S05.E19: Old Dog New Tricks

[caracas1914]

I wonder if Artie eating the dog treats was Kevin improvising ? I loved it!

ETA; I forgot how Kurt paid the price for being wrong about Brittany and the Student elections. Brittany was right, he was wrong. There goes his sainthood! Poor boy.

Edited May 8, 2014 by caracas1914

[camussie]

No one said he is always right so I don't see why that takes away saint moniker many of us feel fits the writing for him. I said he is written as rarely wrong or almost always right.  Even in "Duets" which was RM's passive-aggressive way to address the issues some viewers had with "Theatricality" Finn ended up being wrong in his assessment of the situation as Sam had no issue with Kurt wanting to duet with him because of a crush and what that might do to Sam's reputation.  Now Sam dumped Kurt as a partner anyway so he could woo Quinn but it had nothing to do with the issues Finn raised.  

 

As a side note I thought Finn was a real jackass to keep pushing the issue like he did and that is also where I think RM's PA came in.  Sure he addressed the crush aspects that were glossed over in season 1 but then Finn kept pushing it thus pretty much erasing the stand he took at the end of "Theatricality"  It was almost like RM was saying see we addressed Kurt's mis-steps but also see that Finn hasn't changed one bit despite the big stand he took last season.

 

As for Kurt/Brittany I think she gets the specialist snowflake writing of all on the show and I have always hated it.  As much as I hated the whole Santana being outed arc what made me hate it most of all was how Brittany had essentially outed her twice before that and some how we were supposed to forget that. That doesn't mean I think the hero edit for Finn was justified.  It wasn't.  That was some god awful writing.  I

Edited May 8, 2014 by camussie

[Coxfires]

I was responding to the assertion "When they start treating him like a real human being who makes mistakes I won't view his character as being written as some saint."

There were several times where he was pointed out as making mistakes: the ones I cited, plus I'd add the time where he gave Rachel a bad makeover and the texting stuff in Dance with somebody,even in Grilled Cheesus he admitted he was wrong in pushing his friends away. But they are grossely overlooked.

I disagree about Duets: it might be a step back in Finn's SL, but Burt still validly called out Kurt on coming down too strongly on Sam and not disclosing the whole context of the basement fight.

Edited May 8, 2014 by Coxfires

[CleoCaesar]

It is how the show treats both Kurt's setbacks and advice.  For one they show tends to write Kurt as having the heaviest burden of anyone on the show to bear despite the fact that he had a loving father who not only supported him in any way he could but who also supported (and it seems continues to support) a pretty expensive lifestyle (designer clothes, a land rover, an expensive NYC education).  Along those same lines the show has always treated the bullying Kurt receives as some how worse than the bully every other character receives.  Yes Kurt was shoved in a locker, pushed around, and even had his life threatened, but I fail to see how that is worse than Artie and Puck both being locked into a port-a-potty (Puck overnight), and Artie being shoved down the stairs.  Seems to me the stair thing is just as life threatening, if not more, than what happened to Kurt but all of those were played for laughs.  Case in point Artie oh so funnily saying to Puck please don't shove me down the stairs again.

 

Granted a lot of that is because of the show's inconsistent stance on bullying but that inconsistency often boiled down to gay bullying = bad.  All other kinds of bullying = played for laughs with Kurt being written as the avatar for every victim of gay bullying ever.

 

 

camussie, I regret that I have but one upvote to give your entire post about Kurt, but especially the above-quoted paragraphs. I find Kurt wholly insufferable due to how the show presents him as a noble hero undergoing the ultimate worst thing in the world (gay bullying, apparently), when really a lot, if not most, of the characters have had really awful things said and done to them. (Case in point: Rachel being told that her adoptive parents should have given her back, getting slushied every day, being ostracized by everyone in the school, even the teachers disliking her. But no, Kurt's life is so much worse.)

 

The show never, ever acknowledges that Kurt's life is steeped in many forms of privilege and that, hey, he actually has it great, even for a gay kid in Middle America. His dad fully supports him (almost ludicrously so). He harasses his future stepbrother and his dad yells at the stepbrother. He gets a super dreamy boyfriend out of nowhere. He finds Gay Hogwarts and his parents find the money to send him there. Then when he wants to return to McKinley, he just magically can and the gay dreamboat inexplicably follows him. His dad, like any parent, expresses concern about Kurt having sex and Kurt just sniffs at his dad that he should educate himself about gay sex. He gets an entire wedding dedicated to him. People fucking fawn over him, including his closeted bully. He gets engaged, gets into his dream school, and fits in.

 

No, really, tell me how hard Kurt's life is.

