S01.E10: Castle in the Sky

[maxineofarc]

6 hours ago, libgirl2 said:

The cat scene was a bit too much for me as a cat owner! 

It did nothing except pull me out of the narrative for a good twenty minutes trying to figure out why it was even there. There was no reason for it to be in the script except to make us think "oh what a terrible person," and we... were probably thinking that by now anyway?

My cat slept through it.

[libgirl2]

1 hour ago, janey99 said:

You and me both on the tic - it was barely noticeable.  I see someone with TS every day, and Japeth's tic was pretty meh.  Certainly not "ghastly" like one poster described!

edited to correct to ghastly.

With ghastly, I was really expecting the worse. 

[Kathira]

2 hours ago, janey99 said:

You and me both on the tic - it was barely noticeable.  I see someone with TS every day, and Japeth's tic was pretty meh.  Certainly not "ghastly" like one poster described!

Watch it again. I had to rewind and pause to really see it in full. It started out not too bad but by the end it curled up the whole side of face into a snarl with lips pulled back and teeth exposed on that side. I wondered if the actor did it, or if it was an effect. The first part seemed like it might have been CGI, but it could also have been a practical effect, especially with the lip.

Edited March 27, 2018 by Kathira

[minamurray78]

2 hours ago, Kaiju Ballet said:

Was Beecham the same person who drew them all to the same restaurant in one of the earlier episodes, when we were meant to think it was Sean Young's son?

 

Yes. I was wondering how he could have known who they were, and I remembered in the third episode, there´s a new body found in the old immigration station, up on the roof, and while they all chat and take pics and examine the body, we can see the killer hiding in the dark, right bellow them, listening on. That's how he probably got all their names.

[thuganomics85]

Connor is dead, so all is right in the world of The Alienist!  Sure, sure, they also found and stopped the killer too, but Connor was clearly a bigger threat, dammit!  Of course, he did end up getting credit for Beecham's death, in order to cover for Sara and help Roosevelt get in good with his the force again, but still!  That bastard is dead!  Thanks to Sara putting a bullet in his gut!  A fitting ending for that asshole.

Pretty solid finale for the most part.  While a bit frustrating, I found it realistic that Laszlo didn't find his answer about what made Beecham commit those horrible acts, and still has many questions.  But what is good is that it seems like he is slowly moving past Mary's death, and is ready to go back into being an alienist, and hopefully be able to recover.  His issues will likely always plague him, but despite the darkness and violence that has entailed throughout these episodes, this really has helped him grow as a person, and even form bonds with people he probably never thought he would.  On paper, the character could have been a walking cliche, but thanks to some better writing and especially Daniel Bruhl's performance, he became more then that.

While I think any potential John/Sara pairing will have long term obstacles to overcome, they were pretty nice together in their few moments.  I do wonder if Sara has a point about wanting things that he "can't have", but I believe that he really believes his feelings for her are legit.

Wish we got more of Cyrus and Stevie.  The Issacsons too.

Glad Joseph survived.

Even though he barely said anything, Ted Levine was slaying it with Byrnes' numerous death glares.

Overall, a pretty good season that reminded me of shows like Ripper Street and Copper.  It wasn't perfect, but the production values and acting alone made it rise above a lot of other shows.  Curious to see if TNT will have another season.

[88Keys]

At the opera, John was exchanging barbs with someone named "Jack Aster."  Was that supposed to be John Jacob Aster?

[kassygreene]

1 hour ago, 88Keys said:

At the opera, John was exchanging barbs with someone named "Jack Aster."  Was that supposed to be John Jacob Aster?

Yup.  There were a lot of John Jacob Astors.  This "Jack Astor" is the one that dies sixteen years later on the Titanic.

Edited March 28, 2018 by kassygreene

[88Keys]

1 minute ago, kassygreene said:

Yup.  There were a lot of John Jacob Astors.  This "Jack Astor" is the one one dies sixteen years later on the Titanic.

Yeah, the one on the Titanic was JJ Aster the 3rd, I think.  His unborn son was JJ the 4th and was considered the youngest Titanic survivor.  I just didn't know if it was supposed to be the same guy, but the timing seemed about right.

[Neurochick]

18 hours ago, Cotypubby said:

So we never get any more info on the whole “John gets drugged in the brothel” thing? Weren’t we meant to think he was raped and then that is just never mentioned again? Wtf!?

I'll answer that for you behind a spoiler tag.

Spoiler

In the book Moore does NOT get raped at all.  That scene played out the same way, except as Moore was about to pass out, Stevie comes in with either a pipe or a nail covered baseball bat.  So that scene in the show was a bit silly since it didn't need to be done, just like the cat being brutally killed, doesn't happen in the book at all.

