S01.E07: You Get What You Need

[txhorns79]

What a wild ride.  I think my only disappointment is that there will not be a Big Little Lies 2: Electric Boogaloo, as I would love to see the main cast engage in some kind of 80's inspired break dancing charity fund raiser (perhaps for Jane, as she is "poor" by her friends' standards).        

Edited April 3, 2017 by txhorns79

[Guest]

7 minutes ago, mochamajesty said:

Perry IS a monster - sorry. I don't care how many articles are written saying otherwise. 

Perry is not a person.  No one knows him better than his writers.  Though for sure people will know his type better, and probably wish he was written differently and interpret the fiction their own way.   Which doesn't make it the one right way.  

Which is why forums are interesting.  Usually, people share their interpretations and that's welcome rather than ridiculed and met with incredulity and accusations.

[pbutler111]

3 hours ago, mochamajesty said:

That's unbelievable to me.  A man like Perry doesn't see women as "Women" - he sees them as conquests, objects.  I do not believe that he would remember a woman that he raped what - six years ago?  Unless Jane was the only woman that he raped - and we are left to figure that one out for ourselves.

I think even someone who may have assaulted a number of women over the years would still remember the one who pointed a gun at him but couldn't pull the trigger.  

[Guest]

Just now, pbutler111 said:

I think even someone who may have assaulted a number of women over the years would still remember the one who pointed a gun at him but couldn't pull the trigger.  

I think the gun and beach stuff was just Jane's fantasy and a metaphor for her wanting to kill him but being powerless.  

[mochamajesty]

1 minute ago, pbutler111 said:

I think even someone who may have assaulted a number of women over the years would still remember the one who pointed a gun at him but couldn't pull the trigger.  

I took that as a fantasy on Jane's part.  That actually happened? 

[pbutler111]

13 minutes ago, Eyes High said:

The rationale given is that had the singing been terrible, it would have been funny and given the wrong tone. But really, how bad could Adam Scott and James Tupper have been? It's not as if the songs they had to sing were particularly challenging. Jean-Marc Vallee's first choice to sing for Nathan was Chris Isaac. Seriously?

It did have a very Chris Isaak sound to it.  At least the person singing for Nathan sounded like Nathan.  The person singing for Ed sounded nothing like Ed.

1 minute ago, mochamajesty said:

I took that as a fantasy on Jane's part.  That actually happened? 

I don't know. I took the many variations on it as foggy memory/fantasy, but I took the last one as literal.  I could be misinterpreting.

[mochamajesty]

9 minutes ago, Winston9-DT3 said:

Perry is not a person.  No one knows him better than his writers.  Though for sure people will know his type better, and probably wish he was written differently and interpret the fiction their own way.   Which doesn't make it the one right way.  

Which is why forums are interesting.  Usually, people share their interpretations and that's welcome rather than ridiculed and met with incredulity and accusations.

Perhaps.

But I - one of many - am incredulous  that someone could watch a man beat his wife and say, "Yes, but....".

Not sure what you mean by accusation - you will have to be more clear.

How exactly, can Celeste help Perry change? 

Edited April 3, 2017 by mochamajesty

[LucyHoneychrrch]

I loved this finale so much. Bonnie was previously on my dislike list for her quiet condescension; this episode made me not only rethink my perceptions of her, it made me adore her. Not just for the obvious reason of making Perry choke on sharp rebar; but also because it illustrated to me that her blase hippiemom persona was a cloak of sorts, hiding the fact that despite appearances, Bonnie. Misses. Nothing.

The beach scene for me was a leeeeeetle bit on the cheesy side, but it also made me cry. Women are like this. This is what we do. (Obviously, in my own experience; I don't speak for others.) We push and pull against one another; we measure ourselves by one another; we hide, we subvert, we obfuscate; and in the end, in spite of all that, sometimes we find ourselves ferociously defending the same people we tore down. The very best moment of the finale, to me, was that split second, camera in close, of Madeline and Bonnie with their heads together, quietly whispering to one another.

[pbutler111]

2 hours ago, hoodooznoodooz said:

I agree that Celeste would have had to dip her body in concealer in order to wear that Holly Golightly dress after the beating she had suffered so recently.

I thought about that!!

[LucyHoneychrrch]

Also, I'd previously read the book; but it's a mark of how amazing I found this series that I was genuinely, spine-chillingly terrified when Celeste and Perry left the house.

[polyhymnia]

4 hours ago, Eyes High said:

Bonnie shoving Perry was oh so satisfying, as was all the women banding together to protect Celeste (and then Bonnie). I agree with the poster who said that the beach frolicking with the kids felt earned.

It's interesting that only one of the twins was bullying Amabella. I had assumed that the twins were tag-teaming her. 

