least that it won't last through S3. But if I don't hear that, then I won't be back. I really like Sidney, Leonard, and Mrs. M, and I used to like Geordie, but there wasn't enough to like this season to make another season worth my time, especially not with Sidney/Amanda at the center.

[truther]

34 minutes ago, One Imaginary Girl said:

I'm actually antihug, though I'm glad to see the friendship between Sidney and Geordie back on track.  It just didn't seem realistic since the British are known to be not very touchy-feely, and I'd think that between two men and in the 1950s it would be even less likely.  Maybe a real Brit could weigh in on this. 

I'm just a colonial and not a full on Brit, but it played alright for me.  The way both men glanced at the door first, to make sure nobody was watching, was priceless.  Clearly they were going for laughs.  But to think of all the things they had recently been through, and how important each man considered the other to be in his life, the (quick and discrete) hug was totally believable.  

[dubbel zout]

16 hours ago, Pogojoco said:

Peter Snowden

Peter Townsend was the man Princess Margaret didn't/couldn't marry; Lord Snowden (Anthony Armstrong-Jones) was the man she did.

3 hours ago, wlk68 said:

I was both 'Yay' for Leanord and 'Awww' for Leonard. Photography dude doesn't deserve him but that doesn't make it any less painful for Leonard.

Poor Leonard. Just when I was thinking he got that big win he needed after standing up to the archbishop (and I loved Phil's support: "Yes, he said you'd say that about the bishop, and you did"), he sees the photographer didn't wait. I did like Sidney telling Leonard you get used to having a broken heart, even if it's such a sad thing to say. At least Leonard knew Sidney meant it kindly.

Don't care about Amanda anymore. Don't care, don't care, don't care.

I don't want Geordie and Kathy to have marital problems, but I supposed it's inevitable. Work it out, you two!

3 hours ago, attica said:

When I was growing up, my presbyterian church did communion, but in a stay-seated, bread cube & grape juice, once-a-quarter kind of way. A ritual, but not a sacrament, in other words.

That's how my Presbyterian church did it, too, though we got matzo instead of bread cubes.

[dargosmydaddy]

10 hours ago, JudyObscure said:

I can see the Sidney, Leonard, Mrs. Maguire and Dickens all falling in love with the baby. 

Can we kill off Amanda (and I guess Guy, too), and just have the vicarage folks keep the baby? Pretty please?

[dubbel zout]

Amanda could die in childbirth.

[LaChavalina]

There's no way Amanda's actions aren't going to cause someone to be threatened with serious bodily harm in Season 3. 

Did I miss something, or were scenes edited out for U.S. audiences? I kept thinking they were going to lead us to believe that Guy was abusing her and that would be the setup for their split. Instead, she was bored? Didn't get enough attention? Wanted to knit more baby clothes? 

[AuntiePam]

LaChavalina, I wondered the same thing.  Amanda seemed mollified when Guy told her why he fell in love with her.  I guess we can blame Sylvia, for telling Amanda that her marriage wasn't going to get any better.  What does Amanda think will happen?  Woman acts like a twelve-year-old.

[kat165]

I didn't get that Amanda was mollified. She seemed more resigned. Like, this is how it's going to be from now on and it will never get any better and will probably even get worse. When Guy put down the paper and grasped her hand she seemed to hope there was a chance, but as soon as he picked the paper back up she realized, no this is it. And it sucks.

[SusanSunflower]

Funny, I thought it was touching that he was giving her "space" to adjust to married life ... and not demanding to know where his vivacious and fascinating bride had gone ... The depiction of newbie knitting project made me laugh ... no, knitting in progress is rarely that attractive, at least mine isn't and even Jane Marple's endless knitting has a mysterious formlessness to its baby pinks and blues 

Edited May 3, 2016 by SusanSunflower

[magdalene]

I fear they are going to conveniently kill off Guy - and voila! Amanda is a merry widow and then she can marry Sidney. 