[formerlyfreedom]

A reminder - this is still a book-free zone. If you want to discuss the books or differences between the book and the show, please do so in the Book Talk topic (and thanks to those who have used spoiler tags in here!). If you want to talk about speculation for future seasons, that discussion can happen in Where Do We Go From Here?

[minamurray78]

I had forgotten about John's brief encounter with Astor. I wonder what was the point of that scene. John seemed to finally be over his fiancee leaving him for Astor. At least he said so to Kreizler on that train ride. Was that scene supposed to be confirmation? Was it necessary? Or was it meant to be something else?

[pezgirl7]

14 minutes ago, minamurray78 said:

I had forgotten about John's brief encounter with Astor. I wonder what was the point of that scene. John seemed to finally be over his fiancee leaving him for Astor. At least he said so to Kreizler on that train ride. Was that scene supposed to be confirmation? Was it necessary? Or was it meant to be something else?

I thought it was a great scene because we got to see John standing up for himself. Normally he's all wide-eyed and speechless, but here he had no problem standing up to a well-to-do socialite, which I'm sure won't help his own social standing. Astor had an affair with John's fiance, and he has the gall to ask John to have a drink with him? Astor's lucky that John is such a gentleman. I think the scene helps to show that John is content with who he is now, and knows who his real friends are and knows what's important in life.

[AdebisiLives]

4 hours ago, minamurray78 said:

I had forgotten about John's brief encounter with Astor. I wonder what was the point of that scene. John seemed to finally be over his fiancee leaving him for Astor. At least he said so to Kreizler on that train ride. Was that scene supposed to be confirmation? Was it necessary? Or was it meant to be something else?

I didn't understand that scene either & I read the book. It definitely seemed out of place regardless of what the writers were trying to show there. 

[AdebisiLives]

23 hours ago, Cotypubby said:

I could not stand Dakota Fanning at all, she’s either a terrible actress or it’s how she chose to play the part, but in every scene she has the exact same wide-eyed mouth open look. Hated her the entire series. 

I completely agree with you on Dakota Fanning... the way she spoke irritated me & seemed completely unnatural, even for the time period. I could not stand her character throughout the show & this was not the case for me with the source material. 

[tessathereaper]

I do think they tried to leave some loose ends in case they get a second season.  I think Astor may come into play for that(or he could have just been a way to show us how John has changed since the start of the show when he was still hung up on his fiance leaving him and drinking himself into oblivion to try and forget).  

[ElectricBoogaloo]

Clips:

Sara discusses her father's suicide:

Don't pretend I have no feelings for you:

[Haleth]

On 3/27/2018 at 10:29 AM, 88Keys said:

For everyone who wants John to adopt Joseph- doesn't Joseph have a family somewhere?  Or was it said that he was an orphan?  I also agree that he would be better off at Kriezler's school and John can give him art lessons on the side.

I don't imagine his parents would mind him becoming the ward of a wealthy gentleman, given that the poor child had to resort to prostitution to make money to feed himself and/or his family.

On 3/27/2018 at 11:08 AM, ElectricBoogaloo said:

Byrnes was so unblinking while staring at Laszlo and John at the opera that I started to wonder if someone had killed him and left his body posed in that box seat. 

That icy glare gave me goosebumps!

17 hours ago, 88Keys said:

At the opera, John was exchanging barbs with someone named "Jack Aster."  Was that supposed to be John Jacob Aster?

Jack Astor (aka Jackass-tor) was a disreputable playboy who scandalously ran through his family's money.  No wonder John wanted nothing to do with him (fiancee notwithstanding).

I loved that John stole Sarah's cab.  In a funny way leaving her standing there pointed to his respect for her very capable self.  His impish grin and wave back to her made me wish we could follow them to learn if they did ever try to make a go of a romance.

I'll miss the Gilded Age NYC porn most of all.  I may be wrong but I seem to remember reading that the reservoir was on the site that is now the Met Museum of Art.  (In any case I'm pretty sure the reservoir was around Central Park.)  That's quite a ways from the Brooklyn Bridge!  Or the Library.  (Thanks, tessathereaper!)  I knew it was some landmark.

Edited March 28, 2018 by Haleth

[KungFuBunny]

Towards the end of the episode, they show the wagon roll up by the police station.

Body covered in a white tarp - does anyone know what the note pinned on said?

[tessathereaper]

Here's an article about what I believe is the reservoir.

 

http://gothamist.com/2015/01/16/revisit_croton_reservoir.php#photo-1

Edited March 28, 2018 by tessathereaper

[maxineofarc]

2 hours ago, KungFuBunny said:

Towards the end of the episode, they show the wagon roll up by the police station.

Body covered in a white tarp - does anyone know what the note pinned on said?

It said "Japeth Drury - This is the man who killed the boys." I guess they sent it over after the unsanctioned autopsy.