I loved Tom kicking Gordon out of the cafe mid-threat, although I guess Gordon and Renata are birds of a feather in the bullying department. Tom and Jane were cute together, too.

Nicole Kidman was amazing in this. All the awards!

 

3 hours ago, dmc said:

Is it me or do the men all seem sort of awful...Ed is the best one and even he at times I wonder about...

It's interesting to me that even though much of the episode centers around Perry's abuse of Celeste...to me the most menacing scene was Renata's husband at the cafe.

Going to be honest, I always judge women who have men fight their battles for them. Renata and Jane had supposedly worked out their issue...so why was her husband involved??? Why would he take upon himself to down there for a situation that was already resolved...

 

I thought Gordon was trying to be menacing but the two gals found him more off-putting than menacing.  I liked that Tom kicked him out.  I feel like his motivation is that Renata always tells him he is sucking at supporting her and Amabella through this crisis so he is trying to take a stand.  

I also agree that Ed knew, but didn't know who until right before he sang.

I get trying to cover it up.  Celeste could lose her law license - and needs it to be able to support the kids (I wonder if she will stay in the house or move away from the bad memories).  Jane won't want Ziggy knowing about his Dad and all of that could come out in a murder investigation/trial.

The opening shot to the vent from the bathroom showing how Max knows all about it but the other twin might not (always wearing his headphones) was chilling and well-done.  Celeste dealing with the Max situation was really good parenting as was the way Jane gently questioned Ziggy.

I kind of hope that Maddie and Renata are still a bit prickly with each other but I love that Renata assessed the situation at the stairs and was automatically team mom.  Also, she had to be suspicious as it was pretty obvious that Celeste and Perry were fighting - although I guess she might have thought it was about Max.

I was totally surprised when tiny Bonnie turned out to be the killer.  That was,  I don't know, rather delightful.

[stagmania]

10 minutes ago, mochamajesty said:

I took that as a fantasy on Jane's part.  That actually happened? 

I believe that all the beach stuff with Jane chasing and then aiming a gun at Perry was her imagining the culmination of her longtime dream/fantasy of catching and punishing him. That she quickly put that aside to defend Celeste said so much. 

[DFWGina]

4 hours ago, mochamajesty said:

And I cannot remember:  did Perry talk to the property manager or listen to the message?  I have a fingerprint scanner on my phone and a backup password for access. Come on, Celeste! 

There is no way an abuser like her husband would not have access to her phone.  He likely has his fingerprints in there and / or knows her code.  It would enrage him and cause horrible consequences for Celeste if he was ever NOT able to open it and have free access.

53 minutes ago, Ms Blue Jay said:

A tweet I saw last night:  "Where is the trivia in this trivia night?"  LOL.  There was one tiny mention in the background by the principal. He asked a question and then said "Think on it and we'll come back with the answer", or something.  The most throwaway of lines.  Pretty funny.

Yeah, I was wondering the same thing... Why in the world call it trivia night if the focus is dressing up like Elvis and Audrey and singing?  That is cabaret night - not trivia night.  Trivia night would entail, um, trivia... Of which, we saw very little (if any)...

[susannot]

The trivia question was who kept a pet deer, Audrey or Elvis?  One other observation--Skarsgard was by far the best Elvis in that smoking hot black leather.

[Guest]

6 minutes ago, DFWGina said:

That is cabaret night - not trivia night.  Trivia night would entail, um, trivia... Of which, we saw very little (if any)...

As soon as I had that thought, the announcer announced that next up on the agenda was the trivia portion, and led with the deer question.  Too bad, I'd rather watch trivia than the odd lip syncing.  The singing was a weird addition.  Especially with Ed being so nervous, as if singing was mandatory.  

[Cardie]

22 minutes ago, mochamajesty said:

I took that as a fantasy on Jane's part.  That actually happened? 

The way it was cut into the whole series of revelations of the Truth about Perry convinced me that it did happen. Thus I could buy that he would remember Jane, even if he had raped dozens of other women. I do agree with others who have said that they could have lessened the contrivance of Perry being Jane's rapist if some detail connected him to Monterey and she had come there seeking his identity. Like there was a Saxon Banks Park there or something like that.

[Razzberry]

Perry's pinky goes up when he drinks.

[Anya]

Don't get me wrong, the scenes were very disturbing, but I'm very curious about how they made the violence look so realistic. Usually in movies/tv, you can see that it isn't quite real. Like when someone chokes someone you can tell there's actually like a half an inch gap between the hand and the throat, and that the actor is just tensing their hand to get the effect. Physical violence in movies/tv generally looks fake and fairly "stuntman" if you look closely, even when well done, and mostly relies on the distraction of the actors ability to extrude anger, and techniques where you actually don't quite touch the actor.

