S01.E04: Push Comes to Shove

[susannot]

2 hours ago, Lemons said:

They showed Perry having built up rage so strong in the bathroom that he could barely contain it when his child came up and stopped him from taking it out on Celeste.  It was still there when he left for work. 

In the clip at the hotel room, they showed two people who just met, seemed to like each other.  Jane willingly went into a hotel room with him.  And instead of taking the next step with what appeared to be a willing partner, he attacked her.  It was like he had this rage that he needed to unload, so he took it out on Jane. 

Coincidence?  Maybe.

I have to agree.  The rapist acts like Perry.  So assuming it is Perry how do things play out, using the clue we have been given?  I'm just spitballing here....

We were told that nothing would ever have happened had Maddy not met Jane.  So the story line has something to do with Jane's rape.  Or, the accusations against Ziggy.

That opens the storyline up to almost everyone, but who is the most likely murderee?

I would say No. 1 Perry. He is the rapist.

No. 2 is Renata.  She gets Ziggy thrown out of the school and ostracized.

No more speculation.

[LydiaE]

Perry is the rapist. It's obviously his body in the flashbacks.

Amabella's "French nanny" is the bully, I bet.

Where does Bonnie fit in the story. One of the parents already sarcastically called her "so sweet".

[jah1986]

7 hours ago, LydiaE said:

Where does Bonnie fit in the story. One of the parents already sarcastically called her "so sweet".

I found it interesting that we finally get to see Bonnie and Nathan at home and it appears that Bonnie is not so sweet or Zen when it comes to Maddie. Didn't she call her ex-Miss Thing or something like that? It wasn't a sweet moment at all.  And her remark to Ed that everyone has baggage or problems or something. There's definitely more to Bonnie than she's showing the world.

[Juliegirlj]

They have devoted a lot of camera time and character development for Chloe- her love of music, relationship with her Mom, social standing at school, etc. That may be for more than propelling the story. Really wonder if it was her that hurt Annabelle, even though the twins seem more obvious. 

 I get the feeling all of the parents will have a day of reckoning of sorts when they realize their kids are not only more aware that realized, but are learning and adopting behaviors of the parents. 

[hannahzo]

I dont know if Im crazy but I didnt read anyone here thinking the same as me. So here it goes:

To me, its (a little too) obvious the rapist is Perry. I was led to believe that Ziggy is getting psycopath behaviours from his father. In this episode, right after Perry tries to choke Celeste, there is a scene showing ziggy doing the same movement to Amabelle, like it is a thought on jane's head.

Does anyone follow me on this?

[lezlers]

On ‎3‎/‎12‎/‎2017 at 8:12 PM, susannot said:

True.  But women who go to law school, and women who succeed as lawyers, tend to be loud, ballsy, and aggressive.  I don't know a single woman like Celeste.

I'm a female lawyer and those are some pretty broad strokes you're brushing with, there.  I know dozens of female lawyers and they run the gambit personality wise, we're not all "loud, ballsy and aggressive."  That's actually a bit insulting.  I actually know of a female attorney who was the victim of domestic violence.  It was pretty embarrassing for her when he was finally arrested and charged in the court in which she practiced.  She moved shortly after.

[susannot]

  Maybe so. Sorry you're insulted.  However, it was true in my day.  I went to law school in the early 70's, in what was the first wave of women going to law school.  None of us were shrinking violets.  We couldn't be.  We were often rudely challenged by our fellow male students for taking male spots.  When we started practicing, we were rudely challenged by judges and opposing counsel. I know women who had to show their credentials to prove to judges that they were actually lawyers.

 I was a litigator.  By definition litigators are loud and aggressive so maybe I'm just projecting.

Edited March 18, 2017 by susannot

[formerlyfreedom]

Episode discussion please.

[FemmyV]

On 3/17/2017 at 7:23 AM, jah1986 said:

I found it interesting that we finally get to see Bonnie and Nathan at home and it appears that Bonnie is not so sweet or Zen when it comes to Maddie. Didn't she call her ex-Miss Thing or something like that? It wasn't a sweet moment at all.  And her remark to Ed that everyone has baggage or problems or something. There's definitely more to Bonnie than she's showing the world.

Try looking at Bonnie through a social status lens: Bonnie is a smart (good) African American without a college degree (not so good) who is a fitness instructor (stereotype: bimbo with potential to marry well). She married well enough to afford being a part of this community (good), but in actuality, hubby is a loser (not good) who abandoned his first wife (who has major social standing) and child (not good). Now here she is, and as mother to a young girl, she wants to fit into the community, and she wants her daughter to fit in and be respected. Maddie holds the obvious key, and she vehemently hates Nathan. I can't fault Bonnie's motives in backing Maddie into the corner.

[Mabinogia]

I think it says a lot about Bonnie that she didn't jump at the chance to leave Monterey, a place she is never really going to fit into because her husbands ex is a jealous, vindictive pitbull who is never going to let the other women befriend Bonnie. But Skye likes it there, so Bonnie is chill. And I have mostly seen her trying to make nice with Madeline, other than that one mistake when she took Abbie for birth control, which, considering Bonnie doesn't yet have a teenage daughter and seems much more laid back about sex, I don't think she did it maliciously but really just didn't think it was a big deal. She seemed genuinely chastised when Maddie yelled at her about it.