 

Ryan Murphy uses Kurt as his teenage avatar and overwhelmingly great things happen to Kurt. Which I don't even mind - this season Rachel's life is unrealistically successful, as is Mercedes's, and Blaine and others don't have it bad either. But Kurt is still portrayed as overcoming unfathomable odds and having suffered so much more than others, which to me there seems to be precious little to support that.

[Myrna123]

His dad, like any parent, expresses concern about Kurt having sex and Kurt just sniffs at his dad that he should educate himself about gay sex.

I think that was because Burt said he had positively absolutely no idea what two gay men might possibly do to one another to have sex, but judging by his facial expression and tone it was clearly something repugnant. I didn't really mind Kurt not obsequiously cowtowing to Burt's awesomesauce parenting in that scene.

Edited May 8, 2014 by Myrna123

[caracas1914]

I think that was because Burt said he had positively absolutely no idea what two gay men might possibly do to one another to have sex, but judging by his facial expression and tone it was clearly something repugnant. I didn't really mind Kurt not obsequiously cowtowing to Burt's awesomesauce parenting in that scene.

 

I actually find the Kurt/Burt scenes entertaining because there is a give and take,

Even in the recent bashing Burt chewed Kurt out for impulsively running in and thought he was being careless and stupid..   Kurt gets snarky with Burt sometimes and Burt gives it right back at him.

[tom87]

 

Who is arguing he wasn't and that it wasn't justified many a time?  But just because that was annoying doesn't make the writing for Kurt any less annoying.  They can both be annoying as can:

• Rachel getting unjustified second chance after second chance and being written like that no one compares in talent to her especially when they deliberately tank the competition in her favor (see the FG auditions or her understudy being incompetent)
• As can the repetitiveness of Santana is the bitchy tough love person so she should be listened to
• As can what I found the most annoying repetitive crutch of all on Glee - Brittany written as some sort of special unicorn therefore when she did things like out her girlfriend on Youtube or cheat on Artie it was all forgiven because she just didn't know better.  

 

I wasn't arguing at all. I just pointed out that Finn was sometimes annoted the hero as even you said.  I just happen to do right after you but I was acaully responding to caracas1914 "Funny I didn't hear Finn being labeled "St . Finn " so I was just saying basically instead of him being St Finn he was Hero Finn often.

Edited May 8, 2014 by tom87

[bravelittletoaster]

My issues with Ryan Murphy are legion and well-trod on these and other boards.  But if the guy wants to work out his adolescent issues concerning growing up gay on his tv show, it's his right to do so.  I expect most artists to have a not-so-hidden agenda of working out some of their shit through their craft.  I think that's fairly conventional wisdom.  Though I guess it's frustrating if all one wants to see is singing and dancing and the guy won't stop talking about an issue one hates.  

 

As for gay bullying being the "worst kind of bullying," could we agree it's at least a bad kind of bullying?  Not that I really saw that on display in this episode, so I'm not sure how this particular whipping post ended up in this thread again.  Some more.

 

As for the episode itself, I thought it was pretty darling.  If every episode of Glee were like this, I'd probably still watch this show weekly.  It felt more cohesive than a typical Glee episode, so that stood out, and it was a little more heart-warming than one generally expects or looks for from this show, so I don't think I'd want that every week, but overall it charmed me.  And I can't remember the last time I didn't hate Sam.  I think it was in season 2.  So huge kudos to Chris for writing back some of his brain cells, and just in general exhibiting more basic knowledge of character continuity than we've been treated to in a while.

 

I don't mind when Rachel is depicted as selfish, since I like her anyways, so I didn't even particularly notice that.  The character possesses outsized talent, and I've never felt like she needed to be treated with kid gloves.  I don't care if she's a bit of a self-centered bitch.  She sings like an angel.  It's enough for me.  Everything else was fine.  If it's Santana's last episode, at least Chris gave her what felt like to me to be a pretty reasonable calling.  She was good at handling Rachel's PR and seemed to be enjoying herself.  I can't really ask for more than that [and regular sex with Brittany] for my fave.  I hope she and Britt are written off into the sunset and I can finally quit this shit.

[CleoCaesar]

As for gay bullying being the "worst kind of bullying," could we agree it's at least a bad kind of bullying?

 

All bullying is bad. I don't see a difference in awfulness between being bullied for being gay and being bullied for being poor or skinny or fat or stupid or any of the hundreds of reasons kids bully each other. But that is not the message Glee pushes. The bullying of every other character in season 1 was laughed off, but Kurt's bullying is actually worth of serious attention. So much attention that the bulk of season 2 was about Kurt's noble suffering. The double standard reeks of blatant personal agenda.