But when Alexander chokes Nicole, slaps her, presses her head into the couch very hard, it looks completely real, like there isn't any technique there to not hurt the actor. So I'm very curious how they achieved that without actually hurting Nicole.

Or if at some extent (which I actually can imagine), she got a little bit hurt during filming, albeit she did it to make the scenes more powerful (which isn't unusual for actors to do to for "the art")

There's probably not an expert on shooting these kinds of scenes in the thread (but one could hope! :), but I'm curious what you think about the filming of those scenes?

[Athena]

Remember to be respectful to your fellow posters. Posts that are deemed uncivil or rude will be removed. Warnings may be issued.

[Guest]

There's quite a bit in the media thread about it.  A couple things-- Nicole did get some bruises, she also encouraged Skarsgard to not totally fake it to keep it more real looking, plus a stunt woman was used for parts.  

I liked the director's choice to not use a score over those parts.  

Though I was unclear in the opening shot of the vent we were hearing a video game controller with muffled beating sounds in the background.  I guess we never played video games with headphones, like those kids do.

[lovinbob]

7 hours ago, mochamajesty said:

Perhaps.

But I - one of many - am incredulous  that someone could watch a man beat his wife and say, "Yes, but....".

Not sure what you mean by accusation - you will have to be more clear.

How exactly, can Celeste help Perry change? 

I'm not sure anyone said "Yes, but" about Perry's abuse. I do know that it was interesting to see Perry portrayed as a deeply, deeply flawed human being who wanted to change but seemingly couldn't. Again, if the research I've seen cited here is correct, abusers are rarely "cured." Is that because they think what they're doing is okay? I doubt it ... I think it is likely because they are predisposed by both genetics and their upbringing to deal with their anger, self-hatred, insecurity, and a host of other stimuli and conditions through violence and power dynamics. 

Someone close to me has been emotionally abusive, and I know he doesn't think it's right. He hates himself afterwards. But under certain circumstances, it's his go-to response. I don't think that makes him a monster. Nor do I think that his wife should stay with him for it. 

And you're right, of course Celeste can't help Perry change, and certainly it is a tactic abusers use, to make the victim culpable for their abuse. But that's also where I see the damaged child inside the abuser who needs* someone to help him overcome his demons. 

I am glad Perry is dead and I am glad Celeste is rid of him, but I also felt profoundly sad for Perry, that his emotional condition is what it was. I think those thoughts can exist alongside each other.

*I should have said, who "wants" someone to help him, in that magical thinking way that children have.

Edited April 4, 2017 by lovinbob
Added the last *statement, for clarity.

[mochamajesty]

6 minutes ago, Razzberry said:

Perry's pinky goes up when he drinks.

LOL!  Never noticed that before now.  So he is a civilized abuser?

[Razzberry]

That shot of Celeste laying on the floor was powerful.   I was hoping she'd tell him on the stairs "You just got the wind knocked out of you!" 

[sasha206]

48 minutes ago, Mabinogia said:

They really should have thrown a line in somewhere that Jane came to Monterey to find him, that she knew he lived in that area and she wanted answers. Because I have no problem believing a control freak who gets off beating his wife would have to look elsewhere while she's pregnant for fear of causing a miscarriage. He needed those kids to keep her under his control. So he goes off and finds some surrogate to rape.

 

i totally agree.  Maybe I missed it but the show made it suggest she just decided she wanted beach house, new start.  And it wasn't until the Family Tree discussion and the confession to Maddie that the wheels to find Saxon was set in motion.  I'm just not good at suspending belief because this part of the story is of course way too convenient that her actual rapist would be the husband of a new best friend.  

Nevertheless, loved the show and enjoyed the ending.  

[susannot]

I hope the book fills in a lot of these details.  I'm also wondering where Perry got the name Saxon Baker (??) to use as his rape-persona.  Could he have encountered Saxon somewhere and realized that they resembled each other?  If so it is also evil that he roped in an innocent person.

[madam magpie]

38 minutes ago, stagmania said:

I believe that all the beach stuff with Jane chasing and then aiming a gun at Perry was her imagining the culmination of her longtime dream/fantasy of catching and punishing him. That she quickly put that aside to defend Celeste said so much. 

I thought it was all fantasy too. We saw a lot of that with Jane, dreaming of all the ways she'd catch or kill him. And I took her being unable to shoot him on the beach as the moment she shifted from victim to aggressor, throwing down with the rest of them to try to protect Celeste. 

[mochamajesty]

6 minutes ago, susannot said:

I hope the book fills in a lot of these details.  I'm also wondering where Perry got the name Saxon Baker (??) to use as his rape-persona.  Could he have encountered Saxon somewhere and realized that they resembled each other?  If so it is also evil that he roped in an innocent person.

