S01.E07: You Get What You Need

[Llywela]

4 hours ago, pbutler111 said:

I'm no expert, either, though I have a PhD in watching abuse victims on Dr. Phil.  I've yet to see one of them that didn't follow a well worn path of isolating their victim.  Celeste, by comparison, seems free as a bird.

My kid sister has a PhD in watching dysfunctional families on the Jeremy Kyle Show, but it doesn't follow that every dysfunctional family in the world follows the exact pattern of those who choose to appear on that TV show; a TV show is not a representative sample against which to judge - ETA in fact I'd go so far as to say that people who choose to appear on TV/are chosen to appear on TV represent the exception, rather than the rule.

Celeste's life was highly constrained by Perry. He'd moved her away from all her family and friends, persuaded her to give up her job, resented her having as much as one whole friend, kept her on her toes at all time by showing up unexpectedly when he was meant to be away, watched over her every move - was highly disapproving of her attending a single meeting about the play, then made moves to prevent her attending its opening night. And so on. An abuser doesn't have to lock their victim in an ivory tower to keep them isolated. Sometimes it is a lot more subtle - and therefore a lot more insidious. It's all about the little things, which don't seem like much if you try to explain them to an outsider, but when you put them all together it forms an intricate web of control. That's what Perry did to Celeste.

Edited April 4, 2017 by Llywela

[CofCinci]

If Perry wasn't killed that night, Ed and Madeline's marriage would be over.

[Snappy]

On 4/2/2017 at 10:37 PM, Penman61 said:

Agreed, which is why the final shot via binoculars, POV of the investigating cop (which Kelley confirmed in the After The Show segment) was so unnecessary.  This case is going nowhere, even if someone produces a video recording of The Shove.  

Why did Reese think and say Dreamy Barista Guy (DBG) was gay?  Do straight guys use that to keep the MILFs at bay?

This may have already been answered, but this part of the story was much more developed in the book. Basically, everyone just assumed he was gay when he wasn't.

[vixenbynight]

2 hours ago, Llywela said:

My kid sister has a PhD in watching dysfunctional families on the Jeremy Kyle Show, but it doesn't follow that every dysfunctional family in the world follows the exact pattern of those who choose to appear on that TV show; a TV show is not a representative sample against which to judge - ETA in fact I'd go so far as to say that people who choose to appear on TV/are chosen to appear on TV represent the exception, rather than the rule.

Celeste's life was highly constrained by Perry. He'd moved her away from all her family and friends, persuaded her to give up her job, resented her having as much as one whole friend, kept her on her toes at all time by showing up unexpectedly when he was meant to be away, watched over her every move - was highly disapproving of her attending a single meeting about the play, then made moves to prevent her attending its opening night. And so on. An abuser doesn't have to lock their victim in an ivory tower to keep them isolated. Sometimes it is a lot more subtle - and therefore a lot more insidious. It's all about the little things, which don't seem like much if you try to explain them to an outsider, but when you put them all together it forms an intricate web of control. That's what Perry did to Celeste.

Which gives me more insight and understanding as to why Celeste never tried to hint to Maddie that there was something off about her married life with Perry. Another poster talked about the one time we saw Maddie at Celeste's home, as Perry walked in. Celeste was having a nice moment with her friend, interacting with her and Perry walks in and makes that moment about him. Wondering why his wife is laughing so hard. Were they talking about him? Are they laughing about him?

It had to be mentally, emotionally on top of physically exhausting for Celeste to deal with Perry and his needs for all that time.

Edited April 4, 2017 by vixenbynight

[hoodooznoodooz]

So how did Perry smell?

[eastcoastress]

7 hours ago, ElectricBoogaloo said:

I interpreted that moment very differently. I saw Tom giving Gordon the stink eye due to the scene in the cafe. Then Gordon turned and saw Tom staring at him so Tom tried to be sociable by raising his glass to say hi (it's always awkward when you get caught looking at someone - my reactions have usually been to wave hi or to awkwardly look away). Gordon gave him the equivalent of finger guns as if to say, "Ha, caught you staring at me, JERK!"

This brief interaction amused the hell out of me. It was such an alpha male moment (or Gordon's attempt at one). Very I see you looking at me, but I got eyes on you too, bub!  On the surface, just two guys being all cool with their hellos but some clear subtext. Also, I wonder if Gordon didn't feel a little stupid after being told to leave the cafe but at benefit he's keeping the front (to Tom) of "That's right, I'm in your grill, we're leagues above you, but here's my schwanky hello wink wink"

8 hours ago, pbutler111 said:

I'm no expert, either, though I have a PhD in watching abuse victims on Dr. Phil.  I've yet to see one of them that didn't follow a well worn path of isolating their victim.  Celeste, by comparison, seems free as a bird.

Obviously mileage varies on this. But for all the previously mentioned reasons, Celeste (to me) was the very opposite of free. Perry was calculating; he (and Celeste) had to create the illusion of happiness and that Celeste was 'free' (as I said in previous post). Otherwise, a truly home bound Celeste could draw suspicions, especially from a busy body like Madeline!  But Perry (this is in my opinion) *liked* giving off a certain controlling vibe. I think he wanted Celeste's friends (basically the other moms at school) to think to themselves "hey, Perry is so smooth, really has it all together, runs a tight ship, and look how much Celeste & those boys adore him with always being there for him, responding to him, etc...."  Almost as if Perry liked that Celeste's outside circle was *just* wary enough but not so much to be creeped out or suspicious. To make other think "Celeste probably can't (talk, go, hang out) because (Perry)" but in a healthy way (like Celeste is just all about her husband). To Perry it was a calculating balance and it achieved an air of mystery for him which both fed his ego and kept things under his control. 

To be questioned every time that Celeste made plans without Perry (either for herself or the boys) with "Why wasn't this  discussed with me " (followed by tense back and forth & culminating in the eventual beating) is not my idea of free. But Perry was careful to afford Celeste certain, limited freedoms that kept up the illusion of their fab family life and her utter fulfillment as a woman, wife, and mother. All illusion. Which takes one crafty fucker. Which is also why, when Perry finally snapped, it was so very complete. To the point you could see & hear him unhinge. The vocal intonations, the wild gazing about, stuttering, the snapping at others. Illusion blown. 

[mochamajesty]

15 hours ago, Winston9-DT3 said:

I think whether you choose to see abusive men as irredeemable monsters or as deserving as some sympathy is a personal choice not too far from matters of faith so it's hard to argue one view is more right than another.  I don't think anyone who feels some sympathy for the monsters among us is condoning their behavior.  Even the writer and director felt sympathy for Perry.  It might be unpopular or unrealistic but it's not appalling or wrong (in some objective sense), in my opinion.  

