S01.E07: You Get What You Need

[STOPSHOUTING]

14 minutes ago, Mabinogia said:

I think Renata's change of heart was a combination of her finally feeling like someone understood where she was coming from and admiring how much strength of character it took for Jane to go there. I'm sure Renata knew Madeline was doing everything she could to get Jane on the Renata Hate Train, so for Jane to extend any olive branch took guts.

OMG that is just insane to think about. How very differently their lives would have gone. I have no doubt Perry was capable of killing Celeste in that car that night. He could have said he got in a crash, bang up the car just to make it look good. Yeah, Renata inadvertently saved Celeste's life as far as I'm concerned. I think Celeste knew it too. She shot out of that car like a rocket, good for her! That was smart, quick thinking.

I do love how, as soon as Celeste found out about Max, about how he's being influenced by Perry's abuse of her, all Perry's words and promises just were not going to work. She was hurt, because I do think she still loved Perry and wishes that he could get better, but it was done, over, she was never going to be swayed once her kids were being harmed. That rings so true to me. Some people are willing to put up with a lot themselves, but you harm someone they love and they will put a stop to it.

I saw Renata as deeply, deeply insecure; to a debilitating degree that would make trying to befriend/reassure her torture. (Gordon, jerk that he is, must be a saint as a husband.) Madeline's petty drama could be exhausting, but she was loyal and willing to reach out, which made her infinitely more approachable/relatable than Renata, even if a very good argument could be made about Renata being the "better" person.

Kudos to Laura Dern for willing to go there as an actress, because I found myself just HATING Renata as I watched. So much whining, and why me and a certainty that everyone was out to get her for her success, while at the same time obsessively reveling in it. From the pretentious name to the even more pretentious birthday party -- which had ZERO to do with a 6-year-old, and everything to do with her mom's raging insecurity and world-class snobbery -- I just despised this woman.

While both women were deeply flawed, I'd have picked Maddy in a heartbeat. Her fierce loyalty to her friends, and her immediate and sincere embrace of Jane, a woman far below her in "status," in a community where it's clear that status is everything, makes up for a lot of the other petty nonsense. I do think Renata was redeemed in the end -- from the knock on the window forward -- but it took that level of shared, life-and-death (literally) intensity for it to occur.

Honestly, I know Kidman's portrayal of Celeste is getting all the attention -- and, don't get me wrong, she was very good --but for me the standout acting performance in the series was Dern's messy, off-putting, but incredibly real-feeling, embodiment of Renata.

Edited April 5, 2017 by STOPSHOUTING

[Guest]

In the car, Celeste was locked in until the Kleins approached Perry's window, right?  I wonder why Perry unlocked the door then.  I guess he figured they'd have to get out and go to the party once seen?  He acted surprised when Celeste hopped out, too, though.

I didn't even notice an odd look between Ed and Abigail at the funeral so I rewatched.  I only see a stepdad looking with concern at a teen being a little overly affected at being at a funeral for her mom's friend's husband.  Abigail is supposed to be very sensitive so I guess her acting very affected at the funeral makes sense.  

[Clanstarling]

4 hours ago, vixenbynight said:

Those boys were raised in that house. Those boys saw and heard things both their parents desperately hoped that they could keep from them. Max displaying violent behavior towards Amabella and Skye isn't about nature. That was about nurture. Josh had to have seen his brother doing that to those girls and he stayed silent, just like the other kids.

Also, I may not have kids, but I am an aunt. Kids, try to watch everything that you do. They're trying to learn how to be a "grown up". 

And for those boys, this behavior is what they'd see as normal. It wouldn't occur to them, until later in life, that other families weren't the same. I didn't grow up with physical abuse (that I knew about at the time), but my father was a volatile man, we never knew when he'd trigger. Something he'd laugh at one day he'd rage about the next. We learned, as the saying goes, to read the temperature of the room. Since he wasn't an alcoholic, and he never hit anybody (in my sight) - other than spankings (which I accepted as normal, and they were, mostly, when I was a kid), it never occurred to me that our lives were in any way unusual. I was his favorite, but I still remember my mother teaching me how to hide food under a napkin so he wouldn't realize I didn't eat it, and eating crunchy tacos terrified me because they were messy, and he might get angry.

[madam magpie]

2 hours ago, Ms Blue Jay said:

The weird looks did not amount to anything and I don't understand the point.  It's not like Abigail knew about the affair when Ed did all that staring, so what did it mean anyway?  Abigail found out in like episode 106.  Maybe it's just to show a weird stepfather/daughter relationship, the old adage that stepparents experience jealousy over the past relationship and reminders of it.  Anyways, it was unnecessarily creepy because Abigail was 16? 17? and the staring was very weird.