What have the ratings been like for this season in the UK?  It's obvious that the writers on this show don't share my loathing of Amanda.  Well, I haven't watched the last two episodes and unless I get some spoilers that please me I am out for the third season.

[Merneith]

I'm not crazy about Amanda but I guess I'd rather they be together than all this stupid to-ing and fro-ing.

And yes, the divorcee thing will be a scandal, plus, The Baby. The Established Church will really not be happy with Leonard and Sidney for dragging their Archdeacon into the spotlight. I want to see Leonard find his mojo but whistleblowers always get it in the shorts. (Don't cry, honey. That smarmy git doesn't deserve you.)

Sidney owed that barmaid an apology. And he's an idiot for passing up Margaret.

Good for Mrs. M! Jack's a sweetie!

Kathy - I don't blame you for being angry but you either need to leave or make lemonade.

I too was yelling, "Kiss him!" doing Sidney and Geordie's scene.

I thought the whole "stash the victim in the root cellar and hope for the best" story to be so dumb.

It's funny but I do like this show, as much as they moan on about things.

[dcalley]

On 5/2/2016 at 11:40 PM, lordonia said:

Not sure if was his the styling/makeup or just plain acting, but James Norton managed to look much younger to me in the flashback with him putting on his vestments for the first time.

I know, he really did look a lot younger! But Guy's beard just screams fake.

On 5/2/2016 at 1:22 AM, Cranston said:

If Amanda had said "I have nothing!" one more time I'd have punched her lights out.  She has a baby coming, for God's sake.

She did say it a lot, but I thought she was talking about possessions/money.

21 hours ago, SusanSunflower said:

by then there had been two -- count 'em two -- moments of Sydney "putting 2 and 2 together" for the camera ... clunky...

Oh my gosh, the one with Leonard felt like it was in slow-motion and took forever, and all the while I was saying "Don't turn around and wordlessly leave Leonard again!" You could make a drinking game with it. Or put it on Grantchester Bingo cards

I was disgusted by Sidney groping that waitress, and then he didn't even attempt any sort of apology the next day. WTF is that?

Photographer Daniel's visitor coming to the door while getting dressed was dumb, I thought. He would have no reason to come to the door and every reason not to. Even though I hated seeing Leonard in pain, I enjoyed his stories in this one so much and was feeling pretty happy with the episode, until Amanda showed up.

Red-letter Easter egg:

Spoiler

Jacoby Paradox, which is a backgammon thing

[Sonja]

14 hours ago, One Imaginary Girl said:

I'm actually antihug, though I'm glad to see the friendship between Sidney and Geordie back on track.  It just didn't seem realistic since the British are known to be not very touchy-feely, and I'd think that between two men and in the 1950s it would be even less likely.  Maybe a real Brit could weigh in on this. 

Sorry, I had to laugh about this. I'm not British but I'm over there quite a lot both on business and personal trips and usually get the life hugged out of me. I'm not a very touchy-feely person myself, but somehow I always end up being squeezed to death, having arms draped over my shoulder at events or colleagues from the London office resting their head on my shoulder during boring presentations. Could be my field of work though.

17 hours ago, wlk68 said:

I had the tiniest sliver of hope when she and Guy had that conversation at the breakfast table where he recalled (to all appearances very fondly) their first date. And then his comment that that girl was right there in front of him. Granted he obviously hasn't been paying attention if he hasn't noticed a change in her but still. I thought there was a chance.

9 hours ago, LaChavalina said:

There's no way Amanda's actions aren't going to cause someone to be threatened with serious bodily harm in Season 3. 

Did I miss something, or were scenes edited out for U.S. audiences? I kept thinking they were going to lead us to believe that Guy was abusing her and that would be the setup for their split. Instead, she was bored? Didn't get enough attention? Wanted to knit more baby clothes? 

I thought there might be a chance right up until he immedately turned away from her and to his newspaper again.