I wondered this as well.

Maybe they worked together? 

26 minutes ago, Anya said:

Don't get me wrong, the scenes were very disturbing, but I'm very curious about how they made the violence look so realistic. Usually in movies/tv, you can see that it isn't quite real. Like when someone chokes someone you can tell there's actually like a half an inch gap between the hand and the throat, and that the actor is just tensing their hand to get the effect. Physical violence in movies/tv generally looks fake and fairly "stuntman" if you look closely, even when well done, and mostly relies on the distraction of the actors ability to extrude anger, and techniques where you actually don't quite touch the actor.

But when Alexander chokes Nicole, slaps her, presses her head into the couch very hard, it looks completely real, like there isn't any technique there to not hurt the actor. So I'm very curious how they achieved that without actually hurting Nicole.

Or if at some extent (which I actually can imagine), she got a little bit hurt during filming, albeit she did it to make the scenes more powerful (which isn't unusual for actors to do to for "the art")

There's probably not an expert on shooting these kinds of scenes in the thread (but one could hope! :), but I'm curious what you think about the filming of those scenes?

A body double for Nicole. Not sure about AS.

It sounded like those blows actually connected - stunt doubles are trained to take them. I wonder if they did.

[ElectricBoogaloo]

I don't have a problem with Jane just moving to Monterey for no reason and eventually coming across her rapist. Stranger things have happened* and since Monterey is not far from Santa CruZ, both her move and her rapist's proximity seem plausible. 

* In truth is stranger than fiction: my former coworker was adopted when she was very young. She had two biological siblings and all three were adopted by different families. In high school she met a guy. He lived a few towns over so he went to a different school. They started dating and on their second or third date, they were talking about their families. She told him she was adopted. He said, "Me too," and they started bonding over that and talking about what they knew about their birth mothers and if they wanted to look for her when they turned 18. It turned out they were siblings. If I hadn't personally known this girl and heard her tell me the story (which was verified by her bio sister and bio mom, both of whom I met), I would have chalked it up to an urban legend but yup, sometimes you cross paths with people who you didn't realize you were connected to.

10 minutes ago, susannot said:

I hope the book fills in a lot of these details.  I'm also wondering where Perry got the name Saxon Baker (??) to use as his rape-persona.  Could he have encountered Saxon somewhere and realized that they resembled each other?  If so it is also evil that he roped in an innocent person.

In the book:

Spoiler

Saxon is Perry's cousin. Saxon had nothing to do with the rapes. Perry just got used his name when he met his rape victims at bars during his business trips. 

[mochamajesty]

33 minutes ago, lovinbob said:

I'm not sure anyone said "Yes, but" about Perry's abuse. I do know that it was interesting to see Perry portrayed as a deeply, deeply flawed human being who wanted to change but seemingly couldn't. Again, if the research I've seen cited here is correct, abusers are rarely "cured." Is that because they think what they're doing is okay? I doubt it ... I think it is likely because they are predisposed by both genetics and their upbringing to deal with their anger, self-hatred, insecurity, and a host of other stimuli and conditions through violence and power dynamics. 

Someone close to me has been emotional abusive, and I know he doesn't think it's right. He hates himself afterwards. But under certain circumstances, it's his go-to response. I don't think that makes him a monster. Nor do I think that his wife should stay with him for it. 

And you're right, of course Celeste can't help Perry change, and certainly it is a tactic abusers use, to make the victim culpable for their abuse. But that's also where I see the damaged child inside the abuser who needs someone to help him overcome his demons. 

I am glad Perry is dead and I am glad Celeste is rid of him, but I also felt profoundly sad for Perry, that his emotional condition is what it was. I think those thoughts can exist alongside each other.

My original reply was deleted, so I will try again.

In the car, Celeste herself said, "I keep hoping that you will change."  To me, that is the danger of those two thoughts co-existing alongside each other.

If you allow me to explain the "Yes, but...".  That is my interpretation of what you are saying. "Yes, Perry is an abuser, but he is also (insert whatever you like - emotionally damaged, wounded )."  Yes, he is emotionally damaged, but (see what I did there?)  the situation is difficult is not impossible to resolve. I frankly do not see the benefit of examining why Perry is the way that he is. The way that the show is written, it does not matter.

The bolded part of your post intrigues me.  Who is going to help Perry? If experts say that abusers rarely change, and no one can help Perry but himself, what does he do?

10 minutes ago, ElectricBoogaloo said:

 

In the book:

  Reveal hidden contents

Saxon is Perry's cousin. Saxon had nothing to do with the rapes. Perry just got used his name when he met his rape victims at bars during his business trips. 

Wow. I have got to read the book.