We will have to agree to disagree.

If you are not condoning or excusing Perry, what are you saying when you say that he deserves sympathy?

13 hours ago, Bitsy said:

My understanding was that the writer and director tried to portray Perry as somewhat sympathetic in the first few episodes in order to get the audience to think about him a certain way, not that they actually felt he was a sympathetic character.  I think subsequent episodes were meant to demonstrate how easy it is to get sucked in by someone so manipulative.

I never saw Perry wracked with guilt.  I never saw him show any remorse.  And I didn't see him showing any real love to Celeste.

After a beating, Perry would express remorse to Celeste and say he wanted to change until it was clear that Celeste was pacified enough not to leave him, and then he immediately launched into the next abuse cycle.  As Celeste said in the car, he never took a single action to actually get help.  

As the abuse intensified, he no longer bothered to show any remorse ("Get up.  You're fine.  You just had the wind knocked out of you") because he thought he had Celeste so much under his control that it was no longer necessary.

And I didn't see him love Celeste.  Whenever he expressed "concern" for her well-being, it was when he was trying to prevent her from doing something that didn't involve him (working, spending time with her friends).

After a beating he would stage a romantic gesture (like dancing in the kitchen) to re-establish the status quo and remind her of why she wanted to stay.  But practically all of their affection was coercive - he demanded kisses/affection/sex/a baby out of her, usually at a time when it was inconvenient to her.  She almost always obliged; the tennis racket incident is what happened when she didn't.  

I just don't see actual textual evidence from the show supporting the idea that he was genuinely remorseful, conflicted, or wanting to change.  The one example I can think of where his emotion may have been genuine was when he was crying in the airport, but I thought that was relief that Celeste had, yet again, decided not to leave him. 

To paraphrase Jane, all I know about Perry is that he's keen on raping women, erotic asphyxiation, and beating up his wife.  And I feel pretty darn comfortable calling him a monster because of it.

Thank you, Bitsy, for saying this eloquently.  The writers have not given us any iota of remorse from Perry aside from that fake therapy session.   It would have been easy for them to have Perry show remorse right after he was almost caught strangling Celeste, but they chose instead to have him sail right out the door as if nothing happened.

I like what you said about Perry sucking people in.  You have to look no further than the thread about the couple's therapy episode.

 

12 hours ago, lovinbob said:

I am a little obsessed with serial killers and also binge-watched and -read tons of OJ movies and books lately, so your comment really does give me pause. None of those individuals could be saved, I agree. The OJ comparison really hits home. Based on what we know Perry's treatment of Celeste was very much like OJ's of Nicole. And you're right, I don't think OJ was ever going to change. Not sure he was ever capable of real remorse.

Is there only one kind of DV perpetrator? I don't know the answer to that question. But I am coming around to the notion that Perry's reveal as Jane's rapist is meant to show that the only end to Perry's brutality was his murder. 

Thank you for this. I haven't seen either of these films in many years so these references were lost on me, but brilliant! Nice job, Film Noire, and nice job, show!

No, there is not  only one kind of DV perpetrator. I believe that this was the writer's point. Many people (some on this forum) have point-blank said that DV only happens to poor people - or that Celeste is not realistic as a DV victim because she is an attorney.  I believe - and I have read no articles so this is my opinion - that the writers wanted to convey that yes, DV can happen to anyone.  An abuser is as likely to look like Perry as Stanley Kowalski.

Edited April 4, 2017 by mochamajesty

[stagmania]

15 hours ago, tennisgurl said:

I'm going to miss this show so much! I was really impressed by this series. The early reviews made it sound like some kind of trashy soap opera, but it was much more then that. 

It really drives home the way people undervalue entertainment made by and for women. I think it was Emily Nussbaum of the New Yorker who pointed out that Big Little Lies deals with all the same themes as True Detective, yet one was automatically viewed as prestige TV, while the other was called a trashy soap and outright dismissed by some male critics. 

15 hours ago, mochamajesty said:

I agree. I think it comes down to if you believe Perry feels remorse. I don't. 

I really appreciate the thoughtful conversation about Perry here, and the nuances people have teased out, but I agree with this. Perry's remorse was only ever part of a performance. 

13 hours ago, Bitsy said:

My understanding was that the writer and director tried to portray Perry as somewhat sympathetic in the first few episodes in order to get the audience to think about him a certain way, not that they actually felt he was a sympathetic character.  I think subsequent episodes were meant to demonstrate how easy it is to get sucked in by someone so manipulative.

I think this is exactly what they intended, and they did a fairly good job of it. Even though I have experience with this kind of thing, I still found myself questioning how I was supposed to perceive Perry in the early episodes, and wondered if they were actually attempting to portray genuine remorse from him. But as the show went on, it became clear that he was just doing and saying what he needed to as a means to manipulate Celeste. Manipulating the audience along with her is a pretty interesting way to help us understand her perspective.

9 hours ago, mojoween said:

I don't understand why the director of the play and his wife were at Trivia Night, did they have a kid?  I don't remember seeing one.  And the wife really should have toned down the staring.  She might as well have been wearing a neon sign that said "your wife fucked my husband" so she could be sure Ed saw it.

It was a big fundraiser for the school, not a parent night. I assume there were some prominent community members (like the local theater director) who would be expected to come regardless of whether they had children at the school.

7 hours ago, stanleyk said:

I'm not sure why "isolated" needs to mean a single thing; it seems like your definition is limited to a person having zero contact with the outside world. I'm no expert, but isolation in the context of domestic abuse seems like it could take many forms. As another poster pointed out, Celeste has a single real friend. Perry has cut her off from her family and work. Celeste herself said that Perry wanted her to have little contact with her family. We saw her have drinks with Maddy once and coffee with Maddy and Jane a couple times. Domestic help may act as a witness, but isolation in this context is more about isolating a person from emotional support, not keeping them locked up and literally unable to communicate.

Isolation can look like a lot of different things, because the abuser has to calibrate it to fit the woman's existing situation without raising too many alarm bells. My sister, for instance, is part of a huge and close family, so she could never be completely cut off from us without the cavalry charging in. Instead, her isolation took the form of not being able to be honest with us about anything, obfuscating and sometimes straight up lying about what was happening in her home, and avoiding too much contact with the more perceptive/pushy members of the family who would question her more frankly. 

[mochamajesty]

10 minutes ago, stagmania said:

It really drives home the way people undervalue entertainment made by and for women. I think it was Emily Nussbaum of the New Yorker who pointed out that Big Little Lies deals with all the same themes as True Detective, yet one was automatically viewed as prestige TV, while the other was called a trashy soap and outright dismissed by some male critics. 