Edited March 28, 2018 by maxineofarc

[KungFuBunny]

3 minutes ago, maxineofarc said:

It said "This is the man who killed the boys" and his name. I guess they sent it over after the unsanctioned autopsy.

Thank you!

I thought it was Connors body. I wish they had left his naked body in an alley - as an unsolved death

[pezgirl7]

19 hours ago, libgirl2 said:

With ghastly, I was really expecting the worse. 

Sorry for the crappy quality of this pic, but I thought the tic was pretty awful looking! Especially since it looked like it was really painful. Also, I find anything that reveals the teeth like that to be icky.

 

I wasn't sure where to put this, but Luke posted this video from filming his last scene with Dakota. The end of the video is 100%, quintessential Luke Evans! :)

https://www.instagram.com/p/Bgy0EVIhFsm/?taken-by=thereallukeevans

[KittyMom4]

On 3/27/2018 at 10:48 AM, KungFuBunny said:

My theory is that Drury believed he was saving these boys. His victims were about the same age as him when he was raped and he wished that he himself was killed instead of going through life with this trauma in his head. He takes them up to the castle in the sky - leaving their body somewhere high in altitude finally at peace. His attraction to heights represents the only time he was ever happy when he went climbing/hiking on the cliffs back home. He takes their eyes so they no longer see. He is saving these boys from a lifetime of having to give in to the sexual demands of a pedophile.

I like this theory, it makes sense. I was behind 3 episodes until last night, I am going to rewatch all the episodes again (ff'ing through the cat in the bag scene), I loved this show and can't wait for it's return!

[AnnieHeights]

My thoughts on the series and the last episode.

I genuinely loved Dakota Fanning in this role, the last scene with her and Kreizler was wonderful.  She did tend to sound like Stewie Griffin pronouncing 'Cool Whip' when sounding out her wh's though.  I thought she balanced proper, playful and a strong female really well.  I do hope her and John end up together if there are additional seasons.

Kudos to the folks who did the sets......just incredible.

I, like everyone else was happy Joseph survived.  He went from being a tough street kid to a vulnerable little boy when he was captured. 

I thought the facial tick was chilling.....it looked like something was slithering beneath Beecham's skin.           

Speaking of Beecham, he was much more handsome than what I was expecting. 

I was happy to see Kreizler seem hopeful after everything that has happened to him. 

I am glad Marcus at the very least made peace (if not more going with the kiss at the end) with Esther and I am glad she called him out.     

I loved this series and am really sad it is over.

oh and poor cat :( that was brutal. 

[proserpina65]

On ‎03‎/‎26‎/‎2018 at 10:12 PM, Reality police said:

Ok. What do I do now, where do I go? Just kidding. Glad Connor is dead, understand why he got the honor, not happy about it. So glad Sara was the one to shoot him.

I hope Gram spoils Joseph rotten. 

Really, really enjoyed this show. Hoping for another season. 

I hated that Connor got publicly honored like that, but it was for his family's benefit, and it wasn't their fault he was scum.

And, with everything I saw on this show, the cat thing was what made me look away.

[maxineofarc]

37 minutes ago, proserpina65 said:

I hated that Connor got publicly honored like that, but it was for his family's benefit, and it wasn't their fault he was scum.

Not just for his family's benefit, but it also covered for Sara and made Roosevelt look good. Win-win-win.

[sugarbaker design]

3 hours ago, pezgirl7 said:

Sorry for the crappy quality of this pic, but I thought the tic was pretty awful looking!

I found it to be quite disconcerting!

[88Keys]

I liked the Isaacsons a lot and wanted to learn more about them, so I didn't necessarily mind the Esther storyline.  However, they should have either fleshed it out more or left it out entirely.  As it was, it was confusing and felt kind of jammed into the regular episodes.  Broke the flow of things a bit.

This show seemed to want to showcase the difference social/economic classes that existed at the time.  Honest question here: would the Isaacsons have been considered middle class?  They clearly didn't have the kind of money that Moore, Kreizler, and Sarah had, but they didn't seem to be poverty-stricken like the brothel boys, either.  Also, they seemed comfortable at the fancy dinners that Kreizler kept inviting them to.  

[minamurray78]

1 hour ago, 88Keys said:

Honest question here: would the Isaacsons have been considered middle class?  They clearly didn't have the kind of money that Moore, Kreizler, and Sarah had, but they didn't seem to be poverty-stricken like the brothel boys, either.  Also, they seemed comfortable at the fancy dinners that Kreizler kept inviting them to.  

I don´t know if the term "middle class" as we use it today would have applied by then. They are professionals, they have studied, white-collar workers perhaps? I think it was a time were paradigms were changing. 

The other three are upper class I feel. They went to Harvard and Vassar, but, well I don't know how much Kreizler is making with his institute, but Sara and John are clearly not depending on their salary for their expenses.