I mentioned this elsewhere, but it's probably more fitting here. I agree with you about the weirdness; I thought Ed's looks at Abigail were creepy too, and that she seemed uncomfortable with his embrace at the funeral. But I don't actually think there was anything going on between them. My sense was that those details were to show that even the "good" guys are often oglers deep down. Lots of people say things like, "I'm/he's a guy! Can't blame us for looking!" But I do. The notion that, at their core, women are around for male enjoyment is just never a train I've been able to get on. I don't think Ed was a cheater or child molester or anything like that. He was a typical guy checking out a pretty young girl. It's a subtle way women are conditioned from childhood to recognize/deal with unwanted male attention.

[Llywela]

57 minutes ago, txhorns79 said:

I thought it was strange that Renata's husband sought out and threatened Jane after Jane and Renata seemed to have come to an understanding.  Presumably Renata would have said something to her husband about the apology, no?  I didn't get why he would think it was a good idea to ratchet things back up.     

I thought it served to show how out of step Gordon was with everything - trying, in his own way, to be supportive of his wife and child, but never quite on the right page.

[STOPSHOUTING]

36 minutes ago, Winston9-DT3 said:

In the car, Celeste was locked in until the Kleins approached Perry's window, right?  I wonder why Perry unlocked the door then.  I guess he figured they'd have to get out and go to the party once seen?  He acted surprised when Celeste hopped out, too, though.

Yes, Perry had locked them in, but Celeste unlocked the door herself and jumped out while he was distracted. I think it was supposed to be obvious that Celeste absolutely felt the intense danger she was in, but unclear whether she could have saved herself without Reneta's unintentionally life-saving interference. 

[Guest]

That makes more sense, that he was distracted.  Though she kept saying "open the door" previously, like he had the doors on 'child lock' or something and she couldn't physically do it herself.  

[lovinbob]

1 hour ago, txhorns79 said:

I think the point was to suggest that something was going on between them, the situation could blow up and Ed could be the person who was murdered.  I'm glad the show didn't feel the need to go there.     

I thought it was strange that Renata's husband sought out and threatened Jane after Jane and Renata seemed to have come to an understanding.  Presumably Renata would have said something to her husband about the apology, no?  I didn't get why he would think it was a good idea to ratchet things back up.     

That is the one thing I didn't like about this show, the red herrings. Ed and Abigail are a good example; Ed and Nathan even better. The weird glances between Ed and Abigail are, for me, now unfinished business. There is no satisfying explanation for them, at least that I can arrive at at this moment, and that's when red herrings are used effectively. Similarly, the level of hostility between Ed and Nathan, to the bitter end, didn't make sense to me. And personally I think this show is better than a whodunit. The fact that so many people suspected Perry as the victim and as the rapist, and *still* were riveted, left me feeling that the red herrings were distractions.

59 minutes ago, eastcoastress said:

Absolutely. I think I commented on that pages back. That even though we saw Celeste making plans, getting the apartment, stocking the fridge, setting the the bunk beds, (to me) it felt like she was going through the motions. I saw a shift in her body language & eyes (just subtle enough) when she learned about Max. Only then was she committed to make the change. 

Yes! I also mentioned a while back her use of the gloves, which felt more like trying not to leave your fingerprints behind rather than protecting your hands while cleaning. 

[laprin]

Quote

The weird looks did not amount to anything and I don't understand the point.  It's not like Abigail knew about the affair when Ed did all that staring, so what did it mean anyway?  

Maybe it is because I read the book, but I saw none of the creepiness toward Abigail being attributed to Ed. It has been mentioned so often I wonder if it has taken on this meaning merely through the power of suggestion. Now, people can't "un-see" it.   I saw nothing more than shared awkwardness when there was tension either between Ed and Maddy or Abigail and Maddy, as if both were sort of commiserating, but are not close enough to have a deep conversation about it. 

[Guest]

The gloves did look more like forensic gloves than cleaning gloves, but I never wear gloves for cleaning or Ikea furniture making.  Maybe they had some metaphorical purpose, like Celeste was keeping some distance from the whole idea still.  I don't think she truly mentally committed to the move until she knew about Max, which was after the glove scene, wasn't it?  