I don't think he went as far as to hit her, but he definitely was ignoring her or rather treating her like a possession; he manhandled her at Jennifer's party (and in series 1 when he dragged her from Mr. Johnson's club when she said she wanted to be there for Jen), she didn't want to go back home after being caught shop-lifting and her expression when she sat in the car and Guy wanted a 'word' with Sidney seemed more scared than just miserable. She also didn't doubt Guy punching Sidney for a second when Geordie told her and I do think his anger scared her. Also, if anyone in this show has an evil eyebrow, it's Guy ;-)

3 hours ago, magdalene said:

What have the ratings been like for this season in the UK?  It's obvious that the writers on this show don't share my loathing of Amanda.  Well, I haven't watched the last two episodes and unless I get some spoilers that please me I am out for the third season.

The ratings were higher than for series 1 actually and I vaguely remember seeing they were No 1 or 2 in that timeslot somewhere along the way
Series 1: 6.95/5.81/5.62/5.91/5.63/5.75
Series 2: 7.67/7.11/6.90/6.34/6.10/6.26

I just hope they don't take the ratings as the viewers rooting for Amanda/Sidney.

2 hours ago, Merneith said:

The Established Church will really not be happy with Leonard and Sidney for dragging their Archdeacon into the spotlight. I want to see Leonard find his mojo but whistleblowers always get it in the shorts. (Don't cry, honey. That smarmy git doesn't deserve you.)

Sidney owed that barmaid an apology. And he's an idiot for passing up Margaret.

Kathy - I don't blame you for being angry but you either need to leave or make lemonade.

It's funny but I do like this show, as much as they moan on about things.

The bishop apparently gave Leonard the green light before he and Phil went to rip the archdeacon a new one. I guess he'd rather have him go away than bring even more shame to the church in the long run. I wouldn't be surprised if they had managed to keep his trial very quiet at the bishop's behest though.

Agree about the barmaid, disagree about Margaret. She clearly showed she had no idea or interest in adapting which would be necessary if she wanted the relationship to last. So far, Hildegard seemed to be the only one who knew what a vicar is.

I don't think Geordie should get off that easily.

I'm way too invested in this show despite its shortcomings and the overabundance of irrational women. They actually make me care about the characters, damnit.

[photo fox]

14 hours ago, LaChavalina said:

Did I miss something, or were scenes edited out for U.S. audiences? I kept thinking they were going to lead us to believe that Guy was abusing her and that would be the setup for their split. Instead, she was bored? Didn't get enough attention? Wanted to knit more baby clothes? 

I thought the same thing.  I kept waiting for some kind of reveal, based on remembering that someone who saw the UK run saying that by the end of the season, it would be implied that Guy was physically abusing her.  Instead, I saw him more as a bit of a clueless jerk, but not an abuser.

9 hours ago, SusanSunflower said:

The depiction of newbie knitting project made me laugh ... 

So much this!  No newbie knitter attempts a project with sleeves!  Or at least, if they do, they're not successful!  lol

7 hours ago, Merneith said:

Kathy - I don't blame you for being angry but you either need to leave or make lemonade.

I didn't think she was angry, so much as knowing they need to talk about it, but not wanting to do it then and there.  She's not willing to just say "bygones", but it was a party, and she just wanted to have fun and be happy with her husband, whom she still loves.  I don't blame her for not wanting to be reminded of his "infidelity" at that moment.

4 hours ago, Sonja said:

So far, Hildegard seemed to be the only one who knew what a vicar is.

Exactly.  For all that Sidney seems to be pretty progressive, being a vicar or married to one comes with a loooooonnnnng list of demands and unwritten duties.  Unless a woman is willing to share in that, she should swipe left and move on to someone else.

[proserpina65]

I actually liked this episode up until the very end.  Both Sidney and Geordie seemed to be pulling out of their respective funks, Mrs. M and her suitor were very sweet together, and the never-ending execution storyline reached a decent conclusion.  Poor Leonard had his heart broken, but I loved how he stood up to the archdeacon.  Hopefully he'll find someone new in the future; he is just a lovely person and deserves to be happy.