Calling Maddie ex-Miss Thing is downright loving compared to how Maddie has treated her so I'm fine with her letting a little snark show when alone with Nathan. Of the four "adults" in this mess, she seems to be the only one making any real effort to get along.

[Guest]

1 hour ago, Mabinogia said:

Calling Maddie ex-Miss Thing is downright loving compared to how Maddie has treated her so I'm fine with her letting a little snark show when alone with Nathan. Of the four "adults" in this mess, she seems to be the only one making any real effort to get along.

I agree.  And to me Bonnie is written as this pretty zen, mature person who is letting all of the dramatic b.s. run off her back.  Nathan seems like he's the one who's totally bothered by Maddie insulting Bonnie.  But they seem to have written Bonnie herself as not giving two fucks.  Even the 'ex-Miss Thing' comment suggests to me that she's laughing a bit at Maddie's sense of self-importance, and at Nathan for letting Maddie push his buttons, while not really personally taking offense at it herself.  

[MamaMax]

On 3/13/2017 at 8:01 PM, tennisgurl said:

Speaking of Ed, I don't think he was all that creepy this episode. Maybe I read it wrong, but it looked like he was more trying to get Bonnies attention then leering creepily. I do think he was checking out Bonnie and that other women at yoga, but that's hardly the same as molesting his step daughter or committing murder. I took it as more him being sexually frustrated because his wife wont sleep with him (because she's sleeping with another guy) and he doesn't get why. I just think the "I like women who sweat" was his attempt to make small talk, and failing. He seems like a tech guy who can be social when needs be, but as soon as a situation gets confusing or awkward, HE gets confusing and awkward. But, who knows with this show. I also tried to give Perry the benefit of the doubt, and look how that turned out? It would just be nice if one person with genitals on this show didn't turn out to be a skeeze or an abuser.

I'm pretty sure everyone has genitals, LOL

On 3/13/2017 at 9:48 PM, Irlandesa said:

 

Do you mean the therapy outfit in this episode?  That therapy outfit and the outfit with the horrible blouse were the same outfit.  She was just wearing the jacket and scarf in the therapy session so the blouse was covered.  And because of that, am I right in suspecting that she didn't have another meeting but rather lied about having a meeting so she could meet her therapist in secret?

That's what I was wondering about!

On 3/14/2017 at 4:53 AM, ElectricBoogaloo said:

I think another thing that's stopping her is what keeps a lot of people from leaving bad relationships: she loves him and she truly believes that he loves her. People put up with a lot of things because they think they love the other person, no matter how terrible things get. This isn't the first therapist they've seen, so Celeste believes that this is a fixable problem.

But she's also deeply ashamed, and that is another thing that makes people stay. If she left him, she would have to tell people that they were separated/divorced and she would have to give them a reason why, so her options are to either admit that he was abusive or lie, both of which would make her feel guilty. On top of that, everyone thinks that Perry is a sweet loving husband so she knows there would be a lot of people doubting her if she told the truth.

I'm guessing her other big fear is a custody battle for the twins.

You know a guy like him would go to WAR about the kids!  I would not doubt for a second he would make her out to be the worst mom ever... slander her in every was...to deny her custody. 

On 3/14/2017 at 0:21 PM, scrb said:

Aren't battered women generally from lower socioeconomic groups?

And they usually stay in the relationship because they don't have the means to leave the battering husband?

Celeste is well-educated and has options if she wants to get away.  Not to mention she could take Perry to the cleaners financially in a divorce, get exclusive custody, etc.

Also, I wonder if Perry would really have the restraint to hide his actions from the kids.  Maybe he's hidden it so far (or maybe one of them is the one bullying Amobell because of what they saw at home) but eventually he's going to not bother trying to hide it.  If not physical abuse, verbal abuse in front of the boys will become common.

How? I would bet he holds all the money. Her name probably isn't even on the deed to the house. 

On 3/15/2017 at 0:55 AM, jeansheridan said:

I thought she was Australian on the show.  Why do they need to explain where she is from?  She has lived in the US so long maybe her natural accent has faded.

She sounds just like Meg Ryan in To Die For.  

Meg Ryan? Nicole Kidman starred in To Die For. 

[Guest]

5 hours ago, MamaMax said:

Meg Ryan? Nicole Kidman starred in To Die For. 

That one was clarified upthread. 

[Penman61]

In this episode's Jane's rape (we don't call it "date rape" anymore, do we?) flashback, there's a clear shot of the rapist's profile in silhouette.  

It is NOT Alexander S., who has a very distinct profile.  (I'm viewing on a 10' screen.)  Whoever this is, he has a sort of snub nose...like Matthew McConnaughey, come to think of it.  (Wouldn't that be a twist for us True Detective S1 veterans?)  

Now, TPTB could be just cheating on us, but I can say with 100% confidence the person in that shot was not the actor playing Perry.