5 minutes ago, lovinbob said:

The weird glances between Ed and Abigail are, for me, now unfinished business. There is no satisfying explanation for them,

To me, the explanation is the audience misinterpreted them.  I don't know if the director screwed up by not realizing things might look that way or if they were intentional red herrings.  But I think an intentional red herring can turn out to be nothing.  

[Ina123]

5 minutes ago, Winston9-DT3 said:

That makes more sense, that he was distracted.  Though she kept saying "open the door" previously, like he had the doors on 'child lock' or something and she couldn't physically do it herself.  

It wasn't on "child lock". Every time she tried to unlock from her side, he quickly locked it back from his side. When he was distracted she very rapidly unlocked it and got out before he could hit the button. Besides, at that point he couldn't keep her locked in anymore with Renata and Gordon standing there.

[STOPSHOUTING]

19 minutes ago, laprin said:

Maybe it is because I read the book, but I saw none of the creepiness toward Abigail being attributed to Ed. It has been mentioned so often I wonder if it has taken on this meaning merely through the power of suggestion. Now, people can't "un-see" it.   I saw nothing more than shared awkwardness when there was tension either between Ed and Maddy or Abigail and Maddy, as if both were sort of commiserating, but are not close enough to have a deep conversation about it. 

I didn't read the book, nor have I done a rewatch, but I didn't see any of that either. Early on there were some looks exchanged around the kitchen island when Madeline was going off, but I took those as, 'Here she goes again,' shared glances. If anything beyond that was there, or meant to be there, I missed it.

One of my petty gripes with the series is the idea that a liberal NorCal town would actually petition against a production of a Tony-winning musical like Avenue Q which, by the way, looked like a shockingly high-end production, especially for a small theatre.

Oh and, yeah, I also commented that it was super weird that Celeste was wearing surgical gloves to assemble furniture and my husband and I both laughed out loud at the idea that she was able to not only assemble all that Ikea by herself in a short amount of time -- she would have had only the hours while the kids were in school, and she had to buy it all first -- but that she would be so calm afterwards.  Has any real human being ever NOT become enraged or disgusted while assembling Ikea?

Edited April 5, 2017 by STOPSHOUTING

[Guest]

7 minutes ago, laprin said:

but I saw none of the creepiness toward Abigail being attributed to Ed. It has been mentioned so often I wonder if it has taken on this meaning merely through the power of suggestion.

I don't even see this embrace that's been mentioned.  I went back to watch the funeral scene and there's no embrace but maybe I missed a clip.

[JBC344]

51 minutes ago, laprin said:

Maybe it is because I read the book, but I saw none of the creepiness toward Abigail being attributed to Ed. It has been mentioned so often I wonder if it has taken on this meaning merely through the power of suggestion. Now, people can't "un-see" it.   I saw nothing more than shared awkwardness when there was tension either between Ed and Maddy or Abigail and Maddy, as if both were sort of commiserating, but are not close enough to have a deep conversation about it. 

I agree, I mentioned this in the book thread, but I think Ed's "looks" were more to convey his "awkwardness" and "cluelessness" in how to relate/deal with Abigail.  I think that the audience just interpreted it as something nefarious due to the nature of the show and everyone having secrets. I think back to Ed's conversation with Bonnie about her sweating and how it was more "social awkwardness/inept" than creepy.

[questionfear]

On 4/3/2017 at 2:38 PM, scarynikki12 said:

In the first episode Harper says something like "none of this would have happened" when referencing Jane meeting Maddie. My head chacon is that she's referring to Renata becoming friends with the others, leaving her (Harper) behind. That popped into my head during the beach scene. 

Could be, but (while it would be awfully insightful of Harper), she's actually correct...if you think about it, if Maddie and Jane hadn't met, Maddie probably wouldn't have felt compelled to step in and protect Jane and become her friend. If she and Jane hadn't become friends, Jane and Celeste wouldn't have become friends. Without Celeste and Jane as a friends, Renata has no reason to interact closely with Celeste (because Renata and Celeste never find out that Max is the abuser, not Ziggy). Further, without Jane chasing Maddie to the broken stairs, there's no clumping of the women there. So...yea, technically if Jane and Maddie weren't friends, the dominoes wouldn't have toppled the way they did. 

[monakane]

My favorite scene of the series was the end with everyone on the beach.  It reminded me of my group of friends coming together to celebrate or support one another.  True, none of us are that attractive, rich, or well dressed and we're most likely to be on the NJ or Delaware beaches, but the bond of female friendship felt very real in that scene.  For me, the true heart of the story was about the bonds women form.