Then, of course, the bitch shows up at the end and ruins it.  Are we really supposed to believe there's some kind of future for these two?  Unless Guy kicks it in a tragic paper cut accident, there's no way a vicar can have a non-clandestine relationship with a married/divorced woman.  Sidney would have to leave the church to be with Amanda as things stand now, and I'd hate to see that happen just as he's finding his footing again.

Quote

Princess Margaret was in love with Peter Snowden and she couldn't marry him because the Church of England wouldn't let her marry a dude who is divorced. 

Peter Townsend.  But your point is spot on.

[proserpina65]

Quote

And as for the communion thing during the Sunday service. I thought communion was 100% a Catholic thing. I didn't realize Anglicans did it too. *obviously not very religious, me*

I was raised Episcopalian (basically the American version of Church of England) and every regular service includes communion.

[nara]

I am definitely pro Sidney/Amanda  (please don't throw things at me!) So I'm happy to see them together. However, I thought the build up to that moment was strange because Guy was relatively nice I  this episode.  On the other hand, perhaps that means she made her decision with a level head,  rather than in the heat of the moment. It's ironic that she is giving up more now than if she had just gotten together with Sidney in the first place. We'll see if it lasts between them. At least, this should be the end of Sidney's excessive drinking and inappropriate behavior with young women.

Loved Leonard's arc this season, despite the broken heart. I believe this was his first love--right? I think he learned a lot from it and has really come into his own.

[DD51]

12 hours ago, proserpina65 said:

I actually liked this episode up until the very end.  Both Sidney and Geordie seemed to be pulling out of their respective funks, Mrs. M and her suitor were very sweet together, and the never-ending execution storyline reached a decent conclusion.  Poor Leonard had his heart broken, but I loved how he stood up to the archdeacon.  Hopefully he'll find someone new in the future; he is just a lovely person and deserves to be happy.

Then, of course, the bitch shows up at the end and ruins it.  Are we really supposed to believe there's some kind of future for these two?  Unless Guy kicks it in a tragic paper cut accident, there's no way a vicar can have a non-clandestine relationship with a married/divorced woman.  Sidney would have to leave the church to be with Amanda as things stand now, and I'd hate to see that happen just as he's finding his footing again.

Peter Townsend.  But your point is spot on.

Actually she could have married him, but not in the Church of England.  Further, she was told she would lose her title(s), and royal privileges, including the money that was given to her by the state.  So, all in all, the price was too steep to pay.

[MissLucas]

I honestly don't know how they are going to resolve that stupid plot without some major tragedy straight out of soap opera land - unless they're tossing historical authenticity to the grave for good. There's absolutely no way those two can be together and Sidney keeping his office in the CoE with Guy still alive. Even her being a widow could be a problem considering their backstory.

Spoiler

Maybe that's the reason for Robson Greene talking about taking the series overseas in season 3. Sidney and Amanda have to escape the scandal by moving to more morally relaxed Mediterranean realms, urgh.

[Kohola3]

Quote

I honestly don't know how they are going to resolve that stupid plot without some major tragedy straight out of soap opera land

I fear you are correct.  Although a vicar running from crime scene to crime scene helping the local cop doesn't make much sense either.  

But they have painted themselves into a corner with this mess.  Did they think we wanted Sidney and Whatsherface together?  Seriously?

[proserpina65]

9 hours ago, DD51 said:

Actually she could have married him, but not in the Church of England.  Further, she was told she would lose her title(s), and royal privileges, including the money that was given to her by the state.  So, all in all, the price was too steep to pay.

True, Margaret made a tough choice.  Who knows, maybe it was the right one, but it's quite sad that she had to make it.