Edited March 19, 2017 by Penman61

[jacksgirl]

Late to the party, new grandson came last week, have been super busy holding him. Anyway- long time public school teacher and I know this is fiction, but.... If I were ever to tell a parent their child needs counseling, I could lose my job. We can hint or beat around the bush, but handing a card with an outside of the district name on it would get me into huge trouble. That teacher is an embarrassment to my profession.  

[Clanstarling]

On 3/12/2017 at 7:08 PM, archer1267 said:

I do too! I think she is setting Ziggy up as a scapegoat, but is doing it reluctantly. She knows someone's going to have to be blamed for Ammabella's behavior, and the girl's parents are the type that would want to ruin the teacher's career if they thought something happened on her watch. So, who's the teacher going to finger? Another rich kid, or the father-less boy who just moved to town and doesn't fit in? That turned my stomach.

I think she's invested on him being the abusive kid partly because she was the one who forced Amabella to make a choice in front of everyone. So by God, he's the one, no doubt, and she's going to take even a stupid glance as evidence. I wanted Jane to say "can you call the teacher and tell her what you just told me?" Well, that and the principal, etc.

On 3/12/2017 at 7:40 PM, nara said:

In case anyone wasn't sure, that teacher is clearly prejudiced against Ziggy.  Amabella flat out said that they were friends and the teacher ignored what she aid and immediately jumped to the conclusion that he was the one bullying her.  Maybe the teacher's the one who gets murdered by angry parents!  And by the way, why didn't she suggest Amabella see a psychiatrist who could help her discuss what was happening to her? No, let's focus on demonizing the outsider.

I think this was a good episode for the shrinks.  Ziggy's therapist recognizing that he's a nice kid, but potentially being bullied was right on.  She was kind to immediately address Jane's fears. And I loved the way Celeste's therapist's expression changed when she realized how controlling Perry is.  I hope she's able to make Celeste see the light. 

He's certainly being bullied by the teacher.

On 3/13/2017 at 3:45 AM, Ina123 said:

Perry even wears a wife-beater undershirt. I bet that was a deliberate wardrobe decision.

My reaction was, boy that's a little too on the nose.

On 3/13/2017 at 9:36 AM, ElectricBoogaloo said:

I don't have an issue with that. There are always songs that kids sing along with but the lyrics go over their heads. There were elementary school kids singing "Afternoon Delight" in the 70s, "Like a Virgin" and "Papa Don't Preach" in the 80s, and "If You Seek Amy" ten years ago. Sometimes they get it, sometimes they don't.

I'd be embarrassed to list some of the songs I didn't "get" until I was well into my mature years. And I'm no innocent, not by a long shot.

On 3/13/2017 at 0:33 PM, stagmania said:

I loved the way Madeline didn't directly correct him, but made a point to repeat the word and say it correctly. 

Yes, the passive-aggressive correction. No judgment on Madeline - I do it all the time. I'm a little ashamed of it, but not much.

On 3/15/2017 at 8:50 AM, scrb said:

But were they in scenes together?

I thought most of the scenes with LD were her memories of her mother when she was a girl.

I believe there was at least one scene with them together when she was an adult - when her mother was dying.

[chocolatine]

If I were Jane, I wouldn't even have agreed to meet with the teacher outside of school after the way she made Amabella point at Ziggy after the orientation. I'd be like, "if you have anything to say to me, say it at the school in front of the principal, so that there's an official record of your incompetence".

[Auntie Anxiety]

4 hours ago, chocolatine said:

If I were Jane, I wouldn't even have agreed to meet with the teacher outside of school after the way she made Amabella point at Ziggy after the orientation. I'd be like, "if you have anything to say to me, say it at the school in front of the principal, so that there's an official record of your incompetence".

Or at the very least, I would have brought someone with me to serve as an eyewitness. That would have been after I ripped the teacher a new one for her outlandish behavior. I would have also asked the child psychologist to write a letter to the school, Renata, the teacher, etc. just to shut them all up and you make sure it ended up in Ziggy's file for future reference. Experience has taught me that paper trails are of utmost importance.

[Razzberry]

17 hours ago, Penman61 said:

It is NOT Alexander S., who has a very distinct profile.  (I'm viewing on a 10' screen.)  Whoever this is, he has a sort of snub nose...like Matthew McConnaughey, come to think of it.  (Wouldn't that be a twist for us True Detective S1 veterans?)  

You're right, it isn't Skarsgard.  I think Jane was trying to picture the guy on the computer screen into her scenario, though.  Personally I'd prefer Rust Cohle as a suspect rather than the obvious one.  Screenshot of Not Perry.

 

[Atlanta]

2 hours ago, Razzberry said:

You're right, it isn't Skarsgard.  I think Jane was trying to picture the guy on the computer screen into her scenario, though.  Personally I'd prefer Rust Cohle as a suspect rather than the obvious one.  Screenshot of Not Perry.

 

I agree. It would be a large nothing if Ziggy's father turned out to be someone we haven't met before.