Edited April 3, 2017 by mochamajesty
added a thought

[susannot]

Thank you EB!  I'm going to dive into the book as soon as I finish my current book.

[EastCoast4Life]

Quote

I loved this finale so much. Bonnie was previously on my dislike list for her quiet condescension; this episode made me not only rethink my perceptions of her, it made me adore her. Not just for the obvious reason of making Perry choke on sharp rebar; but also because it illustrated to me that her blase hippiemom persona was a cloak of sorts, hiding the fact that despite appearances, Bonnie. Misses. Nothing. 

Thank you! I couldn't agree more. We got a hint of the real Bonnie, when Ed shows up at her class and she's doing the "whip." I was like, ok slightly bad ass, then of course in the next scene she's making homemade jewelry. Anyway, I would have never guessed that Bonnie is the one who takes out Perry. She was last on my list. I was on the edge of my seat when Bonnie was following Perry around the party. 

Overall, I loved this. Also, I have a new appreciation for Nicole Kidman's acting, and I never thought that would happen. 

[VioletMarx]

30 minutes ago, mochamajesty said:

 

The bolded part of your post intrigues me.  Who is going to help Perry? If experts say that abusers rarely change, and no one can help Perry but himself, what does he do?

 

A therapist? Not a couples therapist, but I imagine there are those have this particular kind of practice.

Count me in among those who were satisfied with the ending but found the story more interesting when Perry was seeming to struggle. I guess he was BSing during the whole first therapy session, but damn did I find that interesting. I always wonder how wealthy, educated, seemingly self possessed women with a lot financial and social options end up staying with their abusers. That first therapy session gave me a peek into the reality of a woman like Celeste.  She has to believe he can change to stay - what makes her think that? Why does she think she can help him change? All the questions you're asking here I had for Celeste, and I felt like the story was beginning to address them.

Edited April 3, 2017 by VioletMarx

[scarynikki12]

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. 

[mochamajesty]

23 minutes ago, VioletMarx said:

A therapist? Not a couples therapist, but I imagine there are those have this particular kind of practice.

Count me in among those who were satisfied with the ending but found the story more interesting when Perry was seeming to strugge. I guess he was BSing during the whole first therapy session, but damn did I find that interesting. I always wonder how wealthy, educated, seemingly self possessed women with a lot financial and social options end up staying with their abusers. That first therapy session gave me a peek into the reality of a woman like Celeste.  She has to believe he can change to stay - what makes her think that? Why does she think she can help him change? All the questions you're asking here I had for Celeste, and I felt like the story was beginning to address them.

I was not questioning why Celeste thought that she could help him. She thinks that way because that is how Perry has conditioned her to think.  She becomes responsible for him - his happiness ( so that he won't hit her), the relationship itself ("If you prove to me that you love me, I won't hit you.").  Expanding on that, it may also be because of her upbringing (if she grew up in an abusive home, that also conditioned her think that way). 

I am questioning why people think that Perry can be helped at all.  My point about Celeste was that her staying was the result of thinking that Perry can be helped. 

As for therapists, they say that only a small percentage of abusers change.

Edited April 3, 2017 by mochamajesty

[Gem 10]

16 hours ago, archer1267 said:

Maybe someone who read the book knows the answer to this. How did Perry father children who are roughly the same age with two women - was he already married to Celeste when he impregnated Jane (thereby not just a beater, but also a cheater)? Or did he meet Celeste quickly after the night with Jane, have a whirlwind romance with her and then impregnate her with the twins? 

Adam Scott/Ed looked much better clean-shaven.

I think he was a cheater all along.  Those "business trips" .. Probably stalking women in bars and going into hotels and doing who knows what.  The guy was a sick lunatic crazy bastard.  I could barely look at him in the scenes.

[pbutler111]

40 minutes ago, mochamajesty said:

I wondered this as well.

Maybe they worked together? 

A body double for Nicole. Not sure about AS.

It sounded like those blows actually connected - stunt doubles are trained to take them. I wonder if they did.

I just read an interview with Nicole Kidman who said that her husband would be upset because she'd come home covered in real bruises from those scenes.  http://www.nydailynews.com/entertainment/tv/kidman-bruises-big-lies-devastated-urban-article-1.3011214

[pbutler111]

1 hour ago, Anya said:

Don't get me wrong, the scenes were very disturbing, but I'm very curious about how they made the violence look so realistic. Usually in movies/tv, you can see that it isn't quite real. Like when someone chokes someone you can tell there's actually like a half an inch gap between the hand and the throat, and that the actor is just tensing their hand to get the effect. Physical violence in movies/tv generally looks fake and fairly "stuntman" if you look closely, even when well done, and mostly relies on the distraction of the actors ability to extrude anger, and techniques where you actually don't quite touch the actor.