[SusanSunflower]

Unless the entire next season is about Sidney losing his title and position and somehow clawing his way back (or finding some new true calling) ... I'd vote for the second, personally (more believable -- he could become a policeman, for instance, neater and quicker) but wouldn't that lose almost half the background characters after a few episodes so non-starter .... unless, oh noes, there's a murder at the vickerage -- presumed because of imminent loss of title and position, and Sidney is prime suspect for the season, which should kill off the series for good and for always. 

or -- in true classic groaning form --  it's Amanda who is found dead -- Guy or Sidney?? -- the audience having reason to suspect Sidney, spends the entire season watching Geordie painstaking and painful, heart rendering, faith-shaking investigation ... Gee, I wonder how it turns out. 

It's really too bad they made Amanda such a sledgehammer to the story ... who needs a mystery and/or Geordie with all this "romantic entanglement soap opera stuff" going on ... to remind us, perhaps, that Norton is so "unforgettable ... "

Edited May 4, 2016 by SusanSunflower

[violetr]

Quote

I agree that the actress looks somewhat cool and reserved. Resting haughty face. (Can you imagine her trying to play someone like Kimmy Schmidt or Jess Day?)

I have no love for Amanda but I don't think it's the actress's fault. She had a fairly prominent role on two eps of Doctor Who last season and was perfectly delightful. Amanda is just a problematic character. I think the problem is that the writers have made her so unlikeable that many of us are wracking our brains trying to understand what Sidney sees in her. C'mon writers - I *want* to like one of Sydney's love interests. You can do it! 

Aside from that, I have grown to really love this show. Shit got real in Season 2, which is how I like it. Also: Leonard! How much do we love Leonard?!

[beadgirl]

When Sam was protesting how much he "loved" Abigail, I thought back to something my Church has said about love -- that true love isn't the hormonal, uncontrollable emotion many modern people make it out to be; rather, true love, selfless love, is an act of will.  To love someone is to put him or her first above yourself, to want the best for him/her, to try to make your love be the best person he/she can be.  Sam's "love" for Abigail wasn't that at all, obviously.  And that's the problem with Amanda's love (and Sydney's, too) -- it's selfish.  It's about what she wants, not what Sydney wants or what is best for him or what would bring out the best in him (this relates to that whole notion of whether she'd be a good vicar's wife, too).

 

If I hadn't been spoiled about the ending, I would have thought that the little speech Guy gave about why he fell for Amanda would serve as a little nuance, a sign that there was still the possibility that they could be happy together.  I think of Guy as a guy (heh) with jerky tendencies and a massive sense of entitlement, but he's also fairly intuitive and appreciative of Amanda's traits and interests.  He's not hopeless, in other words, and neither is their marriage, but the writers aren't interested in complications or real life -- just in their juvenile notions of star-crossed lovers.  And so Guy has to be the bad guy.

 

Leonard rocks.  That is all.

Edited May 4, 2016 by beadgirl

[dargosmydaddy]

1 hour ago, violetr said:

Also: Leonard! How much do we love Leonard?!

Last year I joked that if Norton and Green ever decided they didn't want to continue with the show, I wanted a Leonard spin-off. Now I just want a Leonard spin-off, period. He can bring Dickens and Mrs. M.

[dubbel zout]

1 hour ago, beadgirl said:

I think of Guy as a guy (heh) with jerky tendencies and a massive sense of entitlement, but he's also fairly intuitive and appreciative of Amanda's traits and interests.  He's not hopeless, in other words, and neither is their marriage, but the writers aren't interested in complications or real life -- just in their juvenile notions of star-crossed lovers.  And so Guy has to be the bad guy.

Yeah, it doesn't look as if Amanda has tried much to make her marriage work, but the show has made Guy so clearly the villain that it doesn't matter. He's violent, so of course she should get out.

It's too bad Amanda and Sidney couldn't simply be friends. They're both aware that Amanda is not suited to the life of a vicar's wife, so marriage to Sidney wouldn't be a picnic for her, either, unless he leaves the clergy. And I don't see that happening.

[caligirl50]

I love this show so much.  The writing is smart, the acting is great and I love the little village they shoot in...which is Grantchester, I believe. On the PBS website, they have lots of extras and some interviews with cast members.  One person mentions how the town is a character and I kind of agree.  It’s so pretty.