I really appreciate the thoughtful conversation about Perry here, and the nuances people have teased out, but I agree with this. Perry's remorse was only ever part of a performance. 

I think this is exactly what they intended, and they did a fairly good job of it. Even though I have experience with this kind of thing, I still found myself questioning how I was supposed to perceive Perry in the early episodes, and wondered if they were actually attempting to portray genuine remorse from him. But as the show went on, it became clear that he was just doing and saying what he needed to as a means to manipulate Celeste. Manipulating the audience along with her is a pretty interesting way to help us understand her perspective.

It was a big fundraiser for the school, not a parent night. I assume there were some prominent community members (like the local theater director) who would be expected to come regardless of whether they had children at the school.

Isolation can look like a lot of different things, because the abuser has to calibrate it to fit the woman's existing situation without raising too many alarm bells. My sister, for instance, is part of a huge and close family, so she could never be completely cut off from us without the cavalry charging in. Instead, her isolation took the form of not being able to be honest with us about anything, obfuscating and sometimes straight up lying about what was happening in her home, and avoiding too much contact with the more perceptive/pushy members of the family who would question her more frankly. 

Great post.

Regarding your last paragraph, this can emotionally wear on a person - having to always keep several balls in the air, always with the ultimate goal of making the abuser happy.  That is yet another reason why Celeste won't leave until she sees no other alternative.  Aside from the shame, guilt, etc., she is just plain worn down and exhausted.

[ElectricBoogaloo]

12 minutes ago, stagmania said:

It really drives home the way people undervalue entertainment made by and for women. I think it was Emily Nussbaum of the New Yorker who pointed out that Big Little Lies deals with all the same themes as True Detective, yet one was automatically viewed as prestige TV, while the other was called a trashy soap and outright dismissed by some male critics.

I agree that the perception is totally biased, despite the fact that the book was a best seller and the people who obtained the rights for the show are both Oscar award winners. Since all three of those people are female, the assumption is that it's a soap opera for chicks. I think that the people who complained Luke Cage was "too black" had the same problem - because it wasn't told from a straight male point of view, it was "too ______" which is sad.

Quote

I think this is exactly what they intended, and they did a fairly good job of it. Even though I have experience with this kind of thing, I still found myself questioning how I was supposed to perceive Perry in the early episodes, and wondered if they were actually attempting to portray genuine remorse from him. But as the show went on, it became clear that he was just doing and saying what he needed to as a means to manipulate Celeste. Manipulating the audience along with her is a pretty interesting way to help us understand her perspective.

I think it was a good way to get the audience to understand Celeste's mindset, especially since that first therapy session took place in one of the early episodes (I think it was the second episode?) so what we'd seen so far was Perry slapping her, Celeste slapping him back, Perry shoving her against the closet, and then they had sex (where Celeste was shown to be the one unbuckling his pants). Putting that together with Celeste's description of their passion for each other and Perry saying he needed help put the audience in the position of seeing things from Celeste's perspective, that her husband had some anger/impulse issues but that he wanted to change which is one of the reasons she kept forgiving him: she believed him when he apologized and said he'd never do it again and he wanted to change. Meanwhile she managed to convince herself that the rough sex was consensual and mutual and a sign that he loved her because he was so passionate. It's much easier for people who have been in or witnessed abusive relationships to see through Perry's bullshit and know that he was saying whatever he needed to say in order to manipulate Celeste and keep her exactly where she was.

As for why Tori and Joseph were at trivia night, it was a fundraiser for a local elementary school. Any time an organization is trying to make money, the more the merrier. If you've ever been to a fundraising party, you know that not everyone there has a personal connection to the cause. Some people are there to show their faces. It's especially true in a smaller community. Think about when Gordon suggested staying home and Renata listed all the reasons why they HAD to go. It wouldn't be quite as bad for certain non-parents not to attend but there are certain people who at least have to make an appearance. Heh, plus how will people know you donated if you aren't at the party?

[QuinnM]

Why did Bonnie kill Perry?

Jane - She described her rapist as being into erotic asphyxiation. 

Celeste - We see Perry with his hands around her throat during sex.

When Bonnie sees Perry and Celeste fighting she has a strong reaction.  She watches Celeste leave and make a phone call and then head to the terrace.  Bonnie continues to watch Perry and follows him when he leaves for the terrace.  She leaves while Nathan is singing his song to her.  She stands and watches the verbal confrontation and puts her hands to her throat.  The confrontation gets physical and she runs down and pushes him down the steps.  Later we see her on the beach, again putting her hands on her throat.

Perry raped Bonnie.

That's my theory.

[Guest]

1 hour ago, mochamajesty said:

We will have to agree to disagree.

If you are not condoning or excusing Perry, what are you saying when you say that he deserves sympathy?

Definitely to that first one.  

Some can separate the man from the behavior.  The behavior is inexcusable and of course no one condones it.  Just like no one said 'all abuse victims are poor'.  That's twisting peoples' words.  None of these are 'black and white' issues.  

One message in the story is that monsters aren't born, they're made.  Ziggy has his genes and is sweet, Max is learning to bully.  Celeste's responding to Max with love instead of more hate is an appropriate response to his bad behavior.  If he's a monster, she should hate him and punish him.  He's a person like his father and has learned some bad behaviors.  He's on a scale of violence with his father.  Some of us believe we're not the arbiter of when a person is too far down that scale to be worthy of sympathy, or that there is no point when a man is simply a monster and there is none of the human/boy left.  It's probably what most of the world's major religions teach. 

But I have a feeling you'll read that as 'she sees Perry as 'not black' therefore she seems him as 'white' and good and fully condones his behavior and is promoting domestic violence and encouraging battered wives to stay', which is about 179 degrees not the case.  

[Mabinogia]

12 hours ago, stillshimpy said:

 I don't think the writers wanted anyone to sympathize with or like Perry, or feel pity for him either.  It's just good characterization to add in layers to a depiction

I feel like they kind of wanted us to feel the way Celeste must have felt in their relationship. At first the abuse was more subtle, seems almost like foreplay, maybe they are both into it, you could almost understand that he might think she liked it too, that it was just their secret way. But then it got worse, you saw the manipulation more, the well timed seductions that kept her from going away. You start to realize he is pretty awful, but he shows some remorse.  It's hard to really know if he means it at this point. But then it gets worse and you know. Any you are yelling at Celeste to get out before she gets killed. You see that this isn't going to get better.

I think the way it unraveled was beautifully done. In the beginning, while I still wanted Celeste to leave him, I did think Perry was sorry. Towards the end, that went away and I realized he is beyond the point of redemption. The only satisfying outcome was his death. It was all just so well written and well acted. Emmy's all around I say.