But when Alexander chokes Nicole, slaps her, presses her head into the couch very hard, it looks completely real, like there isn't any technique there to not hurt the actor. So I'm very curious how they achieved that without actually hurting Nicole.

Or if at some extent (which I actually can imagine), she got a little bit hurt during filming, albeit she did it to make the scenes more powerful (which isn't unusual for actors to do to for "the art")

There's probably not an expert on shooting these kinds of scenes in the thread (but one could hope! :), but I'm curious what you think about the filming of those scenes?

Here's an article about it. The story's made the rounds to a lot of publications, but all saying basically the same thing.  http://www.nydailynews.com/entertainment/tv/kidman-bruises-big-lies-devastated-urban-article-1.3011214

[Atlanta]

56 minutes ago, susannot said:

I hope the book fills in a lot of these details.  I'm also wondering where Perry got the name Saxon Baker (??) to use as his rape-persona.  Could he have encountered Saxon somewhere and realized that they resembled each other?  If so it is also evil that he roped in an innocent person.

Spoiler

In the book Jane noticed a real estate pamphlet for the area in Saxon/Perry's hotel room. Her moving there wasn't so random. 

[STOPSHOUTING]

I have mixed feelings about the series. I thought it was well done, atmospheric with some great acting, but it wasn't edge-of-the-seat TV for me, even though I hadn't read the book ... But I have read other Liane Moriarty books and a too-pat ending that can't quite live up to the build-up isn't out of the ordinary.

I knew Ziggy's dad would be one of the hubbys, since she hadn't actually met any of them until Gordon came into the coffee shop.* (As a SAHM mom in a far-less-affulent, but still comfortable, area, I can attest this is NOT unusual; I can name 2-3 dads I see regularly ... And about 30 moms, all of whom have busy and important husbands that, for the most part, I've never seen, but constantly hear about.) I was sort of thinking Perry was too easy a choice, but was hardly shocked to see him outed as Ziggy's papa. Though agree that him remembering Jane from one night 7 years ago is ... unlikely.

I liked the wordless ending and communication between the women a lot, though I fully agree that a cover-up for what we saw happened seems ... Odd and unproductive. To the extent they could actually be in far worse trouble for lying to the police, than for what seemed to have occurred (pure self-denfese that was not at all premeditated).

Regardless, the suspicious cop character was a total unnecessary element, as was about 90% of the talking head gossip we saw that would have had NOTHING to do with the crime and I can't imagine the police would just listen to ad nauseam. Also, all those rich people talking to the cops without a lawyer, specifically the women involved? Seems unlikely. And, while, in the end, logical leap or not, I didn't mind the school gossip Greek chorus, who provided catty atmosphere, I think the series would have been better for omitting Det Skeptic entirely.

Oh and, Ed's "Yep" to Madeline's comment about Bonnie's singing inspiring, "erections around the room" ... Where's a tennis racket when you need one, eh Madeline? (Even though Madeline is more the bad guy in that relationship, I still couldn't help thinking it AND saying it out loud to my husband, who laughed, as we watched.)

*Edited to note later that I am, obviously, wrong about this and just wasn't thinking clearly. Of course Jane had met Gordon earlier at the school during the eye-gouging incident. And Nathan was present at the orientation day, though I hadn't really forgotten that, more hadn't considered Bonnie one of the core group of women, and therefore hadn't thought of Nathan as a "suspect" in the same way.

Edited April 4, 2017 by STOPSHOUTING

[Keepitmoving]

25 minutes ago, mochamajesty said:

I was not questioning why Celeste thought that she could help him. She thinks that way because that is how Perry has conditioned her to think.  She becomes responsible for him - his happiness ( so that he won't hit her), the relationship itself ("If you prove to me that you love me, I won't hit you.").  Expanding on that, it may also be because of her upbringing (if she grew up in an abusive home, that also conditioned her think that way). 

I am questioning why people think that Perry can be helped at all.

Now do therapists state that domestic abusers can't be helped or do they say rarely? Because I know they say sexual abusers cannot be helped, they cannot be reformed. I've heard that about sexual abusers, which would be Perry because he appears to have been a serial rapist. I think some people genuinely want to feel like human beings can be helped, they can be made better, they can be redeemed so we don't have to throw people away. Except, I'm not sure this sentiment applies to all cases. 

In other words, I  think some were hoping he could be helped because they find him handsome,  and Celeste is suppose to be beautiful, they have the "perfect" looking family, if only we could get him well, all would be OK and this "perfect" family could be saved. And look, at least he admits that he has a problem etc... But let him be "ugly," let his behavior not come in a pretty exterior and I doubt there'd be much hope. It's subconscious IMO. 