[88Keys]

On 3/28/2018 at 11:41 PM, minamurray78 said:

I don´t know if the term "middle class" as we use it today would have applied by then. They are professionals, they have studied, white-collar workers perhaps? I think it was a time were paradigms were changing. 

The other three are upper class I feel. They went to Harvard and Vassar, but, well I don't know how much Kreizler is making with his institute, but Sara and John are clearly not depending on their salary for their expenses.

Sarah, Moore, and probably Kreizler, seem like they all came from "old money" families.  I wonder if John really has to work as an illustrator or if he just does it because he wants to.   

[Hazel55]

On 3/27/2018 at 6:54 PM, minamurray78 said:

I had forgotten about John's brief encounter with Astor. I wonder what was the point of that scene. John seemed to finally be over his fiancee leaving him for Astor. At least he said so to Kreizler on that train ride. Was that scene supposed to be confirmation? 

I believe the purpose of that scene was twofold: first, to show the audience that John had grown since the beginning of the show, when he was visiting prostitutes and obsessing over his ex. Now he has moved on, the show is implying. Secondly, I believe that the scene was supposed to be "a moment of triumph" for John, in which he tells off both the man who cuckholded him, and insults and rejects the woman who betrayed him, all the the applause of the audience. 

Since, as you note, they'd already established that John had moved on back in episode 8, I believe that the primary purpose of the scene was the second reason-- so that the audience could witness John telling his ex fiance and her lover off. 

Personally,  I hate, hated, hated the scene, for a few different reasons. 

First, why did they even bother introducing this character, Jack Astor, whom we had never met, had no reason to care for? (We only heard him mentioned once, in the first episode, as the man John's fiance left him for.) The only reason for introducing that scene that I can see is because the writers wanted to give us some satisfying closure on "John's past tragedies" by showing him telling off his rival, disregarding his "trampy" former fiance, and assuring everyone that he was over the whole ordeal. It was the TV equivalent of the scene at the end of the movie in which Our Hero punches the bully, rejects the unattainable girl he had formerly been pining for,  then walks off in a moment of triumph.

Which.... okay. However, I have a few issues with this: first, I'd rather be spending time with established characters we already know and care for than having a random character we don't know introduced only to be told off. How are  Lucius and Marcus are dealing with the blatant anti semitism they were subjected to last episode? How are Stevie and Cyrus are dealing with their grief and anger over Mary's death?  And what the heck happened to Joseph after he was rescued and (obnoxiously, frustratingly) never heard from again? These are all things I'd rather see than John telling off his fiance's seducer in a ham fisted attempt to bring sort of closure to John's story. 

Secondly, the idea that the wealth of self hatred, alcoholism, masochism, loneliness, and self sabotage we saw from John over the course of the series was all because his fiance dumped him, and that getting over her would solve everything, is quite simply ridiculous. We are introduced to John as mourning over his fiance, but by the third episode, it's clear that she is only a surface issue, probably less a "true love" than a life preserver he was grabbing onto to "fix" himself.

His problems clearly go much deeper-- his alcoholism and depression don't seem to result from the breakup, but from a deep seeded fear that he is a total failure and simply unlovable. These issues clearly run deep, and seem involved in both his upbringing (which was indicated to be cold and troubled at several points) and the loss of his brother; neither of which we ever really saw him deal with at any point throughout the show. 

Furthermore, his "love" for Sarah, apparently presented (at the end of the show) as true and pure and the impetus he needed to solve his problems, quit drinking, and get over Julia, was pretty unhealthy in and of itself. While I don't doubt that John's love for Sarah was true and sincere, it was also clearly the effort of a psychologically troubled man to "save himself" through the love of a good woman; and receive redemption for his man failures through earning the love and approval of the "right" girl. In a way, the writers seemed to give up on the story of John's many demons in the end, and concede with John's grandmother-- all he needed was the right girl to save him in the end. 

Never mind the fact that John's sign of "major growth," his decision to stop drinking, was only arrived at because he thought Sarah might marry him. Never mind that he relapsed after being told (once) that Sarah didn't love him and wouldn't marry him. Apparently, in the end... that was all healthy? And now John's a-okay? And in the end, emerges triumphant, no longer a drunk or a failure, but a happy man who can tell off his former romantic rival and dismiss his fiance all to the audiences happy applause? Oookay, show. Okay. 

(Also bizarre is the fact that, in the first part of the episode, John tells Sarah desperately, almost crying, "Reject me if you want to, but don't dismiss my feelings for you as not real!" And then in the end, Sarah blatantly rejects John's feelings for her as not real ("You only want what you can't have, you want the ideal"), and... he's fine with it? And walks off laughing into the night?)