[pbutler111]

5 hours ago, Llywela said:

My kid sister has a PhD in watching dysfunctional families on the Jeremy Kyle Show, but it doesn't follow that every dysfunctional family in the world follows the exact pattern of those who choose to appear on that TV show; a TV show is not a representative sample against which to judge - ETA in fact I'd go so far as to say that people who choose to appear on TV/are chosen to appear on TV represent the exception, rather than the rule.

Celeste's life was highly constrained by Perry. He'd moved her away from all her family and friends, persuaded her to give up her job, resented her having as much as one whole friend, kept her on her toes at all time by showing up unexpectedly when he was meant to be away, watched over her every move - was highly disapproving of her attending a single meeting about the play, then made moves to prevent her attending its opening night. And so on. An abuser doesn't have to lock their victim in an ivory tower to keep them isolated. Sometimes it is a lot more subtle - and therefore a lot more insidious. It's all about the little things, which don't seem like much if you try to explain them to an outsider, but when you put them all together it forms an intricate web of control. That's what Perry did to Celeste.

Sorry, I thought it was obvious I was joking about Dr. Phil. About the rest, we just disagree.

1 hour ago, QuinnM said:

Why did Bonnie kill Perry?

Jane - She described her rapist as being into erotic asphyxiation. 

Celeste - We see Perry with his hands around her throat during sex.

When Bonnie sees Perry and Celeste fighting she has a strong reaction.  She watches Celeste leave and make a phone call and then head to the terrace.  Bonnie continues to watch Perry and follows him when he leaves for the terrace.  She leaves while Nathan is singing his song to her.  She stands and watches the verbal confrontation and puts her hands to her throat.  The confrontation gets physical and she runs down and pushes him down the steps.  Later we see her on the beach, again putting her hands on her throat.

Perry raped Bonnie.

That's my theory.

I had that thought, briefly. But, as far as I know, Bonnie has been around a while, and, while it's understandable that Jane hadn't yet seen Perry, it seems unlikely that Bonnie hasn't met him or at least seen him at school functions.  My takeaway was that Bonnie either had been an abuse victim or was raised in a home with a father/stepfather who abused her mother.  Maybe her background is explained a bit more in the book?

[Guest]

A lot of these answers are in the book, and the book thread.  

[MV007]

I didn't think too much about Bonnie killing Perry.  It seemed pretty straight forward.  Perry is a pretty big man and if she didn't step in it didn't seem unlikely that he could overpower all of the other women.  So she rushed in and shoved him.  I don't know that she intended to kill Perry.  It was a consequences be damned thing.  She just had to do something before he killed on of the women.

As for any critical reception belittling the show's quality, I wouldn't be too concerned with it.  The show is a massive success and I've seen nothing but positive reviews.  I only see these kinds of negative reviews when people here point them out.  The show and its actors will get nominated for a shit ton of awards and will win their fair share.  Is it annoying? Sure, but I don't think it raises to any kind of level to be concerning.

Edited April 4, 2017 by MV007

[polyhymnia]

12 hours ago, stillshimpy said:

She would need to pay off whatever was owed on that house if she sold it and she'd keep the difference.   I'm assuming Perry would have life insurance and presumably, they have savings but selling the house might be the thing that yields the least, depending on how long they've had it.   I don't know that she'd be set for life and I don't think she'd actually get his life insurance if she'd killed him, even in self-defense but I confess, I don't know.  
I didn't really understand the detective's assertion that she'd get 12 months community service and "would be out in three-to-five (community service is assigned in hours, isn't it?).  If Celeste had killed him in defense of her own life, I didn't understand why there would be any charges.  

Also, maybe she will want to be a practicing attorney again.  She seemed to enjoy her foray back into that world and it gave her a bit of a confidence boost.  A felony conviction would be problematic .  Of course, she isn't the one that killed Perry anyway but possibly the detective suspects otherwise.

Self-defense is a defense to be raised during a trial and would result in an acquittal, rather than a reduced sentence or a reduced charge - so that part didn't make any sense to me at all.  I guess the cop is maybe talking about some sort of deferred adjudication for manslaughter.  But, I agree that the 12 months community service + 3-5 years of ?? something didn't make any sense.  Obviously, if the law enforcement agency thought she had a good self-defense claim they might not arrest in the first place.  This one is complicated by the fact that Celeste isn't the killer.  Bonnie might have a defense of others claim (same result - acquittal if defense raised successfully) but that one is a little more murky than self-defense (and honestly, I don't know what the law in California is regarding defense of others).  Practically, I am not sure that many police departments would dig deeper in a case where you have a victim with obvious bruises that match her story and a dead guy that probably did the abusing.  OTOH, it's a smaller community with a department that probably doesn't get a ton of homicides so maybe the detective is just bored.  The investigation works as a framing device but that's about it, IMO.

[MaryWebGirl]

5 hours ago, CofCinci said:

If Perry wasn't killed that night, Ed and Madeline's marriage would be over.

It could still be after the dust settles. Perry's death may change the way Madeline feels about Bonnie and as an extension of that make her more civil to Nathan, but I don't see how it changes her feelings towards Ed. It's an anecdote, but my sister's marriage was on the rocks when she was mugged. Her husband supported her emotionally for a few months, but then it went back to the way it was before and they still ended up divorcing.

[Clanstarling]

On 4/2/2017 at 9:20 PM, vixenbynight said:

I do find it interesting that the whole theme of the fundraiser had the men being costumed as this ultimate alpha male between the 50s until his death, Elvis. While the women were costumed as the image of femininity as Audrey Hepburn was in the 50s and 60s. Yet, all of these women fought off a threat and protected one another.

Not just femininity - but (seemingly) fragile femininity. And yet she was anything but. Perfect metaphor.

22 hours 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.

For some reason, that's what I thought from the get-go. I don't know if it was supported by any line of dialogue, but that's how I thought of her move for the entire series.

21 hours ago, ElectricBoogaloo said:

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.

I agree. In my own personal life, I've had (or been the witness to) three extraordinary experiences like that, which no one would believe in a story. So I tend to hand wave it a little bit.

19 hours ago, kjwillis93 said:

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). 

Not in that particular scene, but when Gordon came into the cafe just before he threatened Jane - I caught that vibe. I think I was wrong though, given everything else.

18 hours ago, scrb said:

But the song choices are strange too.  Ed wasn't the only one singing to his wife, a very intimate expression in front of all the town people. sexpot?

Has anyone looked at the full lyrics of the song Bonnie was singing. Because, for all that it was beautiful, if you look at the lyrics in a slightly different way, it's Perry's theme song. http://www.azlyrics.com/lyrics/elvispresley/dont.html

On the other hand, the women's theme song could be Goodbye Earl.