Some also saw him as a good father. Is it because he never hit his sons?  That people can separate him playing around with his boys, them not reacting in fear when he's around with the fear that he caused in his wife, yep, this too I think plays into it.  That people don't get that he wasn't a good father, I don't care if he paid the bills, and there was nothing material that his sons could ever want for. He was continuing the cycle of violence, that was the legacy he was leaving his sons and it was all that mattered, he had to go.

Edited April 3, 2017 by Keepitmoving

[vixenbynight]

5 hours ago, eastcoastress said:

This. I complained earlier that I didn't love the Maddy affair story. But it does serve the characters of Maddy, Abby, and Ed in their own ways. Ed's being the one I feel most. Last week, Maddy was breaking down and said to Ed "I did something so bad" (or to that effect) and it seemed she was about to confess. Ed reached over (despite his own anguish), touched her hand, and basically shushed her.  He knew. He knew she knew he knew. She knew he knew she knew he knew . And so forth :)  It was the unspoken that said so much (like so much in this series). Ed was being strong for both of them there and that takes quite a bit of character. He wasn't letting Maddy get her confessional; her suffering was hers to bear--which does not mitigate Ed's pain but that was his line to draw and he did with compassion as opposed to spite.

Which is why Maddie broke down crying and running out of the event. When she heard the lyrics of the song that Ed was singing to the entire town (and Maddie) about his love and devotion to her, that crushed the last brittle layer of guilt that she's tried to deny about her role in the affair.

[BTBAM310]

2 hours ago, txhorns79 said:

What a wild ride.  I think my only disappointment is that there will not be a Big Little Lies 2: Electric Boogaloo, as I would love to see the main cast engage in some kind of 80's inspired break dancing charity fund raiser (perhaps for Jane, as she is "poor" by her friends' standards).      

 

Any reference to Breakin' gets a like

[pbutler111]

1 minute ago, STOPSHOUTING said:

Regardless, the suspicious cop character was a total unnecessary element, as was about 90% of the talking head gossip we saw that would have had NOTHING to do with the crime and I can't imagine the police would just listen to it. Also, all those rich people talking to the cops without a lawyer, especially the women involved? Seems unlikely. And, while I didn't mind the talking heads which provided catty atmosphere, I think the series would have been better without Det Skeptic. 

I couldn't agree with you more on this aspect!  Not only was it pointless, but it was unrealistic as well.  No detective worth her salt is going to be wasting time on a case that's so obviously unwinnable.  No DA would ever take on such a case.  The suggestion that she's basically stalking them on the beach was just so beyond.  And that lighter clicking was SO annoying!  It felt so forced.  That character could have been (should have been) lifted right out of the proceedings and not been missed a bit.

[BTBAM310]

2 hours ago, Razzberry said:

The guy dubbing for Scott sounded nothing like him.  I would rather have heard Scott's real voice, terrible or not.

As soon as he started, I thought that it was the worst dubbed voice since Michael J. Fox in Back to the Future.

[STOPSHOUTING]

6 hours ago, mochamajesty said:

And I cannot remember:  did Perry talk to the property manager or listen to the message?  I have a fingerprint scanner on my phone and a backup password for access. Come on, Celeste! 

Yes, but a message could mean a text. And I've got those things too but, for convenience, I also have texts that pop up on my lock screen, so can be read. Or he's a possessive guy so he also monitors her phone and doesn't allow her those privacies.

 

5 hours ago, pbutler111 said:

The women are together at the beach because (1) they have nothing to hide, and, (2) they're all connected in a very visceral way. Not only did they close ranks to protect someone who was really a hero in the situation, but Nathan and Bonnie have children that share a father; Jane and Celeste have children that share a father. I don't think those are the kinds of bonds that go away.

I also like the symbolism that they were always staring at the ocean -- to an easily parody-able degree -- but this was the only time in the series that we saw anyone other than Jane when she was running/running away actually ON and enjoying the beach.

[Teddybear]

Quote

I rewound about 5 times just to see Bonnie push him down those steps. BYE, Perry

Yes I loved it too.  And her tennis serve guttural grunt "agh!" when she pushed him was perfect!  

I'm mad that so many people showed up to that asshole's funeral.  

[mochamajesty]

11 minutes ago, Keepitmoving said:

Now do therapists state that domestic abusers can't be helped or do they say rarely? Because I know they say sexual abusers cannot be helped, they cannot be reformed. I've heard that about sexual abusers, which would be Perry because he appears to have been a serial rapist. I think some people genuinely want to feel like human beings can be helped, they can be made better, they can be redeemed so we don't have to throw people away. Except, I'm not sure this sentiment applies to all cases. 