[Mabinogia]

Unless Jane's friendship with Maddie is what had Celeste go to therapy I think most of it still would have happened only it might have been Celeste at the bottom of the stairs. Harper made it sound like a bad thing, but it's a good thing Maddie and Jane became friends because it stopped an evil man from continuing to beat his wife or worse, kill her. Harper needs to shut up and mind her own business since she has no idea what was really going on. Which is an interesting thing. None of the Greek Chorus, during interrogation, really knew what happened. All they knew was Perry the Greek God was killed. To them it probably looked like some twisted conspiracy for Celeste to get his money. Until they know what a monster he was, they will think that Jane and Maddie becoming friends ruined the tranquility of their precious little town.

[madam magpie]

14 minutes ago, Mabinogia said:

Unless Jane's friendship with Maddie is what had Celeste go to therapy I think most of it still would have happened only it might have been Celeste at the bottom of the stairs. Harper made it sound like a bad thing, but it's a good thing Maddie and Jane became friends because it stopped an evil man from continuing to beat his wife or worse, kill her. Harper needs to shut up and mind her own business since she has no idea what was really going on. Which is an interesting thing. None of the Greek Chorus, during interrogation, really knew what happened. All they knew was Perry the Greek God was killed. To them it probably looked like some twisted conspiracy for Celeste to get his money. Until they know what a monster he was, they will think that Jane and Maddie becoming friends ruined the tranquility of their precious little town.

Agreed. I think the role of the Greek chorus was to establish the bitchiness of the town and what the women were up against. I didn't think they were reliable narrators at all.

[stagmania]

8 hours ago, paramitch said:

Last but not least, on a more humorous note, although I love Merrin Dungey (who will always be Francie to me), and while I loved the finale, I thought the detective was a pretty thankless role, and I was surprised that the women in the final scenes at the station or the beach could hear each other OVER THE INCESSANT CLICKING OF THAT DAMN LIGHTER.

I loved your whole post; thanks for sharing. And I agree, poor Francie had the most thankless role in this whole thing. She had about five minutes of cumulative screen time, and all she got to do is sneer a lot and then be the bad guy who wants to go after women who protected each other from an abuser. 

2 hours ago, STOPSHOUTING said:

Kudos to Laura Dern for willing to go there as an actress, because I found myself just HATING Renata as I watched.

Laura Dern excels at playing unlikable but somehow still sympathetic characters. Check out Enlightened if you haven't before!

1 hour ago, laprin said:

Maybe it is because I read the book, but I saw none of the creepiness toward Abigail being attributed to Ed. It has been mentioned so often I wonder if it has taken on this meaning merely through the power of suggestion. Now, people can't "un-see" it.   I saw nothing more than shared awkwardness when there was tension either between Ed and Maddy or Abigail and Maddy, as if both were sort of commiserating, but are not close enough to have a deep conversation about it. 

I never saw it, either. Each week when I would come here and see people talking about it, I felt like I missed something. I think the nature of the show just made everyone inherently suspicious of every male character.

Just wanted to say a quick thanks to everyone who contributed to the thoughtful discussion in this forum and even shared some of their own personal experiences. The show ended up resonating with me a lot more than I expected, and I really loved enhancing the experience by coming here after each episode.

[Ina123]

It was a small role but Laura Dern was in October Sky and played a beautiful part.

[MaryWebGirl]

22 minutes ago, Mabinogia said:

Unless Jane's friendship with Maddie is what had Celeste go to therapy I think most of it still would have happened only it might have been Celeste at the bottom of the stairs. Harper made it sound like a bad thing, but it's a good thing Maddie and Jane became friends because it stopped an evil man from continuing to beat his wife or worse, kill her. Harper needs to shut up and mind her own business since she has no idea what was really going on. Which is an interesting thing. None of the Greek Chorus, during interrogation, really knew what happened. All they knew was Perry the Greek God was killed. To them it probably looked like some twisted conspiracy for Celeste to get his money. Until they know what a monster he was, they will think that Jane and Maddie becoming friends ruined the tranquility of their precious little town.

This is a really interesting point I hadn't thought about! The Greek chorus (except for maybe the principal) will probably never know who was really hurting Amabella. Although I suppose a normal school would say "We found out who did it and the student is getting help. We're watching closely but don't think it will happen again." This school would probably hold an assembly to announce Max did it.