I don't think a monster necessarily lacks nuance or humanity - in fact, I think those that who are portrayed with both are the most interesting monsters around. Perry was, imo, a monster with both nuance and humanity. For me, a monster with some recognizable humanity is far more frightening and disturbing.

[meep.meep]

9 hours ago, ElectricBoogaloo said:

 

From the first episode:
Dr. Chang: There was a 4x3 full thickness scalp laceration located on the superior occipital portion of the scalp. We also discovered a full thickness scalp contusion and associated subgaleal hemorrhages and a putrified and liquified brain.

 

Thank you.  My elderly brain cells finally have a win.

I have no problem with the ending, but I don't think what they showed of dead Perry matched any of this.

[Clanstarling]

18 hours ago, stillshimpy said:

Perry is worse because he is simply an incredibly damaging, damaged person who understands the enormity of the horror he inflicts and does it anyway.  

It's not a pardon, it's a condemnation. 

I love this observation.

Edited April 4, 2017 by Clanstarling

[Tara Ariano]

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

In The Series Finale, Big Little Lies Reveals All

The TL;DR is basically that girls rule, boys drool.

[Athena]

If you have said your opinion more than once about something, you can move on to another subject. Back and forth discussions are derailing this topic. You can Ignore users you disagree with in your Control Panel.

[Razzberry]

Those stairs were an accident waiting to happen.  Celeste should sue them for negligence.

[Guest]

I was even balking at Maddie ripping down the tape at the bottom of the stairs over and over.  Kudos again to Reese for making a character who was objectively pretty obnoxious as likable as she was.  

[stillshimpy]

4 hours ago, ElectricBoogaloo said:

Putting that together with Celeste's description of their passion for each other and Perry saying he needed help put the audience in the position of seeing things from Celeste's perspective, that her husband had some anger/impulse issues but that he wanted to change which is one of the reasons she kept forgiving him: she believed him when he apologized and said he'd never do it again and he wanted to change.

 

 

 

 

Nicely put throughout, and I just wanted to add that this episode gives us an answer,  a definitive one, on how real Perry's remorse was or wasn't:  Perry in the car saying he wants to change, he will change, he will blah blah blah...blah...and Celeste asks, "Did you make an appointment?"  and his answer gives the game entirely away, "Not yet, but I will".  It's textual how seriously we are to take Perry's remorse, he might feel it to some shallow degree but it isn't even enough to make him schedule an appointment with someone that could help him change.   He is within inches of killing or hospitalizing his wife on a regular basis by this point in the story but has he taken a meaningful step towards change that doesn't involve "couples" counseling?  

No, and if he hasn't by now, nothing will ever make him.  Not his son's clearly knowing (and there's a disturbing implication for Max that I will get to in a moment).  Not his wife constantly recovering from brutal assaults.   No amount of tears or wall punching or self-recrimination can surmount that big, glaring bullhorn of a declaration:  Not yet.  

 

Not yet is the realm of things that can be put off.   Not yet is the tooth that's bothering you, but you fail to book the appointment because the pain isn't constant for you yet.   Not yet is the hallmark of something a person does not actually want to do.   

Perry answered the question all by himself.  What would make it "now's the time!"?  Her dead body?   He raped Jane seven years ago and who knows what he's been up to in the interim other than beating his wife bloody and bruised but "Not yet" is the answer to when he plans to change.  He doesn't.  He never planned to.  

People can and do change but they actually have to want to badly enough to change themselves and Perry did not.  Not yet in these matters means not ever because if he hasn't noticed the "Holy shit, am I ever out of control" by now, he never, ever will and he was just manipulating her with his promises.  

On the Max thing, one of the implications is that he might have a crush on Amabella.  That was the one that just made me nearly make an "oof" sound in  my own turn.  We never saw rage issues from either of the twins.  If he was simply having meltdowns, unable to control his own behavior, it would have been obvious to the teacher.  He was controlling Amabella and the terrifying implication beyond the other terrifying parts of that was that it might have been about having a crush on her.   I both love and am heartbroken by the fact that that is what it took for Celeste to draw the line in the sand.  Knowing that what Perry does is breaking his children.    

Not all abusers are beyond help but they have to want very actively to change.  Perry's answer was "not yet" the evening after he beat his wife so badly she was unable to get up from the floor.   For me, that put paid to invoice and closed the account for good.  

7 hours ago, CofCinci said:

 

If Perry wasn't killed that night, Ed and Madeline's marriage would be over.

 

 

 

 

Maybe, maybe not.  Ed seemed to know, I think he stopped Maddy from confessing in the last episode because he had an inkling of what it was she was about to say and he wanted that protective denial.  When he took his drink and continued,  I felt like he was deciding what to do going forward, now that he felt the knowledge was concrete.   Maddy, watching him, knowing how much she had wounded someone who loved her without reservation finally had to confront that it wasn't just her marriage she was risking, she was risking Ed's ability to love and trust, not merely her but in going forward.   

I think Ed was meant to be envious of the passion that Bonnie and Nathan felt for one another and it is a weird thing that both Ed and Nathan were really the two guys (other than Tom but we barely know him) who emerged as worthwhile men while having flaws.  Ed was trying to resolve his own feelings of inadequacy by having a posturing contest with Nathan, who had a beautiful, adoring young wife and Ed had to live with the knowledge that Maddy had never really gotten over being left by Nathan.   

Yet for all that Nathan could be his own brand of twerp when he said to Maddy, "I root for you" and then really warmly greeted Chloe in the backseat, I got it finally.  I got his appeal.  Nathan was a guy who really was trying and trying doesn't mean perfection.  He'd have setbacks but he appeared to be making steady progress.  

When Ed had his back to the audience, I felt like he was checking in with his own commitment level going forward with this increasingly certain knowledge.  And he turned around and sang the song anyway.  

I think he was emotionally injured in the extreme but it was because he does love Maddy and will continue to love Maddy.  It just really, really hurt and Maddy saw that injury and finally freaking got what she had done to him.   

Joseph viciously lashing out in the face of a far less devastating emotional injury was such a giant contrast to Ed ordering a triple, contemplating his life and wearing his heart on his sleeve as he turned around to sing.  

There were some really lovely illustrations of love in this series.  Also, I loved how wise Jane got to be on multiple occasions.  Welcoming Maddy to the Fuck Up club we all inhabit to different degrees from time to time.  

I think if Perry hadn't been killed the talk she was going to have with Ed would no longer have been about unburdening her conscience but actually owning what she had done, its ramifications and the work she had to do going forward.  