[Cardie]

In order not to give away who shadowy figures are in mysteries, they often just get some extra. I wouldn't base too much on the actual rapist being the guy we see in the flashbacks.

[NutMeg]

2 hours ago, Cardie said:

In order not to give away who shadowy figures are in mysteries, they often just get some extra. I wouldn't base too much on the actual rapist being the guy we see in the flashbacks.

Yes. Plus her visual memory so many years later is probably fuzzy. Other senses might be more reliable, like smell, touch, voice of the guy, etc. Or seeing the actual perp again, and noticing something she remembers without having known she remembered it.

[ElectricBoogaloo]

8 hours ago, Cardie said:

In order not to give away who shadowy figures are in mysteries, they often just get some extra. I wouldn't base too much on the actual rapist being the guy we see in the flashbacks.

Yup, they did this all the time on Pretty Little Liars so that no one would know who the bad guy in the black hoodie was.

[madam magpie]

On 3/13/2017 at 0:21 PM, Ina123 said:

My cousin and his wife are both shrinks. They say it's almost impossible to change an abuser and most shrinks agree that it *is* impossible to fix a rapist and/or pedophile.

And just to add to this (which, BTW, my aunt who is a psychologist also says), no, it doesn't necessarily mean they're born evil. They could be. No one knows. But abusers can definitely be made, and that may become such an intrinsic part of their psychology that it looks inborn.

I actually really love the juxtaposition of Perry/Ziggy. It seems to me that even though Jane believed Ziggy and believed he was the kind, loving, gentle child she knew, there was something in her that doubted and feared him becoming an abuser because he came from an abuser. It's why she broke down at the school. Her relief when talking to the psychologist was palpable. I like Jane a lot and find her incredibly sympathetic. Just imagine who she is/was: 19/20 years old, raped, pregnant, has the baby, keeps him, clearly loves and adores him, struggles with PTSD, tells nobody, strikes out on her own, finds what looks like the best place to raise her son, has him mislabeled as a bully, finds out he's being bullied, has to confront "who is my father," and on and on. If this ends up with Jane killing the man who raped her, I know whose side I'm on.

I love Nicole Kidman and think she's a fantastic actress. I'm completely stressed out during every scene with her husband, and I think this show is playing that abuse story so well. It's tense and insidious and subtle and terrifying.

I also love that Maddie went searching for the rapist. Girl gets shit done. She reminds me of Alison on Orphan Black.

Edited March 26, 2017 by madam magpie

[methodwriter85]

On 3/13/2017 at 0:56 AM, Razzberry said:

Cracks me up how much those twins look like Skarsgard.  They even have the cleft chin and overbite. 

Those twins are dead ringers for Alex's younger brother  Bill . (Bill doesn't have the cleft chin, though.) Really great casting. They seem a bit old for 6 but I'm willing to forgive that.

[JBC344]

On ‎4‎/‎23‎/‎2017 at 5:16 PM, methodwriter85 said:

Those twins are dead ringers for Alex's younger brother  Bill . (Bill doesn't have the cleft chin, though.) Really great casting. They seem a bit old for 6 but I'm willing to forgive that.

Bill Skarsgard, who is playing Pennywise in the IT remake.  Talented family.

[FozzyBear]

On 3/12/2017 at 7:42 PM, Gem 10 said:

Hate that teacher too.  They come out of school, get a job teaching, and then think they are qualified psychologists.   My youngest had a teacher like that in kindergarten who had practically every mother in the class up to school about their kid.  Turns out she was nuts and they fired her. 

Other then the first accusation (which both is and isn't enough on its own, if you know what I mean) I don't get where the teacher/Ziggy stuff is coming from or going. Is it something from the book that's getting badly translated? It just seems weird that the teacher is so determined to find fault with Ziggy. My best guess is that it's supposed to be a class issue side story (the teacher is assuming Ziggy had a rough up bringing based on his clothes and such) that just isn't playing well. It just doesn't actually make a lot of sense.

[Paloma]

On 3/13/2017 at 0:36 PM, ElectricBoogaloo said:

I don't have an issue with that. There are always songs that kids sing along with but the lyrics go over their heads. There were elementary school kids singing "Afternoon Delight" in the 70s, "Like a Virgin" and "Papa Don't Preach" in the 80s, and "If You Seek Amy" ten years ago. Sometimes they get it, sometimes they don't.

LOL, I am in my 60s and still refuse to believe that Puff the Magic Dragon is about anything other than a child growing up and forgetting about his pet! (My husband insists it is about smoking pot.)

[Clanstarling]

2 hours ago, Paloma said:

LOL, I am in my 60s and still refuse to believe that Puff the Magic Dragon is about anything other than a child growing up and forgetting about his pet! (My husband insists it is about smoking pot.)

I'm with you! I still tear up every time the boy stops coming - and I refuse to believe I've been duped into the feels for a song about pot. 

That being said, even in my 60's, I'm still having the odd AHA! moment and really understanding what song from the 60's and 70's is about. It is a most embarrassing experience. My family ribs me about it constantly.