And one more issue, that many no doubt will think I'm being too sensitive about, but that I just wanted to bring up for casual discussion. Why did John's dismissal of Julia at the end during his speech to Jack have to involve a casual, sexually degrading comment, that implied Julia was promiscuous? The writers could have simply had John say, while talking to Jack, that "I'm over Julia, it doesn't bother me anymore." In fact, he had said as much, back in episode 8, in the train car, with Kreizler. But instead, the writers chose to have John insult (briefly but clearly) Julia in a specifically sexual sense, implying that she was promiscuous, and worth less because Jack had already "had" her. He comments to Jack, "If you're referring to Julia, I believe you got much further in seducing her than I ever did." (Or something very close to that.)

It weirded me out that the writers included a line like this, obviously intended, once again, to make audience members cheer. Julia is clealy being presented as a wicked tramp who John now knows is beneath him, and whom he is better off without. Never mind that life is complicated, and we don't really know the details of what went down between Julia and John, except from John's perspective. Never mind that given the young age of marriage at the time, Julia was probably still pretty young, and that that may have contributed to some bad decision making on her part. Never mind that perhaps, rather than just "leaving him for another man," she may have taken issue with his alcoholism and self loathing, questioned the healthiness of his love for her, or what have you. Julia was an evil tramp who let Jack seduce her, and yay, John finally realizes it! And now... all his problems are over? 

Edited March 30, 2018 by Hazel55

[pezgirl7]

2 hours ago, Hazel55 said:

And one more issue, that many no doubt will think I'm being too sensitive about, but that I just wanted to bring up for casual discussion. Why did John's dismissal of Julia at the end during his speech to Jack have to involve a casual, sexually degrading comment, that implied Julia was promiscuous?

I didn't take it the way you did at all. Jack says something about how John is quite familiar with seducing women. John replies, If you're referring to Julia, I believe you're more familiar than I. John is basically saying, I didn't seduce Julia, you did. John and Julia were engaged, probably had a typical courtship, and more than likely didn't have an intimate relationship. John was just sticking up for himself. He's not the one who seduces women, it's Jack.

Also, I wonder if Jack was cut from earlier episodes. There's a cut scene where John and Gram are at the silent auction, and John is glowering at someone.  I wouldn't be surprised if he ran into Jack there.

I also have doubts that John was an alcoholic before Julia left him. He told Gram he was just seeing himself through a rough patch, which implies he wasn't a heavy drinker before. Julia leaving him probably brought up all his abandonment issues, and made him turn to alcohol and sex with prostitutes. 

[Hazel55]

On 3/30/2018 at 5:26 PM, pezgirl7 said:

I didn't take it the way you did at all. Jack says something about how John is quite familiar with seducing women. John replies, If you're referring to Julia, I believe you're more familiar than I. John is basically saying, I didn't seduce Julia, you did. John and Julia were engaged, probably had a typical courtship, and more than likely didn't have an intimate relationship.

Yes, and he's also stating that Jack slept with her, which would be basically saying Julia was a "loose woman" given the time period. 

However, its not really a big deal, and doesn't merit arguing about. 

On 3/30/2018 at 5:26 PM, pezgirl7 said:

Also, I wonder if Jack was cut from earlier episodes. There's a cut scene where John and Gram are at the silent auction, and John is glowering at someone.  I wouldn't be surprised if he ran into Jack there.

Ah, so there was one previous "glowering" scene featuring Jack! That makes his random inclusion near the end of the series so much more relevant! Given John's earlier "glowering" at Jack, we simply had to have a scene that gave viewers some closure on their very important relationship. Getting closure on that storyline was far more important than getting closure on Joseph, Stevie, Cyrus, or many others. 

Either that, or it was what I called it before: a cliched and rather manipulative attempt to given John a "moment of triumph" as he insults the evil bully in the end to the applause of viewers everywhere. 

It was a tiny scene, and its inclusion didn't hurt the episode; in the grand scheme of things it was next to nothing. But claiming that there was some greater point to it, or that the time given to it wouldn't have better been spent with other characters we actually care about, is ridiculous. 

On 3/30/2018 at 5:26 PM, pezgirl7 said:

I also have doubts that John was an alcoholic before Julia left him. 

Actually, we have confirmation from the shows writers and producers that John WAS an alcoholic long before Julia left him. 

In an early "meet the characters" feature, a few of the shows producers comment that John is "a functional alcoholic", and note that his alcohol abuse began in earnest after his brothers death. That was long before he even met Julia. (It is also implied that John has been "a little wild" with alcohol and women his whole life, well before the "trauma" of one girl dumping him.) 

In another scene, when asked to describe his character, Luke Evans comments uses "alcoholic" as one of the three top words he'd use to describe him. 

On 3/30/2018 at 5:26 PM, pezgirl7 said:

He told Gram he was just seeing himself through a rough patch, which implies he wasn't a heavy drinker before. 