Edited April 4, 2017 by stillshimpy

[Razzberry]

6 hours ago, CofCinci said:

 

If Perry wasn't killed that night, Ed and Madeline's marriage would be over.

 

 I was more concerned about a drunken misguided confession to Ed than the murder.. I mean accident.  It's one thing to suspect but I'm pretty sure Ed doesn't want it confirmed.

[Clanstarling]

31 minutes ago, stillshimpy said:

No, and if he hasn't by now, nothing will ever make him.  Not his son's clearly knowing (and there's a disturbing implication for Max that I will get to in a moment).  Not his wife constantly recovering from brutal assaults.   No amount of tears or wall punching or self-recrimination can surmount that big, glaring bullhorn of a declaration:  Not yet. 

Not yet is the realm of things that can be put off.   Not yet is the tooth that's bothering you, but you fail to book the appointment because the pain isn't constant for you yet.   Not yet is the hallmark of something a person does not actually want to do.  

You have a way with words, stillshimpy.

[ElectricBoogaloo]

3 hours ago, MV007 said:

As for any critical reception belittling the show's quality, I wouldn't be too concerned with it.  The show is a massive success and I've seen nothing but positive reviews.  I only see these kinds of negative reviews when people here point them out.  The show and its actors will get nominated for a shit ton of awards and will win their fair share.  Is it annoying? Sure, but I don't think it raises to any kind of level to be concerning.

Sexism and the diminishing of female accomplishment is not just "annoying." It shows a fundamental bias towards women, what they create, and their worth, which IS concerning. It's why chick lit is dismissed as fluff. It's why women are paid less. The True Detective vs Big Little Lies comparison from above is a perfect example of this kind of double standard. TD was lauded as art. BLL was dismissed as just a trashy soap opera. 

[eastcoastress]

1 hour ago, stillshimpy said:

Not yet is the realm of things that can be put off.   Not yet is the tooth that's bothering you, but you fail to book the appointment because the pain isn't constant for you yet.   Not yet is the hallmark of something a person does not actually want to do.   

Perry answered the question all by himself.  What would make it "now's the time!"?  Her dead body?   He raped Jane seven years ago and who knows what he's been up to in the interim other than beating his wife bloody and bruised but "Not yet" is the answer to when he plans to change.  He doesn't.  He never planned to.  

 

I'm obviously losing focus because while I don't disagree, all I could think of was Syrio Forel on GoT. 

What does Perry say to making a counseling appointment?

[Keepitmoving]

29 minutes ago, ElectricBoogaloo said:

Sexism and the diminishing of female accomplishment is not just "annoying." It shows a fundamental bias towards women, what they create, and their worth, which IS concerning. It's why chick lit is dismissed as fluff. It's why women are paid less. The True Detective vs Big Little Lies comparison from above is a perfect example of this kind of double standard. TD was lauded as art. BLL was dismissed as just a trashy soap opera. 

Actually I tried to watch True Detective the first season and I did not enjoy it, I could not get into it and I failed to see what all the hype was. Except for Mr. Fine Alright, Alright, Alright headlining it with Woody Harrelson, I was like WTF is this?  Meanwhile season two of True Detective that got less than stellar reviews I did get into because Rachel McAdams was headlining it along with Vince Vaughn and Colin Farell. But I just got into the story more in general and I do think it was partly because she was the lead. So to each their own, and on a side note, IMO HBO does not put money on purely soapy material, if I want to see that there are tons of other basic networks including daytime tv, so the negative reviews calling it soapy, well I called bullshit on that from the start because this show was going to be on HBO. I was like nice try, HBO's got money to spend and it has been my experience that nine times out of ten they've spent it wisely and not on soapy material, please. 

Edited April 4, 2017 by Keepitmoving

[monakane]

6 hours ago, mochamajesty said:

No, there is not  only one kind of DV perpetrator. I believe that this was the writer's point. Many people (some on this forum) have point-blank said that DV only happens to poor people - or that Celeste is not realistic as a DV victim because she is an attorney.  I believe - and I have read no articles so this is my opinion - that the writers wanted to convey that yes, DV can happen to anyone.  An abuser is as likely to look like Perry as Stanley Kowalski.

Well said.  A good friend of mine married a successful, educated man who abused her on a regular basis.  She stayed with him for years because of her children. When she left him and the story came out, everyone was shocked.  I saw my friend in Celeste.

[lovinbob]

14 hours ago, eastcoastress said:

Oh that's right!  I did remember a slightly compensating tone from Madeleine when she responded to Perry's " what's making my wife laugh so carefree without my presence "  ( obviously not his words but what I heard heh). Nothing distinct but I did  get impression that Madeleine felt uneasy in his presence. Maybe uneasy is wrong word ... maddy interacted with Perry like he was someone she barely sees , with perfunctory dialogue. Interesting scene. I'll have to rewatch 

I get it. I have that vibe with my friends' husbands whom I don't know very well and am intimidated by. Not my friends whom I have known for years and years. 

13 hours ago, Auntie Anxiety said:

She had no one she could really talk to without fear of being judged, no one she could really be herself with. That in and of itself is isolating.

Absolutely.

42 minutes ago, ElectricBoogaloo said:

Sexism and the diminishing of female accomplishment is not just "annoying." It shows a fundamental bias towards women, what they create, and their worth, which IS concerning. It's why chick lit is dismissed as fluff. It's why women are paid less. The True Detective vs Big Little Lies comparison from above is a perfect example of this kind of double standard. TD was lauded as art. BLL was dismissed as just a trashy soap opera. 

Agreed! My only caveat is that I hadn't really heard BLL dismissed as a trashy soap. (I believe you; I just hadn't really heard that myself.) But it certainly wasn't hyped or marketed in the same was as True Detective or shows of that nature. 

I can't get over what a well done presentation this was, of a book I really didn't care for.

[MV007]

44 minutes ago, ElectricBoogaloo said:

Sexism and the diminishing of female accomplishment is not just "annoying." It shows a fundamental bias towards women, what they create, and their worth, which IS concerning. It's why chick lit is dismissed as fluff. It's why women are paid less. The True Detective vs Big Little Lies comparison from above is a perfect example of this kind of double standard. TD was lauded as art. BLL was dismissed as just a trashy soap opera. 

My point was more that I don't think this is happening on any kind of grand scale.  I don't think BLL is being dismissed as trashy soap by anyone that matters.  At least I haven't seen it.  If you want to get all worked up over a few bad reviews by irrelevant people than that's your prerogative.  

[Mabinogia]

3 minutes ago, lovinbob said:

My only caveat is that I hadn't really heard BLL dismissed as a trashy soap. (I believe you; I just hadn't really heard that myself.)