[Guest]

23 minutes ago, Mabinogia said:

Unless Jane's friendship with Maddie is what had Celeste go to therapy I think most of it still would have happened only it might have been Celeste at the bottom of the stairs. Harper made it sound like a bad thing, but it's a good thing Maddie and Jane became friends because it stopped an evil man from continuing to beat his wife or worse, kill her. Harper needs to shut up and mind her own business since she has no idea what was really going on. Which is an interesting thing. None of the Greek Chorus, during interrogation, really knew what happened. All they knew was Perry the Greek God was killed. To them it probably looked like some twisted conspiracy for Celeste to get his money. Until they know what a monster he was, they will think that Jane and Maddie becoming friends ruined the tranquility of their precious little town.

I think it all probably would've played out the same regardless of Maddie twisting her ankle or a lot of the events.  She probably still would've defended Jane against Renata because she does that.  

It was kind of interesting they had the women fawning over Perry at the party because

Spoiler

it was a different dad, a SAHD, who got that treatment throughout the book.  I would've like to have seen that character because I know some SAHDs and I bet it does cause friction for the wife--- She's off at work and her hubs is getting hit on by the moms at school events.  

[film noire]

3 hours ago, txhorns79 said:

I thought it was strange that Renata's husband sought out and threatened Jane after Jane and Renata seemed to have come to an understanding.  Presumably Renata would have said something to her husband about the apology, no?  I didn't get why he would think it was a good idea to ratchet things back up.     

It's such a controlling thing to do, I saw it as echoing Perry.  Not in any violent manner/depth of manipulation - Renata doesn't suffer from that at her husband's hands - but as a husband overriding his wife's feelings (if he knew of the apology) and taking action opposite to his wife's because he knows best, or taking action without checking in (if he didn't know about the apology). I think that's partly why Renata got on board so fast. She has a small taste of living with a man who erases her (wanting to "fuck" not "fuck her") who undermines and dismisses her, despite (or because of) her high powered status (a status similar to Celeste's independence before Perry). 

Edited April 5, 2017 by film noire

[Blakeston]

1 hour ago, STOPSHOUTING said:

One of my petty gripes with the series is the idea that a liberal NorCal town would actually petition against a production of a Tony-winning musical like Avenue Q which, by the way, looked like a shockingly high-end production, especially for a small theatre.

I didn't buy that either. It also made no sense that someone like Bonnie would sign that petition.

I've heard a lot of people say that they couldn't believe that the teacher and/or the school would be so incompetent. I can actually believe that they would be that incompetent - there have been plenty of real-life incidents where school employees have been shockingly clueless, especially where abuse and bullying are concerned.

But what I can't believe is that the town wouldn't be up in arms about the school's actions. Rich, coastal Californians would be raising hell about their school holding a public trial of a 6-year-old, and being completely helpless to stop a little girl from being strangled and severely bitten during the school day.

Instead, we were supposed to believe that they directed all their anger at Ziggy. In reality, there would have been all sorts of talk about suing that school and/or getting the people involved fired.

[Guest]

I think the scene of Gordon threatening Jane was done purely to give Tom an opportunity to play knight in shining armor, to further the romance plot there.  And because everyone LOVES the coffee there, Tom kicking the Kleins out was a cheerable win for the underdogs.  

[film noire]

20 minutes ago, Blakeston said:

I didn't buy that either. It also made no sense that someone like Bonnie would sign that petition.

There has been controversy around Avenue Q -- the Christmas Eve character for one (and I might be waaaay overreading it, but there's also controversy around white man Mickey Rooney's hideously racist portrayal of the Asian landlord in Breakfast At Tiffany's)  -- so I can buy Bonnie wondering why a bunch of rich white people in a rich white enclave want to sing "A Little Bit Racist" so badly.

Edited April 5, 2017 by film noire

[Razzberry]

2 hours ago, STOPSHOUTING said:

One of my petty gripes with the series is the idea that a liberal NorCal town would actually petition against a production of a Tony-winning musical like Avenue Q which, by the way, looked like a shockingly high-end production, especially for a small theatre.

Best Line of the show:

[dd21dd21]

1 hour ago, film noire said:

It's such a controlling thing to do, I saw it as echoing Perry.  Not in any violent manner/depth of manipulation - Renata doesn't suffer from that at her husband's hands - but as a husband overriding his wife's feelings (if he knew of the apology) and taking action opposite to his wife's because he knows best, or taking action without checking in (if he didn't know about the apology). I think that's partly why Renata got on board so fast. She has a small taste of living with a man who erases her (wanting to "fuck" not "fuck her") who undermines and dismisses her, despite (or because of) her high powered status (a status similar to Celeste's independence before Perry). 