Edited November 13, 2017 by Clanstarling

[Paloma]

On 3/13/2017 at 7:01 PM, tennisgurl said:

Speaking of, do we know what Jane actually does for a living? I remember her and Maddy talking about her working part time somewhere, did they say where? She leaves in a decent, if not large, house in a nice area, so is she getting money from family to help, or does her part time job just pay super well? Because we never see her doing work, we just see her doing mom stuff, hanging with Celeste and Maddy, and running on the beach.

As others have noted, Jane is a freelance bookkeeper but apparently does not have much work in Monterey yet, though I think she said she still was doing some work from where she formerly lived (although who knows if that is true).  AFAIK,  freelance bookkeeping is not likely to pay enough to let you afford a decent house in an expensive area, unless she has some very high-paying clients. Even if she does not live in a fancy, beachfront house, it is in the same school district where the rich people send their kids, so housing anywhere in that district must be fairly expensive. (And it is a desirable California coastal town, so again it seems that anywhere in that town should be expensive.) I can sort of hand-wave her having free time if she is a freelancer, because I have been a freelance editor since my daughter was a baby (she is now in her 30s) and my work schedule has usually been flexible enough to allow me to do personal stuff during the day. However, if I take too much personal time, I end up in a crunch before the deadline needing to work many hours a day, nights and weekends. Also, as a freelancer I don't have a steady income (I get paid only when finished with a job, which can take a month or more, rather than weekly or every 2 weeks) and I also would not have any benefits (health insurance, etc.) if I did not get them through my husband's job. So given what we know or think we know about her source of income, it is hard to believe that she can afford to live there and has so much leisure time. Normally that would make me suspicious about her source of income, but probably the writers either don't have a realistic idea of what "normal" occupations pay or are hoping we don't notice that the situation does not make sense. Or maybe there really is something to be suspicious about!

10 hours ago, Clanstarling said:

12 hours ago, Paloma said:

LOL, I am in my 60s and still refuse to believe that Puff the Magic Dragon is about anything other than a child growing up and forgetting about his pet! (My husband insists it is about smoking pot.)

I'm with you! I still tear up every time the boy stops coming - and I refuse to believe I've been duped into the feels for a song about pot. 

That being said, even in my 60's, I'm still having the odd AHA! moment and really understanding what song from the 60's and 70's is about. It is a most embarrassing experience. My family ribs me about it constantly.

So glad I'm not the only one! When I listen now to the music of my teens and 20s, I also sometimes have those AHA moments, particularly about sweet love songs that I now realize were about the guy trying to get the girl to have sex. But I still prefer the more innocent interpretations of these songs.

[Clanstarling]

1 hour ago, Paloma said:

So glad I'm not the only one! When I listen now to the music of my teens and 20s, I also sometimes have those AHA moments, particularly about sweet love songs that I now realize were about the guy trying to get the girl to have sex. But I still prefer the more innocent interpretations of these songs.

Yep, those are a great many of my "aha" experiences - I call them jerk songs. BTW, had to look up Puff the Magic Dragon. Maybe this will change your husband's mind. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Puff,_the_Magic_Dragon

[Paloma]

18 minutes ago, Clanstarling said:

Yep, those are a great many of my "aha" experiences - I call them jerk songs. BTW, had to look up Puff the Magic Dragon. Maybe this will change your husband's mind. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Puff,_the_Magic_Dragon

Love this! Showing it to my husband as soon as he comes, and then I will say "Case dismissed!"

[Nessie]

On 11/13/2017 at 10:21 AM, Paloma said:

So glad I'm not the only one! When I listen now to the music of my teens and 20s, I also sometimes have those AHA moments, particularly about sweet love songs that I now realize were about the guy trying to get the girl to have sex. But I still prefer the more innocent interpretations of these songs.

Heh...you should have seen my face the first time I actually listened to the lyrics of Afternoon Delight (about 15 years ago).  I hadn't heard the song since I was a kid in the 70's, and my jaw about hit the floor...LOL  Ahhh, the sweet naivete of youth...

To bring it back to the show, when I watch these shows, I always wonder how these young, seemingly uneducated single moms afford the houses they have.  Jane shouldn't have even been able to afford that one bedroom house...she should have been living in a crappy apartment.

[Mabinogia]

2 hours ago, Nessie said:

Heh...you should have seen my face the first time I actually listened to the lyrics of Afternoon Delight (about 15 years ago).  I hadn't heard the song since I was a kid in the 70's, and my jaw about hit the floor...LOL  Ahhh, the sweet naivete of youth...

OMG that song! My cousin and I used to sing it in the car when it came on the radio. We were young, maybe like 8 and 6ish, and we loved singing it. The adults with us would crack up. We never knew why.

I agree about Jane and the apartment. Can't even fanwank that she was getting some money from Ziggy's father. They could have, should have had someone comment on how she came from money or something and her parents paid for the place so she could get her life back together, or she was staying at a relatives house, or inherited it from a dead aunt. It always felt off that she could afford to live in that town. I get that shows want real estate porn for us to ooh and ahh over, but if does often take me out of the show when it's they are trying to sell her as a struggling single mom.