John was clearly making excuses to simultaneously comfort his gram and get himself out of her critical "motherly" gaze. His words that his drinking was not at all dangerous, and was only a temporary thing, were clearly false (anyone can see he's clearly dangerously addicted); so the assumption that it "just started" as a result of a breakup is ridiculous. John's words here can be taken no more seriously than Grams belief that "the right girl" will cure John of his alcoholism and self destructive habits. 

[ferjy]

1 hour ago, Hazel55 said:

Either that, or it was what I called it before: a cliched and rather manipulative attempt to given John a "moment of triumph" as he insults the evil bully in the end to the applause of viewers everywhere.
 

That's how I took it. And it was a cheesy line. “If I still drank, I would prefer to drink alone rather than with you.” I would have preferred something wittier from John. 

Edited April 1, 2018 by ferjy

[pezgirl7]

1 hour ago, Hazel55 said:

Ah, so there was one previous "glowering" scene featuring Jack! That makes his random inclusion near the end of the series so much more relevant! Given John's earlier "glowering" at Jack, we simply had to have a scene that gave viewers some closure on their very important relationship. Getting closure on that storyline was far more important than getting closure on Joseph, Stevie, Cyrus, or many others. 

There's no need to be so sarcastic about it. I was just trying to be helpful by stating that perhaps Jack was meant to have a bigger role than what was shown. We clearly have different feelings about that scene. I liked it, you clearly didn't. Although I would have gladly traded it for a final scene with Joseph. Even if it was just a quick mention of him.

 

1 hour ago, Hazel55 said:

Actually, we have confirmation from the shows writers and producers that John WAS an alcoholic long before Julia left him. 

In an early "meet the characters" feature, a few of the shows producers comment that John is "a functional alcoholic", and note that his alcohol abuse began in earnest after his brothers death. That was long before he even met Julia.

Sorry but I don't remember the writers saying that John was an alcoholic long before Julia left him or that his brother died long before he met Julia. If you can remember in what interviews they stated that, I'd be interested in watching them.

[tessathereaper]

On 3/30/2018 at 3:57 PM, Hazel55 said:

I believe the purpose of that scene was twofold: first, to show the audience that John had grown since the beginning of the show, when he was visiting prostitutes and obsessing over his ex. Now he has moved on, the show is implying. Secondly, I believe that the scene was supposed to be "a moment of triumph" for John, in which he tells off both the man who cuckholded him, and insults and rejects the woman who betrayed him, all the the applause of the audience. 

Since, as you note, they'd already established that John had moved on back in episode 8, I believe that the primary purpose of the scene was the second reason-- so that the audience could witness John telling his ex fiance and her lover off. 

Personally,  I hate, hated, hated the scene, for a few different reasons. 

First, why did they even bother introducing this character, Jack Astor, whom we had never met, had no reason to care for? (We only heard him mentioned once, in the first episode, as the man John's fiance left him for.) The only reason for introducing that scene that I can see is because the writers wanted to give us some satisfying closure on "John's past tragedies" by showing him telling off his rival, disregarding his "trampy" former fiance, and assuring everyone that he was over the whole ordeal. It was the TV equivalent of the scene at the end of the movie in which Our Hero punches the bully, rejects the unattainable girl he had formerly been pining for,  then walks off in a moment of triumph.

Which.... okay. However, I have a few issues with this: first, I'd rather be spending time with established characters we already know and care for than having a random character we don't know introduced only to be told off. How are  Lucius and Marcus are dealing with the blatant anti semitism they were subjected to last episode? How are Stevie and Cyrus are dealing with their grief and anger over Mary's death?  And what the heck happened to Joseph after he was rescued and (obnoxiously, frustratingly) never heard from again? These are all things I'd rather see than John telling off his fiance's seducer in a ham fisted attempt to bring sort of closure to John's story. 

Secondly, the idea that the wealth of self hatred, alcoholism, masochism, loneliness, and self sabotage we saw from John over the course of the series was all because his fiance dumped him, and that getting over her would solve everything, is quite simply ridiculous. We are introduced to John as mourning over his fiance, but by the third episode, it's clear that she is only a surface issue, probably less a "true love" than a life preserver he was grabbing onto to "fix" himself.

His problems clearly go much deeper-- his alcoholism and depression don't seem to result from the breakup, but from a deep seeded fear that he is a total failure and simply unlovable. These issues clearly run deep, and seem involved in both his upbringing (which was indicated to be cold and troubled at several points) and the loss of his brother; neither of which we ever really saw him deal with at any point throughout the show. 

Furthermore, his "love" for Sarah, apparently presented (at the end of the show) as true and pure and the impetus he needed to solve his problems, quit drinking, and get over Julia, was pretty unhealthy in and of itself. While I don't doubt that John's love for Sarah was true and sincere, it was also clearly the effort of a psychologically troubled man to "save himself" through the love of a good woman; and receive redemption for his man failures through earning the love and approval of the "right" girl. In a way, the writers seemed to give up on the story of John's many demons in the end, and concede with John's grandmother-- all he needed was the right girl to save him in the end. 