 

That's why episodes such as this one annoy the crap out of me - Kurt is somehow the victor, the one who brings things together, the educator, the hero in short. I feel the same way in episodes Ian Brennan wrote for Finn, actually. Yes, the writers have their preferences and can use their characters as personal avatars...but it's lazy and cheap, IMO.

[bravelittletoaster]

I didn't really see his efforts or victory here as being part of the gay agenda is all.

 

I do think people are killed more often for being gay than they are for, say, being fat.  But if you're watching Glee and don't have a particular empathy for gay teens I can't imagine there's anything else I can bring to the party that's going to sway you, so I'll let it go.  Especially given its extremely tangential relationship to this episode.

Edited May 8, 2014 by bravelittletoaster

[caracas1914]

I do think people are killed more often for being gay than they are for, say, being fat.  But if you're watching Glee and don't have a particular empathy for gay teens I can't imagine there's anything else I can bring to the party that's going to sway you, so I'll let it go.  Especially given its extremely tangential relationship to this episode.

 

 

Yup, I dunno, somehow being gay I don't think  was even tangentially the point of the SL with Kurt intervening with Maggie and her daughter.   I'm amused because the hackneyed outside person reconciling an estranged Parent/Child is such an over used, worn out narrative device in SL's in TV's, plays  and movies, that I could see others issues with simply  the sentimental cliche of it all.     Yet to connect that to gays suffering being "superior" is bit too much projecting for my taste.

 

Another thing I liked  about the episode was that Artie was a supporting character to the Mercedes/Sam story in a funny, non "bromance" shit kind of way.  He wasn't the focus but he played a part in scenes that I enjoyed, and it shows that a writer can care for characters even when they are not "leads".  Even his "I'm right here" when he's being discussed was amusing.

Edited May 8, 2014 by caracas1914

[heyerchick]

Having watched the episode again, I've got some different, or at least more evolved thoughts on the Rachel part of the story. I think I understand Chris's intent, but his execution fell a little short. I noted myself in an earlier post upthread that after the initial argument with Kurt, Rachel was not prompted by her friends to amend her behaviour. She had that run-in with the mom over the three-legged dog, and Santana's advice was actually to ignore the cross-trainer wearing Mom. Rachel was shaken and here is where I think Chris should have written a little more to show the wheels turning because Rachel didn't just come through for him, she came through for all the residents of the Lexington home too. Her story, and her conscious choice to make time for a friend was meant to contrast with Maggie, who hadn't made the time for her own daughter. I can see the intent, to give Rachel agency, but it was a bit underwritten. 

 

As for the Maggie-Clara story, I've been thinking that maybe the perfect bittersweet ending to that would have been a bouquet presented to Maggie after the performance and for her to be shocked by it - for it to be have been sent by her daughter, calling back to the earlier revelation that she sent flowers to herself to keep up appearances. It would have been evidence of a tentative door opening, and a positive but not saccharine note to end that story on. 

 

Echoing bravelittletoaster: I really don't see why every single conceivable "damned if he did, damned if he didn't" fault of Kurt from the pilot onwards needs to be dragged into episode discussion every time, it seems, the character gets any sort of individual focus. As for the infamous "gay agenda," well, the agenda of the gay writer playing the gay character here was to celebrate his two great loves in life: adorable pups and adorable, feisty old people. The fuck does *that* have to do with the apparent-to-some manifest evils of the gay bullying arc from season 2? 

[caracas1914]

I actually liked the idea of Rachel trying to "salvage" and refashion  her public  image and Santana happily volunteering for the task.  IN another show, I could see Satana becoming a combination of the character Bebe of "Fraiser" and Samantha of "Sex in the City",   Rachel would sell her soul by letting Santana "PR" her but it would be soo amusing.

Edited May 8, 2014 by caracas1914

[bravelittletoaster]

Another thing I liked about the episode was that Artie was a supporting character to the Mercedes/Sam story in a funny, non "bromance" shit kind of way. He wasn't the focus but he played a part in scenes that I enjoyed, and it shows that a writer can care for characters even when they are not "leads". Even his "I'm right here" when he's being discussed was amusing.

Yeah, I liked Artie and sam's dynamic as Chris wrote it, and especially loved Artie's umbrage that Sam tried to compare taking care of him to taking care of the dog. Heh.

[fakeempress]

The show never, ever acknowledges that Kurt's life is steeped in many forms of privilege and that, hey, he actually has it great, even for a gay kid in Middle America.

What did I just read? Let me check my crap privilege at the door because I'm off to get Kurt's and live his great, great life, full of sunshine and roses.