[chocolatine]

Jane and Ziggy live in a 1-bedroom apartment in what looks like a not very nice multi-family unit, so that doesn't seem like that much of a stretch to me. It's a lot more plausible than Maddie and Ed's large, new/newly remodeled beachfront house. Maddie must be making a pittance as a part-time community theater admin, and Ed's lucky if he's cracking six figures as a freelance web developer. That kind of house costs $2-3M, yet somehow they still have money left over for Maddie's designer wardrobe and new SUV.

[wilnil]

2 hours ago, chocolatine said:

Jane and Ziggy live in a 1-bedroom apartment in what looks like a not very nice multi-family unit, so that doesn't seem like that much of a stretch to me. It's a lot more plausible than Maddie and Ed's large, new/newly remodeled beachfront house. Maddie must be making a pittance as a part-time community theater admin, and Ed's lucky if he's cracking six figures as a freelance web developer. That kind of house costs $2-3M, yet somehow they still have money left over for Maddie's designer wardrobe and new SUV.

I'd have to rewatch to really refresh my memory, but I remember it as a small, somewhat rundown free-standing house, the kind that may have started life as a cottage.

[Mabinogia]

I had the impression it was a freestanding bungalow/house. I do remember it being one bedroom because Jane was sleeping in the living room, but it still came across as a house to me. A cute little house that I would probably take over all those big houses that would take way too much effort to keep clean, of course if I could afford their houses I could afford someone to clean them. lol 

Maddie and Ed's house cost a small fortune but I kind of assumed Ed made a lot of money doing whatever internet thing he did, or possibly got into a tech start up and hit the jackpot when it went public and Maddie never acted like someone struggling to pay her bills. hell, her clothes allowance is probably more than my salary. It must be nice to be her, hot husband, stunning beachfront house and all she has to do is waft around acting like her shit don't stink. I would like to sign up for that life please. 

[love2lovebadtv]

On 3/12/2017 at 10:54 PM, susannot said:

I have to admit I do not understand Nicole's character. I'm hoping someone can explain it to me. I am a lawyer and have lots of female lawyer friends.  Literally not a single one married a good looking abuser who forbade them to work as lawyers.  The female lawyer friends I have had for my entire life would have recoiled in horror over marrying a man like that, good looking be damned.  I realize, dramatic license, but still, find very unrealistic.

Why is it unrealistic that she's a lawyer in an abusive relationship? Her husband is sick and she's definitely troubled. That happens to people regardless of profession. Besides, none of her friends know what's really going on in her home and think that she and her husband have a great marriage. Celeste and Perry are fictional characters, but domestic abuse happens every day in the homes of couples from different walks of life. Some are better at hiding it. 

[Hanahope]

On 3/12/2017 at 10:30 PM, susannot said:

I have never liked Nicole better than in her lawyer persona advocating for Avenue Q.  I understand where she was coming from, as kicking ass as a lawyer is absolutely a great feeling if you're a female lawyer up against a male opponent.  She was up against the Mayor and Renata and she was great.  As Maddie said she looked like a different person.  She was a different person.  I cannot believe that new person(who was there all along) will be the bullied victim of her psycho husband any longer.

I was under the impression that when Celeste met Perry is sortof swept her off her feet and got her pregnate right after marriage.  He then probably talked her into staying home with the twins because "it was for the best" since he would be away from home so much.  He manipulated her into becoming dependent on him, without her own life/work, and so he could chip away at her self worth. 

When I first started working in a mid-sized lawfirm, which was mostly litigation, every single female lawyer who got pregnant didn't return to the office. For 10 years, this was the case (it stopped in the early 2000s - more women lawyers returned to work).  So I totally could accept Celeste being talked into staying home, especially with twins.

It seemed clear that had Celeste remained at work, she probably would have maintained her sense of self worth that could have allowed her to leave Perry when the abuse started.

[aradia22]

Interesting that for once Perry didn't take the bait. I don't think he's changing but it shows he's capable of exerting control over himself. I don't buy that he has anger management issues. I think he chooses to be abusive. 

Oh, God. Perry suddenly wanting to have a daughter screams "I want to have another baby to trap you with." Nightmare.

I find the choreography/staging in the Perry/Celeste scenes very interesting. Every time she gets control for a moment, he takes it back. When she got on top of him and held his arms for a moment, he quickly got her hands behind her back and grabbed the back of her neck. And then he was on top of her again. Like when he's whispery and gentle or thoughtful and kind or bringing her presents, he knows he can't be controlling and aggressive all the time. He gives her room to feel like she's fighting back, like she's free enough to make the choice to stay.

OK, so they are definitely throwing up weird signals about Ed looking at Bonnie and the other woman at yoga and I don't know if the show is going somewhere or just trying to throw us off the scent.

Oof. Disappointed this is about puppet sex and not other perfectly legitimate concerns you might have with Avenue Q being insensitive. By 2017, how relevant is what it has to say about racism and being gay? It's a little toothless in its positive messaging and more inclined to be taken up by people who are against wokeness and the PC police. I don't think it feels that "progressive" in 2017. 