I have heard only praise for it really, which is good. It should be praised. It was incredibly well made, fascinating, and important. I am sure, like all things, there were people who dismissed it immediately because it was about women made by women and therefore just for women, and that makes me very sad for those people who dismissed this amazing show. I am happy for all the praise it is getting. The praise, far outweighs the negative.

I've yet to hear one legitimate reason the show wasn't good from someone who actually watched the whole thing, only people who didn't bother with it on principle. Sure there is some legit criticism of things from the book that were changed or left out, and the addition of the affair which I think was completely unnecessary and just Reese wanting a juicier role for herself.

[Guest]

I think it gets a bit of the fluff treatment, not that I've encountered that so much, because it's a bit fluffy.  The comedy, the fashion, the real estate, the Greek chorus and Moriarty's writing genre all play into that classification.  I'm not at all anti-woman-lit, my new favorite screenwriter is Sally Wainwright.  But I think True Detective was in a different genre, and to be honest, a different class.  This was super fun but it wasn't fine literature or even must-see cinema for me.  I was never on the edge of my seat, it was predictable, it was slow and a little formulaic, but it was enjoyable and thought-provoking.  

[Razzberry]

I hope the show gets a second season.  I'd be more willing to let it go if I thought HBO had more smart, female-centric shows in development, but who knows. They don't need the same director - in fact I wasn't crazy about some of his artistic choices - but I like the cast, the writing, and the setting.

I understand the criticism, but True Detective, season 1 was the most mesmerizing  thing I've seen on television.  I didn't expect to like it, but it absolutely blew me away.  I wonder if Cary Fukunaga would be interested.

[humbleopinion]

I like that the Perry fought the whole group, that he was so out of control that he took every woman on to get another shot to kick the crap out of his wife.

 At the end of his life, as he went flying into the rebar he knew that Celeste was never alone, as much as he tried to isolate her.

Hopefully, HBO will be willing to pay and buy more limited series shows with a predominate female cast.

The BBC has no problem.

[Archery]

I don't think Det. Zippo inevitably wants to prosecute a killer.  She just wants to know who did it, and it irks her that the women are lying about such an obvious thing.  The detective gets that it was some sort of unplanned act, self defense or defense of other -- the mystery to her is what happened exactly. 

As for why they would lie:  an accident is always better than a homicide of any type. 

When I think back on all the ways Perry isolated Celeste (hovering whenever she was on the phone or had a conversation with someone; freaking out that she would dare go to orientation without him; pouting that he couldn't go to Frozen on Ice with the moms), it doesn't surprise me that she would not have a lock on her phone.  When he sped up in the car, I really though he was going to crash it and kill them both.  In the end, the most gratifying part of her story is that she had already decided to leave, and had acted on it, before Perry's death.  She wasn't let off the hook by some deus ex machina. 

I love that Maddy had that side-story about her affair, that had an impact on her interactions with her husband and her daughter -- and looking back, probably accounted for some of those pensive expressions while driving -- because nobody ever has only one thing going on in her life at a time. 

While I kind of wish Perry hadn't been the rapist (that felt too tied-in-a-bow), those wordless conversations were everything. 

I loved every single one of those children. It's so rare that shows or movies get that wise immaturity right. 

[stagmania]

13 minutes ago, lovinbob said:

Agreed! My only caveat is that I hadn't really heard BLL dismissed as a trashy soap. (I believe you; I just hadn't really heard that myself.) But it certainly wasn't hyped or marketed in the same was as True Detective or shows of that nature. 

There were quite a few prominent critics who initially reviewed the show as a soapy guilty pleasure, even those who liked it. There were also a few male critics who outright said they were uninterested in it because they perceived it as a shallow show about gossipy rich women. There was some push back against one critic in particular (Andy Greenwald) when his podcast listeners called him out for his (I'm sure quite unconscious) bias against a show centered on women. His show revisited it this week and he admitted he got it wrong and brought on a female guest to join in the discussion.

[pbutler111]

8 minutes ago, Razzberry said:

I hope the show gets a second season.  I'd be more willing to let it go if I thought HBO had more smart, female-centric shows in development, but who knows. They don't need the same director - in fact I wasn't crazy about some of his artistic choices - but I like the cast, the writing, and the setting.

I understand the criticism, but True Detective, season 1 was the most mesmerizing  thing I've seen on television.  I didn't expect to like it, but it absolutely blew me away.  I wonder if Cary Fukunaga would be interested.

There really couldn't logically be a second season. What would we see?  Five women living their lives?  I'd absolutely despise a second season that revolved around that idiot lighter-clicking detective character trying to prove murder.  Some things should just be a one-off, a little treat.

9 minutes ago, humbleopinion said:

The BBC has no problem.

Yes!  We find ourselves watching far more British TV than American TV, mostly limited run series.

[STOPSHOUTING]

16 minutes ago, stagmania said:

There were quite a few prominent critics who initially reviewed the show as a soapy guilty pleasure, even those who liked it. There were also a few male critics who outright said they were uninterested in it because they perceived it as a shallow show about gossipy rich women. There was some push back against one critic in particular (Andy Greenwald) when his podcast listeners called him out for his (I'm sure quite unconscious) bias against a show centered on women. His show revisited it this week and he admitted he got it wrong and brought on a female guest to join in the discussion.

Tim Goodman of the Hollywood Reporter was not a fan either. Very dismissive. Said something along the lines of it being a soap opera pretending to be a prestige drama and not to waste your time. 

EDITED TO ADD: Yeah, Goodman definitely was not a fan (from: http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/review/hbos-big-little-lies-review-972805) ...

"If you want to watch more of this calculated, phony kind of confrontation, which usually entails a detailed monologue of ridiculousness, then definitely keep watching because you're going to get a lot of it. If this is the kind of red flag that scares you off, congratulations, you just saved seven hours of your time.

"Big Little Lies revolves around a big hot mess of "issues" that adults face, painstakingly acted out in ways that don't have much connection to reality, whether it's how people talk to each other or act around each other. By shifting the story out of Australia and to the swanky seaside town of Monterey, the production ratchets up the Rich White People Problems factor that dominates the story."

... and so on.

Edited April 4, 2017 by STOPSHOUTING

[Ms Blue Jay]

40 minutes ago, MV007 said:

My point was more that I don't think this is happening on any kind of grand scale.  I don't think BLL is being dismissed as trashy soap by anyone that matters.  At least I haven't seen it.  If you want to get all worked up over a few bad reviews by irrelevant people than that's your prerogative.  