Edited May 8, 2014 by fakeempress

[CleoCaesar]

There don't seem to be character-specific threads in the PTV Glee forum, but maybe it's worth creating one? Kurt does inspire a lot of discussion.

[caracas1914]

Individual threads for actors have been opened. (Lea, Chris, Darren) I suppose we could add their Glee character to them.

Edited May 8, 2014 by caracas1914

[aradia22]

Chris should write episodes more often. Granted, I know television shows have input from a staff of writers even when one person claims credit, but given the shift in quality of this episode, I'm going to have to assume a large part of it was due to Chris. Also, I will admit that I spent a large part of the episode cooing over McConaughey's adorable wittle face. I'm a sucker for dogs.

 

There were some great one-liners as there are in the best episodes of Glee. But there was also some attention for Kurt who has been neglected recently. An attempt was made to take Rachel and her issues more seriously while not simply rewriting the character and ignoring the flaws that she's developed. Oh, and someone remembered something about Sam's backstory. Praise Jesus. Memory was a lovely moment, though not as good as As If We Never Said Goodbye and other numbers Chris has had in the past. But in general, I enjoyed the music this episode. There was nothing revolutionary aside from Memory but it was pleasant. I also think he managed to capture not only Kurt's voice but the voices of the other characters fairly well. It was there in the larger plot points and in little moments like when Kurt told Rachel to use her inside voice. 

 

Edited to add - the one time Kurt really really annoyed me was bringing up the dead mother card with Maggie's daughter.   I really loathe it when Kurt gets all self righteous and martyr-y like that.  Just because he lost his mother it does not give him the right to guilt another person into accepting theirs.   I loathe even more how they have character's respond to that version of Kurt - by having them see the light due to his words of wisdom.  The whole thing was cliche and hamhanded that I wish it would have ended up with the daughter not showing up.

I agree that was a step too far. It felt like it walked right out of a Lifetime/Hallmark movie. And because it was such a minor part of the episode it stretched believability to think that one talk with a stranger would change her mind that quickly.

 

Maybe it's just me but Rachel didn't seem that bad this episode. We had that moment at the beginning where she genuinely seemed to care about that dog in the purse and throughout the episode she seemed to be self-involved in a more absent-minded way than a malicious way. Her crowning moment of awful (not wanting to let the three-legged dog get adopted until after the photo op) didn't seem that awful and was very quickly redeemed. For me, she came as close to being likable as possible given the apparent mandate that Rachel must do awful things every episode when she has a big plotline.

[Florinaldo]

That was a rather unremarkable piece of work.

 

I suppose they chose to mix in cute and loveable puppies ("everybody loves them!") with cute and loveable elderly people ("people love them!") because they are safe choices, tried and true story elements designed to inspire instant identification from the audience. They also added an allegedly inspirational story about rejuvenation and recapturing the spirit of your youth (it may be a cliché, but it has been used dozens of time before so why not have another kick at it?) and douse this treacle with a dose of heavy syrup and a dollop of molasses on top just to make sure it turned out sappy enough. Kurt took his turn at the "I'm falling behind the others" plot from 2 episodes ago, but again with little justification: Artie, Blaine, Sam and Mercedes are still very much unproven and not that far ahead of him, while Rachel is on shaky grounds professionally. The whole Kurt storyline came down to a very self-involved pity party; he even played the Dead Mommy card at one point. Rather crudely manipulative.

What was the point of bringing well-known actors like Williams and Conway and giving them practically nothing to do (unless they wanted to make the latter pay for all of his Dorf videos). I guess they had to promise the majority of the screen time to Squibb, who spent most of the episode  spewing out lines so flatly you would think she was at her first table reading for the script, all in her monotone raspy voice. She also got featured on no less than 3 songs, but happily she was barely audible in the last one. She was however more present on the Madonna horror (a quick use of the Mute button was a lifesaver in that case) and the uninspiring version of "Memory", which might as well be known as the Screechy and Scratchy duet from now on. (Come back Mrs. Dolloway, everything is forgiven!)

As soon as Kurt started to get involved in the mother-daughter situation, it became clear that the conclusion would be perfect for a CC demo reel as a potential writer for movies on the Lifetime Channel. Difficult to think of a triter or more flaccid sub-plot. But it was in line with the general lack of nuances in the episode.
 

Mind you, it is perfectly normal and acceptable for CC to adopt a writing-by-numbers approach a this stage in is career and to play it safe; this is his first TV show script and he has to learn the ropes.

The Sam-Mercedes scenes makes you wonder why they are still together considering they did not listen to each other about the dog situation and that she treats her boyfriend rather condescendingly, including making unflattering parallels between him and the dog. At least we got a nice version of the Zevon song out of this, while the actors did some very good work with what they were given. The Rachel plot was an amusing distraction from her main arc over the past episodes and it served as a demonstration that Santana would make an awful publicist. The Klaine scene was pleasant and subdued, even if Kurt's line about his old ladies being cooler came across as an empty overcompensation tactic.