The music for the show is by John Lunn who did all the music for Downton Abbey and won lots of awards for the show. I bought the soundtrack.  I just love it.

Yes Amanda is a challenging character and her “situation” is fucked up.  But Sidney loves her and those who love Sidney see how happy she makes him.  I bought the books but haven’t read them. Somewhere I read the show has not stuck to the storyline.  I don’t know how they will deal with this but I do feel for her character.  It took a very strong character to walk away from society and be someone that wasn’t in your same social circles.  She was young and let outside crap influence her.  But her bad decision is going to affect them both...and not in a good way.  I am interested to see how this all plays out.

I also LOVE that there is a gay character on the show.  The household knows he’s gay but don’t care because he’s family now.  At least that is how I see it but this is another storyline that will be interesting to watch.

I am sad that the season is over. It felt shorter than Season 1.  

Beadgirl - Thank you for mentioning about love.  These shows depict romantic love. The line Leonard says about waiting forever when you love someone.  Damn.  I was a heap on the floor.  So good. 

[becauseIsaidso]

Love this show and am relieved to find I am not the only one who really doesn't like Amanda...I just can't get over the idea that if she is strong enough to leave an unhappy marriage, why wasn't she strong enough to approach Sidney about her feelings long before she went looking for Mr-rich-right. 

As for Sidney - he may be gorgeous eye candy, but is definitely stupid to presume to make up Amanda's mind for her as to whether she  could 'do better' than be a vicar's wife in the first place. They pretty much deserve the dilemma they are in. Judging by what little I know of post WWII mores, I just don't see how they can end up together, unless Guy drops dead - oh, wait! Now wouldn't THAT be a mystery to solve! 

I don't care much for Guy either and pretty much feel he and Amanda fully deserve each other, but it would be a very convenient plot device if in the new season, he were to mysteriously end up dead, add to that Amanda and/or Sidney accused of the crime & we'd have a slam bang, but unfortunately rather unbelievable, kick off....which would, of course, end quite happily with whichever of the starcrossed couple had been accused being exonerated at the 11th hour by Geordie (of course - and I do love his character and the actor who portrays him) as Amanda gives birth...now all I have to do is keep watching and see how totally off base I am! :)

[zxy556575]

It remains odd to me that Sidney shows so much more compassion and understanding towards strangers (eg., people he comes into contact with on Geordie's cases) than he does towards people in his personal life -- Leonard, Mrs. Maguire, Margaret. He treats the people and dog he shares a house with as shabby afterthoughts.

[caligirl50]

MissLucas -1954.

[DD51]

3 hours ago, lordonia said:

It remains odd to me that Sidney shows so much more compassion and understanding towards strangers (eg., people he comes into contact with on Geordie's cases) than he does towards people in his personal life -- Leonard, Mrs. Maguire, Margaret. He treats the people and dog he shares a house with as shabby afterthoughts.

Actually, it isn't all that unusual according to one of my friends (a shrink).  To be compassionate towards a friend or wife or close associate is to be aware of all their faults and errors and yet still have compassion toward them.  It is less intense to have compassion toward someone you don't really know all that well, they are a symbol not a real live breathing error making human.  So, in the case of Gary it is easy to think, he didn't mean to kill her, he was trying to help as opposed to he was a mess up his whole life and what was he thinking of making her choke down turpentine .  It was widely known that stuff would kill you if you drank it.  And why didn't he try to get a doctor involved after the incident ?  (I still have my doubts about all of that,,,,very ambivalent about how it went down and the motivation behind that).   So not exactally distant compassion, but more symbolic compassion.  Where was the compassion for the wife who killed her husband with rat poision, after he beat her and her children?

3 hours ago, caligirl50 said:

I love this show so much.  The writing is smart, the acting is great and I love the little village they shoot in...which is Grantchester, I believe. On the PBS website, they have lots of extras and some interviews with cast members.  One person mentions how the town is a character and I kind of agree.  It’s so pretty.