I didn't get that at all. I took the scene as previously Renata got on his ass for not acting as angry as her and that was his way of stepping up lol

I could be wrong thou, Im a very simple person

[halkatla]

This ending was the BEST! Totally what I needed. I hope this show sets an example when it comes to future television. Not too many episodes, not a silly story, great actors, fairness, mystery, and most important of all, a nice ending!

Edited April 5, 2017 by halkatla
grammar

[Mabinogia]

17 minutes ago, halkatla said:

and most important of all, a nice ending!

Too many shows that want to be considered high art or be taken seriously think they have to end on some tragic note. Ironic that a father of two being brutally killed is a happy ending, but it sure was for me.  I loved this ending. I felt so much joy at seeing the women come together, watching the children play. After all the tension this show gave me, all the holding of breath and gasping while watching Perry, it was cathartic for me to see that bastard dead. I need a nice bit of catharsis now and then.

I think the most amazing thing about this production was how much I became invested, not like I usually am with a show, wanting to know what happens next, more in a more visceral way. I felt so much tension watching Perry and Celeste. I felt Jane's struggles and Renata's feeling like an outsider. And I felt their freedom at the end, and it felt good, like a hot shower at the end of a stressful day. It felt like a release of all the tension this show built up. It was beautiful.

I don't care so much about inconsistencies or "that would never happen IRL" stuff when  a show can move me the way this one has.

[STOPSHOUTING]

1 hour ago, film noire said:

There has been controversy around Avenue Q ...

Yes, of course, tons of it. And if this was a community in the midwest or south, or a religious private school or something similar, I would have totally got it. But liberal, hippie coastal Northern California, with a bunch of Silicon Valley parents? Just doesn't pass the smell test for me, and I live in a very Red State, but have also lived in both Northern and Southern California. 

Too many shows that want to be considered high art or be taken seriously think they have to end on some tragic note. Ironic that a father of two being brutally killed is a happy ending, but it sure was for me.  

Make that father of three. 

Edited April 5, 2017 by STOPSHOUTING

[halkatla]

7 minutes ago, Mabinogia said:

Too many shows that want to be considered high art or be taken seriously think they have to end on some tragic note. Ironic that a father of two being brutally killed is a happy ending, but it sure was for me.  I loved this ending. I felt so much joy at seeing the women come together, watching the children play. After all the tension this show gave me, all the holding of breath and gasping while watching Perry, it was cathartic for me to see that bastard dead. I need a nice bit of catharsis now and then.

I think the most amazing thing about this production was how much I became invested, not like I usually am with a show, wanting to know what happens next, more in a more visceral way. I felt so much tension watching Perry and Celeste. I felt Jane's struggles and Renata's feeling like an outsider. And I felt their freedom at the end, and it felt good, like a hot shower at the end of a stressful day. It felt like a release of all the tension this show built up. It was beautiful.

I don't care so much about inconsistencies or "that would never happen IRL" stuff when  a show can move me the way this one has.

I had literally prepared myself for everything but this.*  Especially for the ending to be stupid and unconnected to the plot. I had no expectation of Perry being the one to die... This is the reason we like stories, as human beings we need this.

* Due to most shows sucking and as you say, trying to be artistic and "different".

Edited April 5, 2017 by halkatla

[Mabinogia]

6 minutes ago, STOPSHOUTING said:

Make that father of three.

Oops, forgot about that.

[JBC344]

1 hour ago, STOPSHOUTING said:

Yes, of course, tons of it. And if this was a community in the midwest or south, or a religious private school or something similar, I would have totally got it. But liberal, hippie coastal Northern California, with a bunch of Silicon Valley parents? Just doesn't pass the smell test for me, and I live in a very Red State, but have also lived in both Northern and Southern California. 

Make that father of three. 

That is actually a huge misconception of California.  Yes, California is a blue state but you would be very surprised about the substantial pockets of conservatives and conservative communities, especially in Northern California.  Hell, you would be surprised about the numbers in Southern California as well. 

Also I think the "issues" those had with the play had more to do with "value and appropriateness" than "liberal and conservative".   Trust me, California is full of Liberals who are just like these characters.

[lovinbob]

3 hours ago, madam magpie said:

Agreed. I think the role of the Greek chorus was to establish the bitchiness of the town and what the women were up against. I didn't think they were reliable narrators at all.

This is spot on. 

3 hours ago, Blakeston said:

I didn't buy that either. It also made no sense that someone like Bonnie would sign that petition.