If this episode had not been been written by CC, it would probably have immediately joined the ranks of the other ordinary and run-of-the-mill episodes in the series, with none of the buzz and rarely warranting a second look.

[Higgs]

Rachel is on shaky grounds professionally.

Rachel who?

Rachel Maddow? She's the darling of MSNBC and the most famous gay liberal anchor on TV (with the possible exception of Stephen Colbert).

Rachel Green? She just received the "Employee of the Month" award at Ralph Lauren.

Rachel Berry? Mon Dieu! On what TV show is this happening? I know of a lot of people who would give anything to watch it. (Is this the same series that also features the inimitable acting and singing talents of Darren Criss?)

[waldrons]

Being substantially closer in age to the nursing home folks than the Glee folks, I thought the writing of that story line was both ham-handed and tone-deaf.  It actually doesn't surprise me that someone quite young wrote it... I think it showed.  I know CC "wanted" it to be a tribute to the old troopers, but yikes!  Billy Dee Williams and Tim Conway didn't have much to do, and looked half-dead doing it.  (And the fake smiles as they listened to Memory were just cringe-worthy.)  The contrast of the then/now photos was meant to link the past and present, but the closeups were so extreme and harsh that it just seemed like they were saying, "holy cow, they were cute once, but look at them now!". 

The final kicker was equating finding new families for the puppies with finding a new family (Kurt) for the old lady. 

I did love the one revised scene we saw from "Peter Pan"... I think the song and the characters all worked perfectly.  Well, once CC's voice drowned out the old lady's.  But generally speaking, I think the episode was both condescending and insulting to the elderly, all under the intention of honoring them.

[fakeempress]

Rachel who?

Rachel Maddow? She's the darling of MSNBC and the most famous gay liberal anchor on TV (with the possible exception of Stephen Colbert).

Rachel Green? She just received the "Employee of the Month" award at Ralph Lauren.

Rachel Berry? Mon Dieu! On what TV show is this happening? I know of a lot of people who would give anything to watch it. (Is this the same series that also features the inimitable acting and singing talents of Darren Criss?)

Yeah, I was also trying to compute. Rachel? A contract for a hit Broadway show in one hand, and an offer for a TV deal in the other Rachel BERRY? No, must be some other Rachel person. I think I got it, it's the super for Ms. Mercedes' building, who got chewed by the landlord for allowing shelter dogs on the premises. That's some serious shaky ground professionally for Other Rachel, I don't envy her in the least.

 

The Klaine scene was pleasant and subdued, even if Kurt's line about his old ladies being cooler came across as an empty overcompensation tactic.

 

While Blaine's blatant namedropping was so not meant to impress upon his sacrifice, you just wanna pinch his cheeks and coo.

Edited May 9, 2014 by fakeempress

[Joystickenvy]

I think Chris' treatment of Kurt and Rachel was pretty consistent to how these characters have been written by the other Glee writers this season, complete with the many flaws. Whether that was because he didn't want to give the writers a big ol middle finger by being all THIS is how Kurt should be portrayed or because he actually likes that portrayal is impossible to know, which is why I'm not putting too much stock into this effort as a representation of his overall ability.

Kurt is still my favorite character on the show and Chris my favorite actor, but there have been plenty of times when the writing for the character had made me want to throw things at the screen. I thought in this ep he was guilty of being a well meaning, but mis-guided buttinskie and the poor poor me, who sacrifices so much for my ungrateful friends thing has been done and done, but is a fairly true to life theme, but on a well written drama, the warm fuzzy endings would be lazy for both SLs. IRL parent/child relationships and friendships are more complicated than that and usually don't have warm fuzzy endings. But....this is Glee, which is essentially a fantasy show and the writing was pretty par for the course in terms of story and at least had some nice moments.

[Glorfindel]

While Blaine's blatant namedropping was so not meant to impress upon his sacrifice, you just wanna pinch his cheeks and coo.

Oh, this bothered me so much. It translated to me as:

"Take good notice at how much I sacrifice of my fabulous life to spend an hour or so watching my fiancé perform.....Kurt."

 

During my college years I and other conservatory students volunteered to sing and play in retirement/assisted living homes all the time. It gave us a chance to perform and get some experience in front of an audience, while it brought some variation and enjoyment to the people living there, as a good number of them usually didn't go out much due to their condition and/or personal circumstances. And sometimes we'd assist with the forming and rehearsing of e.g. a choir or music therapy class in one of those homes.