In other words, I  think some were hoping he could be helped because they find him handsome,  and Celeste is suppose to be beautiful, they have the "perfect" looking family, if only we could get him well, all would be OK and this "perfect" family could be saved. And look, at least he admits that he has a problem etc... But let him be "ugly," let his behavior not come in a pretty exterior and I doubt there'd be much hope. It's subconscious IMO. 

Some also saw him as a good father. Is it because he never hit his sons?  That people can separate him playing around with his boys, them not reacting in fear when he's around with the fear that he caused in his wife, yep, this too I think plays into it.  That people don't get that he wasn't a good father, I don't care if he paid the bills, and there was nothing material that his sons could ever want for. He was continuing the cycle of violence, that was the legacy he was leaving his sons and it was all that mattered, he had to go.

Amen.

And to answer you first question:  They say that abuse victims can be helped 'rarely'.  I thought I included that in my post, but maybe not.

The sexual abuse part is interesting.  You are correct - now that it is confirmed that Perry is a rapist, can he be helped?

I thought we had some therapists posting here -their posts would be more informative than my biased opinions. :)

[kjwillis93]

There are a couple little nuances I wanted to lay out there for further discussion, and I'm actually surprised that when I scrolled through the comments, no one else brought these things up. 

First, I thought Bonnie shoving Perry down the stairs was fitting. I say this because earlier in the episode when Jane tells Celeste about Max being the bully, she mentions something about Max shoving Skye (Bonnie and Nathan's daughter) down some stairs. As some commenters have pointed out, it also makes sense that Bonnie intervened because she recognized the abusive tendencies Perry was exemplifying to Celeste -- even from across the way. The subtly in her reaction is so, so perfect. 

Second, and I might be reaching here, but did anyone else catch the scene between Tom (the barista) and Gordon (Renata's husband) where Tom raises his glass at Gordon, and Gordon responses by doing the same and winking at him? I couldn't help but catch the vibe that maybe Tom and Gordon were lovers. Tom might be closeted (and therefore Madeline wasn't too off base by claiming he was gay), and Gordon having an affair isn't that much of a stretch to me. Everyone seemed to have these scandalous secrets, so that was Gordon's. (And, I'd argue that this wasn't explored much beyond that because it wasn't really relevant to the plot that was unfolding). 

[lovinbob]

1 hour ago, mochamajesty said:

My original reply was deleted, so I will try again.

In the car, Celeste herself said, "I keep hoping that you will change."  To me, that is the danger of those two thoughts co-existing alongside each other.

If you allow me to explain the "Yes, but...".  That is my interpretation of what you are saying. "Yes, Perry is an abuser, but he is also (insert whatever you like - emotionally damaged, wounded )."  Yes, he is emotionally damaged, but (see what I did there?)  the situation is difficult is not impossible to resolve. I frankly do not see the benefit of examining why Perry is the way that he is. The way that the show is written, it does not matter.

The bolded part of your post intrigues me.  Who is going to help Perry? If experts say that abusers rarely change, and no one can help Perry but himself, what does he do?

I really appreciate your posts, mochamajesty, and am not trying to argue but rather to understand. 

I guess my reaction is that a deeply flawed human being (whose behavior is criminal and completely unacceptable) is more realistic than a straight-up monster. (Perhaps this generalization is not accurate, but I've known people whose behavior under certain conditions has been akin to Perry's. Not physically abusive but emotionally so.) Worth exploring? That's in the eye of the beholder, but for me it is worth portraying because it's a dynamic that I believe actually exists. 

With that in mind, though, I found it empowering and absolutely worth portraying that Celeste told Perry she was leaving him and was sticking to her guns even while admitting that part of her hoped he would change. She hoped, but she knew that she could not wait around for it.

I am not knowledgable about the research and am just reacting to the conversation I've heard on these boards. I would *hope* that someone like Perry, if he were truly motivated to change, could be medicated to control his moods and his actions, and could also engage in ongoing therapy. Not sure if that kind of treatment would work. 

*And also, I should have said in my original statement that you quoted--not that the "wounded child" inside of the abuser should actually expect help from his victim, but the abuser wants that kind of help, in that magical thinking way that kids have. The victim can't help; the abuser needs to fix himself. 

Edited April 3, 2017 by lovinbob
Trying to respond more fully.

[pbutler111]

Just now, STOPSHOUTING said:

Yes, but a message could mean a text. And I've got those things too but, for convenience, I also have texts that pop up on my lock screen, so can be read. Or he's a possessive guy so he also monitors her phone and doesn't allow her those privacies.

Perry didn't actually run exactly on track with the typical abuser, since he never did anything to isolate Celeste.  They had a nanny who, if not live-in, was there a lot.  Celeste had easy access to money, to transportation, to communication devices, and to her friends.  Typical abusers don't allow their victims that sort of freedom.  That could be why Celeste assumed that communications on her phone would be safe/private.