I've heard a lot of people say that they couldn't believe that the teacher and/or the school would be so incompetent. I can actually believe that they would be that incompetent - there have been plenty of real-life incidents where school employees have been shockingly clueless, especially where abuse and bullying are concerned.

I thoroughly believe Renata was out to get Maddie and thwart her pet project. Bonnie could have signed it to go along or get along, or because she didn't even know what it was. (Isn't that what she originally told Maddie?) 

3 hours ago, film noire said:

There has been controversy around Avenue Q -- the Christmas Eve character for one (and I might be waaaay overreading it, but there's also controversy around white man Mickey Rooney's hideously racist portrayal of the Asian landlord in Breakfast At Tiffany's)  -- so I can buy Bonnie wondering why a bunch of rich white people in a rich white enclave want to sing "A Little Bit Racist" so badly.

Will never forget the first time I watched Breakfast at Tiffany's. That Mickey Rooney character was so disturbing.

[feelsfine]

Not just Bonnie, but they also kept commenting on how Celeste was so pretty.  It was kind of annoying.

[polyhymnia]

12 hours ago, paramitch said:

Last but not least, on a more humorous note, although I love Merrin Dungey (who will always be Francie to me), and while I loved the finale, I thought the detective was a pretty thankless role, and I was surprised that the women in the final scenes at the station or the beach could hear each other OVER THE INCESSANT CLICKING OF THAT DAMN LIGHTER.

She is always Francie to me, too.  I even gave the character a little slack because of it.  But yeah, you think at least one of the ladies on the beach would be turning around looking for the annoying noise.

[film noire]

13 hours ago, STOPSHOUTING said:

Yes, of course, tons of it. And if this was a community in the midwest or south, or a religious private school or something similar, I would have totally got it. But liberal, hippie coastal Northern California, with a bunch of Silicon Valley parents? Just doesn't pass the smell test for me 

 I buy Bonnie (millennial, black, and female) finding the musical problematic  -- I find it harder to believe she didn't know it was connected to Madeleine. 

11 hours ago, lovinbob said:

Will never forget the first time I watched Breakfast at Tiffany's. That Mickey Rooney character was so disturbing.

It's just awful -- I have to fast forward through him whenever I watch.

14 hours ago, dd21dd21 said:

I could be wrong thou,

We're just different townspeople in the Geek chorus here  ; )

Edited April 6, 2017 by film noire

[chocolatine]

2 hours ago, STOPSHOUTING said:

Make that father of three. 

That we know of.

Re: Celeste wearing surgical gloves for cleaning, I do that as well. They fit snugly (I have tiny hands), are cheap and disposable, and help preserve my manicures.

[Keepitmoving]

8 hours ago, Winston9-DT3 said:

I don't even see this embrace that's been mentioned.  I went back to watch the funeral scene and there's no embrace but maybe I missed a clip.

I didn't see an embrace either. I saw Abby looking uncomfortable, uneasy being at the grave site, he looked at her face and then lifted his arm to softly pat her on the shoulder and that was it. I too am glad that Ed didn't turn out to have been messing around with Maddie's daughter,ugh. A serial rapist, wife beater wrapped up in just one male character was enough of a perversion. I'm glad all in all, the other men were decent.

Quote

 I buy Bonnie (millennial, black, and female) finding the musical problematic  -- I find it harder to believe she didn't know it was connected to Madeleine. 

Why? Didn't the musical have a message of tolerance? Didn't Celeste argue that when she went to meet the mayor? Why would a millennial, black female, someone who checks off two boxes for vulnerable groups in this society have a problem with that kind of art? Or, do you mean, that she would expect it to be problematic in that town because she  knows of intolerance?  What was the musical by the way? I don't even remember what musical they were doing, just that puppets might be fucking to relay its message and that was a problem for the opposition, values and all that stuff...

As for her not knowing it was associated with Maddie? Maybe, maybe not. In the end, I think Bonnie ended up to be pretty sincere, without the catty motivations that Maddie was operating on.

Edited April 5, 2017 by Keepitmoving

[tennisgurl]

I can understand some people not being thrilled with Avenue Q. Looking beyond the racial stuff, its a really sexual play, and its fully possible that having puppets singing about sex was just too much for some people. Especially if the theater usually did family friendly plays. It might not have anything to do with Liberal or Conservative, so much as its about being "appropriate".

2 hours ago, lovinbob said:

That Mickey Rooney character was so disturbing.

I know right?! It sucks because I really love Breakfast at Tiffany's, its one of my favorite Audrey Hepburn movies. But every time I watch it, the Mickey Rooney character just takes me completely out of the story. Its just the most awkward thing, and every time he shows up, I spend the whole scene cringing. I saw it in my local theater a few months ago, and they even played a little PSA thing at the end about how racially insensitive he was.