It was a win/win situation for everyone, and I never saw that as condescending or patronizing from snotty youngsters towards the old folks, although our youthful and even naive enthusiasm was sometimes cooled down and rightfully corrected by the wisdom and experience of the elderly (which was again: a win/win for both parties).

 

I thought the camera zooming in on the (younger) pictures and then zooming out on the people the way they look now (or vice versa) was a lovely tribute to the characters, the actors, and their achievements. Too often people forget that old folks, who, forced by their ageing bodies and (society's) circumstances, have slowed down, already lived the lives and did the things we still strive for and yet have to accomplish.

And I find nothing appaling nor distasteful in showing a close-up of someone's well-earned grey hair and wrinkles.

Edited May 9, 2014 by Glorfindel

[aradia22]

I liked the close-ups but there was one character they lingered on where it didn't work. The timing is important with these things and it felt awkward. Maybe it was Tim Conway. The pacing just felt off panning in and then panning back compared to the others. It reminded me of the awkward video editing projects we did in middle school.

[caracas1914]

Well, that There are genuine closeups of older characters is one thing, but the gauze they shoot the Shirely McClaine character is another thing and separate horror.

 

Maybe it's American culture thing, but it seems folks are freaked out by seeing closeups of  older people with wrinkles and all on screen, I much prefer that then the Kabuki masks that plastic surgery imposes on most aging American actors.

[Florinaldo]

While Blaine's blatant namedropping was so not meant to impress upon his sacrifice, you just wanna pinch his cheeks and coo.

Blaine was just stating the facts of who was going to be at that dinner and they were being playful with each other; he certainly did not express any regret about missing it, quite the contrary. Kurt however must have known that his old ladies, including Gladys the barfing one, cannot really compete with Blaine's old ladies as far as real coolness goes. But it's part of their banter and it worked.

I thought the camera zooming in on the (younger) pictures and then zooming out on the people the way they look now (or vice versa) was a lovely tribute to the characters, the actors, and their achievements.

That was a very heavy-handed attempt at tugging at the heart strings, one of those camera movements that are a bit too showy without any real justification; it's supposed to be a touching parallel between the past and the present for these folks but instead it calls attention to itself and comes across as blatantly manipulative. It's probably more the choice of the director, unless he is of the type who discusses these things with the writer or more plausibly the cinematographer.

 

A contract for a hit Broadway show in one hand, and an offer for a TV deal in the other Rachel BERRY?

Just last episode Rachel was quite rightly berated by her producer Sydney for covertly pursuing other career opportunities and showing herself to be unreliable and disloyal, behaviour that would sink her reputation in the musical theater, deservedly so. Which means that once she tries to get back to NYC when there is a lull in her L.A. ventures, she would end up getting blackballed (in the real world at least). So yes, she has indeed put herself in a shaky professional position.

 

I do not detect any obvious gauze effect in the shots of Maclaine: the image remains sharp and clear and you can count every wrinkle and crease in her face. They even spotlight her in several shots, with no apparent extreme softening lighting or lens technique in the close-ups.

Edited May 9, 2014 by Florinaldo

[caracas1914]

While Blaine's blatant namedropping was so not meant to impress upon his sacrifice, you just wanna pinch his cheeks and coo.

 

 

Yup he looked like a pretentious asshole. 

 

 

one of those camera movements that are a bit too showy without any real justification;

 

It was a simple camera pan shot. Nothing "showy" about it.   Happens on shows where one performer sees another singing about a million times since pan shots were invented.

 

Considering the song was "Memory" and it was obviously meant to imply the passage of time and someone whose place in the sun was long gone, it was appropriate.

[Florinaldo]

It was a simple camera pan shot. Nothing "showy" about it.

It's actually a tracking shot. It's not a "natural" camera movement in this case; these follow the actor's movement or the general action and are generally invisible or go unnoticed because they fit the developments on screen. The forward move followed by a dissolve and then a backward move does not have the invisible quality of most camera movements. Its intended symbolic and emotional meaning becomes very overt as a camera device and it looks heavy-handed; furthermore, it is used three times which compounds the problem. ,Which is why I call this one showy.

 

 

Yup he looked like a pretentious asshole.

By the same token, Kurt's reply could be said to come from a insecure kid at a disadvantage in a self-generated game of one-upmanship. I prefer my take that it was part of their pleasant and believable playful banter.

Edited May 9, 2014 by Florinaldo

[caracas1914]

it is used three times which compounds the problem. ,Which is why I call this one showy.

 

It was used 3 times because they were showing the passage of age on the 3 characters.

 

Sometimes it is that simple.