The character of Celeste, the lawyer part, reminds me so much of Nicole Kidman's character in the remake of The Stepford Wives. 

There was something very shallow and pandering about that scene with Celeste and Madeline in the car. And more than in most other scenes, I saw Nicole and Reese being self-congratulatory about making a fairly easy statement to make rather than the characters having a genuine moment. Was that at all related to a scene from the book? Maybe it's also just that David E. Kelley is not deft enough to give that scene any more depth. It didn't feel like a contemporary comment on motherhood. It felt like a very uncontroversial, old argument.

"She's my best friend. She'll do whatever I ask." I hate Madeline.

Look, I like Grace Slick too but Christ, how old is the person picking music for this show?

I don't know what I want but when Perry grabbed Celeste in front of the mirror it felt like True Blood again. Maybe it's something about his face sometimes when he's angry that feels too over the top? I don't know. I bought it more when he had enough power and rage that his fist rattled whatever panel that was in the door frame to the closet. It felt more grounded and realistic for some reason. Like, he's not a vampire. He can't just punch through the wall.

I've been assuming that Ziggy's father was sending Jane money or that her family was helping to support her but it's episode 4 and neither of those things seem likely to come to light so yes, I am baffled how this underemployed single mother seems to be able to afford to live in the same school district as everyone else and maybe now a child psychologist. 

Ah. So the theater director is not a stalker. Well, not entirely. Madeline had an affair with him a year ago. Oh, I hate self righteous characters like her who pass judgment but are far from squeaky clean.

I'm glad Celeste is apparently seeing the counselor on her own as well. 

[aradia22]

Quote

The only actress not doing anything for me is Shailene Woodley. She seems so blank and not on purpose.

Agreed. She has a few moments but I definitely feel like I should be connecting with this character more.

Quote

Perry doesn't actually want another kid. He is barely home for the two that he has.

I think both things can be true. I think it was more about controlling her than suddenly wanting a daughter. But I do think he has some good qualities as a dad and genuinely enjoys spending time with his kids.

Quote

And Kidman seems to be barely trying to do an American dialect anymore.  

I find Skarsgard and Kidman are both letting their accents slip more than usual in this show but I've chosen to ignore it as best as I can.

Quote

Sex is part of their fucked up relationship. For him, it's another part of controlling her. For her, it's rationalizing the abuse and their relationship as passionate. She tells herself that it's mutual and consensual because sometimes the sex IS consensual. Telling herself that having a quickie in the closet a few episodes ago is part of making up because it means he's sorry and he finds her sexy is her way of trying to make it normal.

Definitely. Sex is a huge component of their relationship and the abuse. But also, it's HBO and they seem to be the two actors most comfortable with doing it if the role requires it. I do think things are usually more spread out in an ensemble cast. If this was on the cw or a Shonda show, Jane probably would have hooked up with the barista already. Or we'd have a scene with Nathan and Bonnie to underline why she makes Madeline insecure rather than just conveying it in dialogue.

Quote

Did Celeste see the photo? I think she did, but she either ignored the resemblance or is in denial. 

I don't think she ignored it because it was connected to the Greek chorus talking about how she suddenly had murder in her eyes. But maybe I'm reading too much into this show's terrible editing.

I love Legally Blonde but I'm surprised that Madeline is still charming to so many people. I don't think Reese is working any magic to make her likable. I hated her from the beginning and still hate her. I don't see a lovable jerk. I just see an asshole.

Quote

There are some things that are so horrible about a person that nothing else matters, at least for me.

I have heard some say about an abuser, 'But he is a good father.".  Huh?  How can you be a good father and beat the mother of those same kids?

It is the tendency to look for the good in people that keep women with these creeps.

I mean, he's a fictional character. I would never try to rationalize someone staying with an abuser because he's nice to his kids. But I think it's worthwhile to look for complexity in how a fictional character is written. Otherwise, Barry is a murderer, Walter White is a drug kingpin, Rachel Goldberg is a sociopath... and why are we even watching these shows? If you flatten the characters to one dimension then characters who do bad things become very uninteresting. They're evil so they don't have free will or choice. They'll just do the most evil thing every time. Yes, he travels a lot but I don't see the point in denying that Perry has a good relationship with his sons. 

I think Ed COULD just be socially awkward. BUT in a show where a character like this has limited screen time, including the weird sweat comment and him ogling a woman at the studio are suspicious. The show is definitely throwing out bait but it might be a misdirection. You can either add up all the little weird things across the four episodes or let them all go as innocent.

Quote

If I'm so afraid that I keep a gun at my bedside I wouldn't leave my front door open probably.

Did the director know how terrifying it was when she came back from her run and left the door open? It was shot so strangely with her singing with her earbuds in and repeatedly turning away from the door that I was convinced someone was about to rush in and attack her. 

Quote

Now, she probably hates the idea that she, an educated, collected, wealthy woman, has become some kind of "cowering battered woman" you see on TV. Its probably embarrassing to her, or she continues to justify his abuse as just "passion" or something.