Never mind the fact that John's sign of "major growth," his decision to stop drinking, was only arrived at because he thought Sarah might marry him. Never mind that he relapsed after being told (once) that Sarah didn't love him and wouldn't marry him. Apparently, in the end... that was all healthy? And now John's a-okay? And in the end, emerges triumphant, no longer a drunk or a failure, but a happy man who can tell off his former romantic rival and dismiss his fiance all to the audiences happy applause? Oookay, show. Okay. 

(Also bizarre is the fact that, in the first part of the episode, John tells Sarah desperately, almost crying, "Reject me if you want to, but don't dismiss my feelings for you as not real!" And then in the end, Sarah blatantly rejects John's feelings for her as not real ("You only want what you can't have, you want the ideal"), and... he's fine with it? And walks off laughing into the night?)

And one more issue, that many no doubt will think I'm being too sensitive about, but that I just wanted to bring up for casual discussion. Why did John's dismissal of Julia at the end during his speech to Jack have to involve a casual, sexually degrading comment, that implied Julia was promiscuous? The writers could have simply had John say, while talking to Jack, that "I'm over Julia, it doesn't bother me anymore." In fact, he had said as much, back in episode 8, in the train car, with Kreizler. But instead, the writers chose to have John insult (briefly but clearly) Julia in a specifically sexual sense, implying that she was promiscuous, and worth less because Jack had already "had" her. He comments to Jack, "If you're referring to Julia, I believe you got much further in seducing her than I ever did." (Or something very close to that.)

It weirded me out that the writers included a line like this, obviously intended, once again, to make audience members cheer. Julia is clealy being presented as a wicked tramp who John now knows is beneath him, and whom he is better off without. Never mind that life is complicated, and we don't really know the details of what went down between Julia and John, except from John's perspective. Never mind that given the young age of marriage at the time, Julia was probably still pretty young, and that that may have contributed to some bad decision making on her part. Never mind that perhaps, rather than just "leaving him for another man," she may have taken issue with his alcoholism and self loathing, questioned the healthiness of his love for her, or what have you. Julia was an evil tramp who let Jack seduce her, and yay, John finally realizes it! And now... all his problems are over? 

 

If you took it that Julia was a tramp, then that's how you took it, I didn't take it as Julia was a tramp. In fact using the implication that Jack "seduced" her, to me it implies it was not something entirely of her own volition(not in the sense that it was forced on her but in the sense that she wasn't necessarily the sort of girl who played the field and thus might be considered, for the time period, loose.  Seduced to me means that Jack for some reason put a heck of a lot of effort into stealing away Julia who was John's fiancee, implying he did all the things a seducer might do, and seduction in that sense generally isn't looked upon as an honest action but almost more as a type of con, particularly as they didn't end up married either, I thought it was more "Jack Astor decided he wants something, he will do whatever is necessary to win and then will move on, not caring whatever damage he's left in his wake"--so whatever actually happened, I certainly didn't view Julia as a tramp, though cheating is not a good thing).

As for Sarah, IMO we also saw John grow from letting it send him into a relapse.  Yes he took it badly(and frankly Laszlo was being needlessly freaking cruel about it as he was about quite a few things) and relapsed but he also after that, when thinking Laszlo was in love with her didn't seem like he was wanted to crawl back into the bottle on losing her, though he was quite relieved to find he still might have a chance, and at the very least he seems to view it as a long term thing.  John had coping mechanisms, IMO we're just seeing him trying to find healthier ones, it doesn't happen over night or all at once.  Him relapsing that time doesn't mean he'll do it the next time.  People use all sorts of inspirations to start them on that road, it doesn't mean it remains the only inspiration.  Sarah could inspire that initially and then he could find more and more reasons which are not based on her and I think he was shown to be doing so, including just that it's better for himself--he can't be constantly getting beat up in back alleys because he got drunk on the wrong place after all.(and on a side note it's so funny in a way, because like almost every other role I've seen Luke Evans in on screen he's been a bad ass and then you have John Schuyler Moore...who just isn't)

I didn't view the scene as bizarre between them at the end of the episode.  It has to do with the mood, I mean that's how it is in real life too - something you might cry about one day is something you can laugh about the next, even if overall nothing has really changed-- its depending on the the overall mood plus your own mood.  The latter scene takes place after a victory of sorts(the killer is dead, even if Lazslo didn't get his answers, Joseph was saved), after an evening of good fellowship, the mood is playful, she is playful, he is playful.  Frankly I think the very fact that they had that earlier scene together helped him, even if it seems on the surface nothing changed - he put his cards on the table, whatever her reaction he probably feels he's taken positive steps and that may be enough for him for now.  