[fakeempress]

Blaine was just stating the facts of who was going to be at that dinner and they were being playful with each other; he certainly did not express any regret about missing it, quite the contrary. Kurt however must have known that his old ladies, including Gladys the barfing one, cannot really compete with Blaine's old ladies as far as real coolness goes. But it's part of their banter and it worked.

.

 

Just last episode Rachel was quite rightly berated by her producer Sydney for covertly pursuing other career opportunities and showing herself to be unreliable and disloyal, behaviour that would sink her reputation in the musical theater, deservedly so. Which means that once she tries to get back to NYC when there is a lull in her L.A. ventures, she would end up getting blackballed (in the real world at least). So yes, she has indeed put herself in a shaky professional position.

 

By the same token, Kurt's reply could be said to come from a insecure kid at a disadvantage in a self-generated game of one-upmanship. I prefer my take that it was part of their pleasant and believable playful banter.

Your original take didn't include any reference to a reciprocal playful banter in the Klaine scene. It included only a snide dig on Kurt, and no mention at all of Blaine's ladies brag. If it's playful and banter, then it's such for both and your snide dig is baseless. If it's not a playful banter, then Blaine was namedropping and whining about his sacrifice. You can't have it both ways. 

 

Rachel ended last episode very much gainfully employed. And in this episode she brushed up her image, is still very much the star of Funny Girl, and still has that magical TV deal offer on the table. No amount of hypotheticals of what would some day maybe could happen with her, provided and if, etc.etc. conditions, can be advanced to deny that simple, you know, fact of the present in-show moment, in which Kurt lives. I'm not even gonna touch on the other guys, what they have going for them and why Kurt is justified to be in whatever funk he wants. 

Edited May 9, 2014 by fakeempress

[Florinaldo]

Sometimes it is that simple.

Not really in this case. The combination of tracking shots and dissolve is showy at its very basis. The fact that they chose it knowing full well they were going to do it three times over multiplied (or perhaps it was a simple sum) the initial problem of doing it in a way that calls attention to itself.

 

Your take didn't include any reference to a reciprocal playful banter in the Klaine scene.

Since my initial comment was part of a longer post I kept that part short and described the Klaine scene as "pleasant and subdued". Subsequent posts simply included expansions of that view.

 

I also stand by my opinion regarding Rachel professional status; she may be "gainfully employed" for now,  but her behaviour would put her in much jeopardy in the real world. Besides, Sydney's totally justified ultimatum is still hanging over her head.

 

But since Glee is quite arbitrary and unpredictable as to which real-world rules will apply and which will be ignored, I am certain they will find a way to magically save Rachel from herself, because she is their Special Snowflake.

[caracas1914]

Wow I guess any camera shot is "showy', damn those pretentious directors with dissolve shots and pan shots. Been doing them for close to 100 years; the nerve of them.

Having cleared that up, I most say I was impressed with both Kevin McHale and Amber Riley's comic timing on this episode. They were funny and had such great quirky touches on their characters. Artie was hilarious in being scared of Mercedes and Mercedes reaction to her precious weaves and shoes chewed on was priceless.

Wish Billy Dee Williams and Tim Conway had had more to do.

Santana as a PR person from hell , her slogan that if she could make it work for Berry she could help anyone! Hehehehe...

[Florinaldo]

Wow I guess any camera shot is "showy',

Not quite.

 

As I said previously, most camera moves are more naturalistic, generally following the characters' movements or reframing the shot instead of a cut. But even a basic tracking shot or a fade-to-black can be showy depending on how it's used. Just as very long takes can feel completely natural and unobstrusive when they fit the mood and the story.

[Cranberry]

Who cares, you guys. The camera shots aren't worth arguing over. We know how you both feel about them, so there's no point in continuing to state your opinion -- nobody's going to change their mind.

[fakeempress]

 

 

Since my initial comment was part of a longer post I kept that part short and described the Klaine scene as "pleasant and subdued". Subsequent posts simply included expansions of that view.

I also stand by my opinion regarding Rachel professional status; she may be "gainfully employed" for now,  but her behaviour would put her in much jeopardy in the real world. Besides, Sydney's totally justified ultimatum is still hanging over her head.

Interesting that keeping it short meant not expanding on the "playful banter" but expanding on how Kurt's part of this banter was neither pleasant nor subdued. If I recall, it was called "empty overcompensation tactic". 

 

And tomorrow Rachel may lose her voice (and it's already happened once on the show). Or she may be run over by a car. Do we have to make a list of every single thing that can possibly befall Rachel in the future to prove how Kurt shouldn't take her success as such in the now? And what about Rachel actually taking note of Sidney's ultimatum and staying the course - which she seems very much to be doing, what then? It's as much of a possibility, if not much higher, than the negative scenarios you prefer to prioritize in order to defend a very shaky point. 