The music for the show is by John Lunn who did all the music for Downton Abbey and won lots of awards for the show. I bought the soundtrack.  I just love it.

Yes Amanda is a challenging character and her “situation” is fucked up.  But Sidney loves her and those who love Sidney see how happy she makes him.  I bought the books but haven’t read them. Somewhere I read the show has not stuck to the storyline.  I don’t know how they will deal with this but I do feel for her character.  It took a very strong character to walk away from society and be someone that wasn’t in your same social circles.  She was young and let outside crap influence her.  But her bad decision is going to affect them both...and not in a good way.  I am interested to see how this all plays out.

I also LOVE that there is a gay character on the show.  The household knows he’s gay but don’t care because he’s family now.  At least that is how I see it but this is another storyline that will be interesting to watch.

I am sad that the season is over. It felt shorter than Season 1.  

Beadgirl - Thank you for mentioning about love.  These shows depict romantic love. The line Leonard says about waiting forever when you love someone.  Damn.  I was a heap on the floor.  So good. 

Read the books and you will really like Amanda, totally different person.

[caligirl50]

I don’t dislike her.  In those days, it was all about how well you married. She was society and money married money, mostly, in those days.  She took the easy road instead of following her heart, which broke when she woke up to what she had done.  Just my opinion.

[DD51]

On May 4, 2016 at 3:09 PM, beadgirl said:

When Sam was protesting how much he "loved" Abigail, I thought back to something my Church has said about love -- that true love isn't the hormonal, uncontrollable emotion many modern people make it out to be; rather, true love, selfless love, is an act of will.  To love someone is to put him or her first above yourself, to want the best for him/her, to try to make your love be the best person he/she can be.  Sam's "love" for Abigail wasn't that at all, obviously.  And that's the problem with Amanda's love (and Sydney's, too) -- it's selfish.  It's about what she wants, not what Sydney wants or what is best for him or what would bring out the best in him (this relates to that whole notion of whether she'd be a good vicar's wife, too).

 

If I hadn't been spoiled about the ending, I would have thought that the little speech Guy gave about why he fell for Amanda would serve as a little nuance, a sign that there was still the possibility that they could be happy together.  I think of Guy as a guy (heh) with jerky tendencies and a massive sense of entitlement, but he's also fairly intuitive and appreciative of Amanda's traits and interests.  He's not hopeless, in other words, and neither is their marriage, but the writers aren't interested in complications or real life -- just in their juvenile notions of star-crossed lovers.  And so Guy has to be the bad guy.

 

Leonard rocks.  That is all.

When I got married, we had an Episcpalion book of common prayer service because I liked that we said "I will" rather than "I do".  A statement for a, hopefully, long future, and so far 30 years and feeling good!  

[DD51]

On May 2, 2016 at 10:39 AM, Sonja said:

• I don't think Mrs M supports Sidney and Amanda as a couple, she just didn't want Amanda to be stuck in a loveless marriage.
• So, are Leonard and Phil going to become the second clergy/police duo in Cambridge now?
• Mrs M and Jack are adorable together. Did she wear make-up in this scene? I wasn't sure.
• that hug was played really well
• Same here. Her 'he's so angry' really fit with what we've seen of him so far.

 

I was wondering about that. They have to know that he couldn't possibly stay on with the church and be with Amanda.

There were funerals (were they all in S1?) and they are clearly working with children and teenagers. The only weddings so far fell through though (Isabelle's and Amanda's respectively).
 

Do you really think back then anyone would have sided with Amanda instead of Guy? I rather suspect she would have been painted as hysterical, ungrateful floozy and he would have been the poor husband who got left despite putting a (large) roof over his wife's head. I don't know about England, but in Austria in the 1950s, Amanda wouldn't even have gotten custody of the child for being a woman and therefore not being able to properly provide for the child financially.