I think it's more that she refuses to see herself as cowering. She was afraid enough to go to the counselor for advice on how to talk to him but even in private she refused to admit to being afraid. She thinks she has some power because she can argue with him and physically fight back and he stops when she says something to him. But as we've seen, she can do that because he allows it. He lets her argue to bait her. He effortlessly physically overpowers her. And he might let go of her when she tells him to but it's usually not the first time she expresses discomfort or even orders him to stop. I'm pretty sure he's deciding when to stop. 

Quote

And now that asshole teacher is trying to scapegoat Ziggy because he's a poor kid from a single parent family, and not one of the Kids of Privilege that have powerful parents who could make the teachers life harder. What a crappy excuse for an educator.

I really don't see this. I don't think she's malicious or unduly influenced by Renata or the other parents. I think she's just a plot device. I don't think she's an awful person. (Because she's not a real person.) But I think the story gives her weirdly selective information so she can act in the narrow way the story requires. Like if you only noticed Amabella not singing and Ziggy staring at her, it would be natural to at least be concerned. But for this to work, the teacher has to discount whatever else has been happening during the weeks (?) she's been observing the class and whatever training she has and only act on this piece of information.

Quote

The white filmy shirt/cover up Celeste had over her chemise that she dramatically whipped off before getting into bed is what caught my eye.

I get wearing a slip but who wears a beautiful silk and lace negligee... that they intend to sleep in... under their clothes all day?

Quote

I was thinking about Madeline being open with Celeste about the kiss but not the affair, and I wonder if maybe they've only been friends since the kids started kindergarten, so a year or so. 

In the car, Madeline said she's known Celeste for 4 years.

I think it's fair to appreciate that this show is depicting a woman with the wealth, status, and friendships that make it more plausible to leave her abuser still finding it difficult. I think it's also fair to want more stories that depict domestic violence across different socioeconomic situations in a way that's realistic and complex. And as much as the show should get credit for the things it gets right, I'm not as quick to laud it for nailing its depiction of domestic violence when it's still a soap opera that's very interested in showing Celeste and Perry's sexual relationship as a kind of twisted kinky power play. It's fiction with a kernel of truth. 

[aradia22]

Quote

I would encourage everyone to do some reading on domestic violence. I'm certainly no expert, but it's just not as simple as saying, "Well, she's got money and an education, so she can leave." Others have said it better than I could so I won't reiterate, but there are many reasons why it's difficult to escape a domestic violence situation. Here's an interesting article with a study showing that highly successful, high-earning women are more likely to be abused because of the power imbalance in the relationship: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/journalists/sarah-knapton/10679238/Educated-and-well-paid-women-more-likely-to-suffer-domestic-abuse.html. 

https://www.idunn.no/st/2014/01/en_voldsom_maktbalanse_en_studie_av_relativ_makt_og_foreko

I'm not paying for The Telegraph but I read into the research. It seems more complicated than just saying well-educated, high-earning women are more likely to be abused. 

Quote

The findings are interpreted as both income and educational level being possible position-defining factors within couple relationships. Men who have less of these power-defining resources than partners may experience this as frustrating and inadequate, as it contradicts traditional social norms about a male-dominated distribution of power in the family. Accordingly, the subjective perception of one's own position depends on the cultural norms the actor acts within. The analyzes also showed that it is not only inequality between partners that increases women's risk of violence. While women with as long an education as a partner had an increased risk of being exposed to physical or violence use alone, women with about the same income as a partner had an increased risk of being exposed to both physical and mental violence. Given the relative mechanism of stress and frustration, a possible interpretation of this may be that gender equality can also be perceived as contradicting the traditional gender-based distribution of power in a relationship.

The researcher is positing that the reason for the abuse is the perceived imbalance of gender roles. It's not that well-educated, high-earning women are more likely to be abused. It's that sensing too much equality or superiority, the abuser might enact emotional or physical violence to compensate for insecurity about a partner who is equal or better in terms of level of education/income. So it's relative. We don't know how much the individuals make. It's the relative percentage of joint income that's being measured.

I should also note this...

Quote

However, since the proportion of women with much higher education than partners is low (N = 60), the findings must be interpreted with caution.

Quote

However, the proportion of women who earn much more than partners is low, and the findings must therefore be interpreted with caution.

The study also complicates matters by showing that men also experience psychological abuse when they are the higher status partner.

Quote

In light of the mechanism of power, the findings must therefore be understood that both men and women in a weaker position of power than partners will be able to use psychological violence in the hope of achieving a more balanced power relationship. Perhaps, by exercising psychological violence or control over a powerful partner, one hopes to emerge as more important and significant, in contrast to how one feels otherwise in life (Isdal, 2000: 202–03). Thus, violence can function as a form of self-reinforcement. 

So it ends up arguing that lower-status men physically and psychologically abuse higher-status women to feel more in control because the men are stressed by the inversion of traditional gender roles. But also lower-status women psychologically abuse higher-status men because Norway has so much relative gender equality that women feel bad about not living up to growing expectations for women and need to lash out. So it's saying the lower status partner is more likely to be the abuser. 

I find it all questionable.