6 hours ago, stagmania said:

I never saw it, either. Each week when I would come here and see people talking about it, I felt like I missed something. I think the nature of the show just made everyone inherently suspicious of every male character.

I was right there with you. People kept saying how they saw creepy vibes between them, and I never saw it at all. I think people were maybe looking for something sketchy about Ed, because of both the murder mystery, and, as you said, the nature of the show can make people suspicious of any male character that shows up. I don't know, I just never saw it.

[Cardie]

The ending wouldn't have gone down as it did without the Maddie-Jane--and later Celeste--friendship because the moment Jane, Maddie, Celeste, and Perry realized that Perry had raped Jane and that this was now public knowledge seemed to me the trigger that made Perry go to kill Celeste without thinking of the consequences of doing it in front of witnesses. He knew his façade was forever shattered.

[film noire]

2 hours ago, Keepitmoving said:

Why? Didn't the musical have a message of tolerance? Didn't Celeste argue that when she went to meet the mayor? Why would a millennial, black female, someone who checks off two boxes for vulnerable groups in this society have a problem with that kind of art? 

Regarding Bonnie, I'm neither black nor millennial (I am female) so I'd prefer to let this post explain the issues around the lyrics to "Everybody's a little bit racist", and why it made sense to me that Bonnie might find the choice problematic: 

http://theangryblackwoman.com/2009/04/21/everyones-a-little-bit-racist-but-some-are-more-so-than-others/

1 hour ago, tennisgurl said:

I can understand some people not being thrilled with Avenue Q. Looking beyond the racial stuff, its a really sexual play, and its fully possible that having puppets singing about sex was just too much for some people. Especially if the theater usually did family friendly plays.

That's true,  it could just be about "puppets fucking"  -- makes sense for a town shown (in the Greek chorus) to be puritanical and judgmental in all sorts of ways.

Edited April 6, 2017 by film noire

[Guest]

I figured Bonnie signed the petition like a lot of people do-- just to not have to say no to whoever stopped her and asked her.  If she had some moral objection to the play, I don't think she would've told Maddie she wouldn't have signed it if she'd realized what it was.  Isn't that what she said?  

[txhorns79]

Quote

 I saw it in my local theater a few months ago, and they even played a little PSA thing at the end about how racially insensitive he was.

I'm amused at the idea the theater felt the need to do a PSA.  Did they think the audience would somehow presume the theater was endorsing the casting choices made on an over fifty year old film otherwise, or that the audience wouldn't understand the casting was problematic unless they were told?  I don't even want to imagine what would happen if they ever showed Gone with the Wind.  It just all seems like a little much.    

And am I wrong, or was Maddie not wearing shoes at the trivia night?  It looked like she was barefoot at times.   

Edited April 6, 2017 by txhorns79

[chocolatine]

22 minutes ago, txhorns79 said:

And am I wrong, or was Maddie not wearing shoes at the trivia night?  It looked like she was barefoot at times.   

She was wearing shoes when she arrived, but was carrying them in her hand by the time she ran out to the back stairs during Ed's performance.

[humbleopinion]

Maddie was wearing Pink Boudoir Kitten heels with feathers.

She was carrying them in some scenes.

[Ina123]

10 hours ago, humbleopinion said:

Maddie was wearing Pink Boudoir Kitten heels with feathers.

She was carrying them in some scenes.

To go along with the scene she is representing in breakfast at Tiffanys. Yes, she was wearing slippers.

[lovinbob]

10 hours ago, chocolatine said:

She was wearing shoes when she arrived, but was carrying them in her hand by the time she ran out to the back stairs during Ed's performance.

Which is interesting in light of the opening of the series when, even with a twisted ankle, she kept her heels on. 

Either she removed some of her armor or made herself more vulnerable. Or, perhaps, she was ready to fight.

[Ina123]

4 minutes ago, lovinbob said:

Which is interesting in light of the opening of the series when, even with a twisted ankle, she kept her heels on. 

Either she removed some of her armor or made herself more vulnerable. Or, perhaps, she was ready to fight.

Running in slippers without falling down is almost impossible. I would have pulled them off too.

When she turned her ankle in the heels she was just walking. Apples and oranges.

BTW, I've always looked at that opening scene as merely a plot contrivance for Jane and Maddie to meet. No way was she so hurt she couldn't finish the drive to the orientation.