I don't think the casting was that strategic. Wasn't he virtually unknown when he was first cast? He does have a first in theology from Cambridge however. That must have been intriguing for the producers and director. Green is brilliant as Geordie, he just seems to belong there.

What is it with this show and people hardly ever saying 'please', 'thank you' or apologising? Sidney you oaf, how about apologising to the woman you practically tried to bend over the bar? Not remembering doesn't mean you don't need to say you're sorry before asking her what Harding tried to tell your shitfaced self.

I understand that the upperclass in the UK did not say please or thank you to servants, so to speak.  In fact on Downton Abby Manners, the director said it was a struggle for some of the actors not to automatically say thank you, and specifically he had Cora occasionally say thank you or please, to make a point of her being an American.  His point was it was expected behavior and as such did not require a please or thank you, added to the fact that because so much was done for people in the upper class that they would be worn out after saying please and thank you all day!  

[Sonja]

9 hours ago, DD51 said:

I understand that the upperclass in the UK did not say please or thank you to servants, so to speak.  In fact on Downton Abby Manners, the director said it was a struggle for some of the actors not to automatically say thank you, and specifically he had Cora occasionally say thank you or please, to make a point of her being an American.  His point was it was expected behavior and as such did not require a please or thank you, added to the fact that because so much was done for people in the upper class that they would be worn out after saying please and thank you all day!  

Thanks, that's very interesting info. I never managed to get into Downton Abbey, so this is the first show I've watched where I was constantly asking myself if it would kill them to get out the words.

However, there isn't much upper class in Grantchester, is there? Except for the Kendalls, Guy and the toffs at Cambridge. Mr Lawson seems to have been quite well to do and he actually managed to thank Sidney, but maybe that was the actor then or they did it on purpose for when the insurance fraud was brought to light (or because Anna was actually the wealthy one in the marriage).

[JudyObscure]

 His point was it was expected behavior and as such did not require a please or thank you, added to the fact that because so much was done for people in the upper class that they would be worn out after saying please and thank you all day!  

Yes, plus the servants themselves didn't really want to be thanked.  They knew the ideal servant was one who anticipated the needs of the people they served -- refilling a glass for instance -- and then faded backward as quietly as possible. Invisible service was what they strived for and a big thank you every time would have made them cringe.

Of course the bartender wasn't Sidney's servant and even if she was, being groped wouldn't be part of her job.  He should have apologized big time.

[dcalley]

1 hour ago, JudyObscure said:

Of course the bartender wasn't Sidney's servant and even if she was, being groped wouldn't be part of her job.  He should have apologized big time.

Ugh, it still pisses me off so much that he didn't.

[Kohola3]

Well, excessive alcohol rarely makes one more intelligent or thoughtful.  Sidney needs to join AA pronto;  he's making an absolute ass of himself.

[caligirl50]

18 hours ago, DD51 said:

I understand that the upperclass in the UK did not say please or thank you to servants, so to speak.  In fact on Downton Abby Manners, the director said it was a struggle for some of the actors not to automatically say thank you, and specifically he had Cora occasionally say thank you or please, to make a point of her being an American.  His point was it was expected behavior and as such did not require a please or thank you, added to the fact that because so much was done for people in the upper class that they would be worn out after saying please and thank you all day!  

But if you are a Downton groupie (like me) you would also notice that the servants didn’t always say thank you either, which I found odd.  But this isn’t a Downton board...glad you pointed this out though.  When I read the Manners guide, I thought how messed up that was.  

[DD51]

I think it hits hard on our American ears,,,,I can hear my Mom in my head saying "no please or thank you? Then nothing for you"!  But we pride ourselves on being equal to each other, everyone has the same value, of course that isn't total reality by any stretch, but most of us like to think it is.  

[nara]

16 hours ago, dcalley said:

Ugh, it still pisses me off so much that he didn't.

Agreed, he was incredibly immature for not apologizing. I got the impression that he was ashamed and in denial, and apologizing would have meant acknowledging that his drinking was excessive.