Today with social media, everyone's opinion "matters".  I saw a lot of tweets from people about how it was a "soap opera" and I'm not going to bother remembering which people on my timeline who said it were actual "critics" versus regular people who are "criticizing the show"; I follow dozens of each type.  When Pulitzer prize winner Emily Nussbaum is pointing it out, it's important enough of a phenomenon to point out.  It's sexism.  Sexism doesn't come from just irrelevant people.  It comes from men, women, and the President of the United States.   It comes from everyone, even people who are trying hard not to be sexist.

The show has great fashion, beautiful actors, and fantastic decor and these are easy things for dismissive critics and viewers to pick on to call it "fluff".  The sexism against projects like Sex and the City, 50 Shades of Grey, and Twilight are phenomenons in my opinion.  There was one article where Maxim called Sarah Jessica Parker the most unattractive woman of all time and whenever I try to discuss Sex and the City there is often some pig nearby who is excited to point that article out to me.  In my opinion it's disgusting.  I don't give a shit what random men think about SJP's looks or how at all it is important or relevant to anything I'm talking about.  I want to talk about the show.  When the Sex and the City movie came out in 2008 I read people both on Twitter and Facebook screaming, "Shut UP about this movie!" and you'll always see memes around Valentine's Day or whatever screaming "My girl is going to DRAG me to this movie!"  I don't say that shit when Fast and the Furious 14 or Iron Man 6 comes out.  There is a sexist bias against female pop culture.  Just like , as @ElectricBoogaloo pointed out about Luke Cage, a racist bias against non-white pop culture.  I myself have been guilty of both until I check myself, and it's something I obviously don't want to be or have.

Edited April 4, 2017 by Ms Blue Jay

[stagmania]

14 minutes ago, STOPSHOUTING said:

"Big Little Lies revolves around a big hot mess of "issues" that adults face, painstakingly acted out in ways that don't have much connection to reality, whether it's how people talk to each other or act around each other. By shifting the story out of Australia and to the swanky seaside town of Monterey, the production ratchets up the Rich White People Problems factor that dominates the story."

Yiiiiiikes, that's even worse than I remembered. Seeing a male critic dismiss domestic violence, child abuse, rape, marital strife and the tension between being a mother and having a career as "a hot mess of issues" should be all the proof you need that misogyny is at play here, whether he realizes it or not.

[MV007]

9 minutes ago, Ms Blue Jay said:

Today with social media, everyone's opinion "matters".  I saw a lot of tweets from people about how it was a "soap opera" and I'm not going to bother remembering which people on my timeline who said it were actual "critics" versus regular people who are "criticizing the show"; I follow dozens of each type.  When Pulitzer prize winner Emily Nussbaum is pointing it out, it's important enough of a phenomenon to point out.  It's sexism.  Sexism doesn't come from just irrelevant people.  It comes from men, women, and the President of the United States.   It comes from everyone, even people who are trying hard not to be sexist.

I never said Sexism only comes from irrelevant people.  This discussion is about one specific example of Sexism.  The way this show is covered by critics.  Or if you want to extend that to just the general public then fine.  But this idea that the show is being discredited in any meaningful way is not something I see.  I concede that random eggs on twitter and joe shmoe down the street and a random critic here and there may disrespect the show with their sexist generalizations.  And I agree that can be harmful.  I don't believe it is being done by anyone with a voice large enough to have an effect though.  

Quite Frankly, this whole thing has taken me by surprise.  I feel like you have to go out of your way to find criticism of this show.  Everyone I know loves it.  And its getting tons of award buzz.  Its clearly Prestige TV and is being treated as such imo.

[STOPSHOUTING]

10 minutes ago, stagmania said:

Yiiiiiikes, that's even worse than I remembered. Seeing a male critic dismiss domestic violence, child abuse, rape, marital strife and the tension between being a mother and having a career as "a hot mess of issues" should be all the proof you need that misogyny is at play here, whether he realizes it or not.

Yes, to be clear, I am not the one saying that about the show, LOL. I'm quoting Tim Goodman's published review. 

And, yes, it's worse than I remember, and doesn't get better from there. While there is undeniable affluence on display, to dismiss spousal abuse, as "rich white people's problems" is ... troubling. I tried to see if there was a male-dominated show corollary, but the only show that came to mind was Billions, and the other Hollywood Reporter TV critic, Dan Feinberg, reviewed that one.

Anyway, that one stood out for me, because I had crossed it off my list after hearing Tim Goodman dismiss it. It was only after hearing good things from many other sources that I went back and watched the series over three days this past weekend.

Edited April 4, 2017 by STOPSHOUTING

[mochamajesty]

34 minutes ago, humbleopinion said:

 

 At the end of his life, as he went flying into the rebar he knew that Celeste was never alone, as much as he tried to isolate her.

 

I love this.

[Ms Blue Jay]

More Male critics dismissing Big Little Lies as a Soap Opera / Trashy Melodrama:

New York Times Arts Mike Hale https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/16/arts/television/big-little-lies-nicole-kidman-reese-witherspoon.html
New York Post Robert Rorke http://nypost.com/2017/03/20/big-little-lies-is-a-terrible-whodunnit/
(Already mentioned) Hollywood Reporter  http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/review/hbos-big-little-lies-review-972805
Vox uses the word Trashy:  http://www.vox.com/culture/2017/2/17/14645312/big-little-lies-review-hbo-reese-witherspoon-nicole-kidman

It was incredibly easy to find these examples through Google.

Edited April 4, 2017 by Ms Blue Jay

[madam magpie]

58 minutes ago, stagmania said:

There were quite a few prominent critics who initially reviewed the show as a soapy guilty pleasure, even those who liked it. There were also a few male critics who outright said they were uninterested in it because they perceived it as a shallow show about gossipy rich women. There was some push back against one critic in particular (Andy Greenwald) when his podcast listeners called him out for his (I'm sure quite unconscious) bias against a show centered on women. His show revisited it this week and he admitted he got it wrong and brought on a female guest to join in the discussion.

I absolutely dismissed this show as soapy trash initially. I knew nothing about it, but hate stuff like "Desperate Housewives" and "Sex and the City," which I thought it would be like. It was less the story or collection of women, and more the gloss and shine I saw in the very brief glimpses I had. In previews, it looks a lot like those shows, and in the end, I think that's part of the point. The story/presentation took a lot of cliches and flipped them around. It was only when a friend (who DOES like that stuff) insisted I was wrong that I binged five episodes in a weekend.

Critics shouldn't be critiquing anything they haven't seen, though, so if someone watched the show AND critiqued it as soapy, that's pretty bad. 

Edited April 4, 2017 by madam magpie

[humbleopinion]

East coast bias mixed with women bias plus dismissive to remakes of best sellers with women characters as mains...perhaps?

Edited April 4, 2017 by humbleopinion
Edited posts noted.