[Florinaldo]

the negative scenarios you prefer to prioritize

What you see as negative scenarios I consider to be a plausible broader context. There's obviously a fundamental divergence of perspectives at work here. Including the fact that, as I posted yesterday, I think that Kurt's funk is as unjustified as it was for Blaine when they used the put him in the same "I am falling behind" situation just 2 episodes ago.

[fakeempress]

What you see as negative scenarios I consider to be a plausible broader context. There's obviously a fundamental divergence of perspectives at work here. Including the fact that, as I posted yesterday, I think that Kurt's funk is as unjustified as it was for Blaine when they used the put him in the same "I am falling behind" situation just 2 episodes ago.

 

This plausible broader context in your view somehow allows only negative outcomes. Why the characters even bother then, they should pack up and go. Since the probability for a positive outcome in Rachel's case is nowhere near zero, it's even reasonably higher than 50% at the moment Kurt was in said funk, I don't think it's a question of mere divergence of perspectives but of highly skewed logic You can't make this argument on the basis of Rachel's career any way you want to turn it, it needs another premise altogether.

Edited May 10, 2014 by fakeempress

[Florinaldo]

This plausible broader context in your view somehow allows only negative outcomes.

I think you misread a few things. I said the other Gleeks' achievements were not that much ahead of Kurt's and that they were still unproven or on shaky ground. Considering the real-life examples in their chosen fields, there is a good chance that (if this were real life) their present positive outlooks might not hold; I never said failure was guaranteed as you appear to have mistakenly interpreted.

 

Perhaps in the next episode or next season Mercedes will sell truckloads of her single, Sam will get 3 magazine covers a month and Artie will become the darling of every professional studio. But until then, nothing is certain and many possible outcomes can be entertained.

 

When success is so much assured for a character as it seems to be for Rachel, it makes it difficult to get invested in their stories because of the predictability. Obstacles and reversals of fortune always spice up a storyline, even if the ultimate resolution is positive. In the end though, all of them are subject to the whims of the writers because they are just fictional characters and I for one cannot bring myself to care for them as real people.

[fakeempress]

 

I think you misread a few things. I said the other Gleeks' achievements were not that much ahead of Kurt's and that they were still unproven or on shaky ground. Considering the real-life examples in their chosen fields, there is a good chance that (if this were real life) their present positive outlooks might not hold; I never said failure was guaranteed as you appear to have mistakenly interpreted.

 

I didn't misread or mistakenly interpret. Your argument about Rachel leads to a logical nonsense because you want to make Kurt look at her achievements as something they aren't in order to prove that Kurt doesn't have a plausible reason to feel down. I simply said that Rachel's achievements are indeed what they are - in the present, not in the future of an imaginary broader context.

 

Kurt doesn't do a regression analysis of the chances of steady success for each one of his friends in order to determine his right to feel how he feels. He simply compares himself to their successes and sees himself lacking, with good reason. It's a very common human experience.  It happens every day in every corner of the world, including the fictional one. 

 

Rachel heard Sidney, took notice, and is doing her job. She also has the TV offer which she has to think about accepting or not. Any way you look at it, she has achieved much more than Kurt by that moment. What will happen in the future is of no concern to Kurt at the moment. And that's the broader context the character is in. But what does it matter when there are probable's, if's and might's in the broader context to consider before the givens, right. 

 

 

Perhaps in the next episode or next season Mercedes will sell truckloads of her single, Sam will get 3 magazine covers a month and Artie will become the darling of every professional studio. But until then, nothing is certain and many possible outcomes can be entertained.

 

Well, now. Seems like unless his friends are super stars, Kurt has no right to feel in any way less successful. No intermediate, smaller scale success is allowed to matter to him. And by the logic of the above, what more does Rachel have to achieve if a starring role on Broadway cannot be accepted to matter to Kurt as success? Ten starting roles, twenty? A Tony? An Oscar? Kurt should wait till his death-bed to allow himself the luxury to compare himself to his friends, that way things are certain to be certain. 

[LucyEth]

I enjoyed this episode, but it actually made me like Santana more than Mercedes.  Wow didn't realize Mercedes had such a big career that she is going on tour and from a previous episode, had back-up singers.  Is Santana going with her, thought she insisted she sing with her?  I wish she would just go away.  What a bossy heifer. Sam really wanted to keep that dog.  She acts like his mother not his girlfriend.  Most mis-matched couple ever, she is not his type at all.  Season finale next week, hope next season doesn't bring Sue moving to NYC.