I do agree they did seemingly drop the issues with his father and his brother's death but maybe they decided to leave that open for a possible season 2?  We've gotten a lot of the details on Lazslo and Sarah's parental past now, they probably felt they needed to leave one of the main trio's family issues to be uncovered further if they got a season 2.  So they've wrapped up the fiancee, which probably wasn't even the most serious issue as you mentioned but just more a symptom, and can bring up the father and brother issues without it being all muddled up.  PLUS assuming Joseph will still have some sort of even small role to play - it would be a good excuse for them to open up that box of worms if John's going to be any kind of guardian(even it's mostly off scene).  

In any case I do hope that is the case because I was interested, even with the scant information we were given, in finding out what it was all about and of course, we haven't as of yet.

But as for the scene as a whole, let's be real, that short little scene is not what kept us from finding out more about the Isaacsons or any of those other things.  It's not like they said "Hey why don't we just cut out this scene about the Isaacsons or Cyrus and Stevie" to stick in this scene with Jack Astor.  IMO they put that scene in to basically lay that part of John's storyline to rest(OR, the other possibility, they may plan on Jack Astor playing a role in a potential Season 2 and this would given a brief intro to him as a character).  I think it was just "John's dealt with this particular thing now", it doesn't mean he doesn't still have other things to do deal with, but this particular thing he's put behind him.

Edited April 1, 2018 by tessathereaper

[Hazel55]

For those who were (like me) left wondering what happened to Joseph... an extra deleted scene featuring him has been added on Youtube: (*Warning: This scene features some extreme violence towards an animal. If you were triggered by the "cat scene" in the finale, you probably want to skip it.)

It gives some follow up as to what happened to him afterward the ordeal, but is pretty disturbing and opens up some other doors as well regarding future issues for Joseph and others at Kreizler's institute.

Edited April 1, 2018 by Hazel55

[pezgirl7]

Poor Joseph. And poor monkey. It's not surprising that Joseph is at the institute, and is having nightmares. But I'm glad they didn't end the show with that scene. It would have been too dark and depressing. I also hope that Ezra gets sent to live elsewhere!

[tessathereaper]

3 hours ago, pezgirl7 said:

Poor Joseph. And poor monkey. It's not surprising that Joseph is at the institute, and is having nightmares. But I'm glad they didn't end the show with that scene. It would have been too dark and depressing. I also hope that Ezra gets sent to live elsewhere!

I knew that poor monkey was a goner as soon as they showed it(the show really needs to cut down on the killing animals. LOL  Yes, I'm one of those people - They can kill all the people they want, but I'm not here for killing animals)

[millennium]

On 3/27/2018 at 12:07 AM, MrsRafaelBarba said:

I think he did that, to protect the family from shame and embarrassment.

Have Connor remembered as a hero, so the family could get death benefits.

I think he did it for the sake of the institution.   Burns said as much in an earlier episode -- that if the people believed an alienist had solved a crime and the police were unable, they would lose all faith in the department and its future would be in question.    Roosevelt's decision ensured the NYPD would still enjoy the public's esteem.   His logic seemed to be "the institution sucks, but it's the only one we got."

My complaint about the series is that Burns and Connor emerged as worse villains than Drury/Beecham.   When you have a show premised around the hunt for a killer who butchers and eats children, the cops, no matter how corrupt, should not seem like greater menaces.  

What was with all the tight close-ups on Dakota Fanning's moon face?

ETA: I wanted to stand up and cheer when I saw the CGI of the Croton Reservoir.   I have only seen photos of it in the past, so to see a "live" version was fascinating.   I wish they had inserted better exposition to explain what that structure was, where it was, and what it did.   How many people alive today who visit the New York Public Library or Bryant Park realize that on those very sites once stood a mammoth above-ground reservoir?   It furnished the city's drinking water, and was the terminus for all the millions of gallons of water shunted into the city from the watershed of Westchester County via the Croton Aqueduct.   Today, a small portion of the original reservoir wall can still be seen in the South Court of the New York Public Library.

Edited April 6, 2018 by millennium

[Cobalt Stargazer]

8 hours ago, millennium said:

What was with all the tight close-ups on Dakota Fanning's moon face?

They did quite a lot of close ups on all three of the leads, didn't they? Kreizler or John would be having a normal conversation with someone, and then the camera would focus right on them and none of the background.

As for the cops being worse than the actual murderer, I kind of don't mind that. Beecham wasn't really better, but he'd been abused and traumatized badly enough that he killed his own mother, and while there'd never be a reason good enough to explain why he started killing kids, had he not been the victim of rape, he'd likely have lived out his life without ever doing such terrible things. Given the times, the awareness of the subject was nil, and Connor's threat to force himself on Sara was something she'd never have been able to prove if he'd done it, and so for a child who'd gone through that and the aftermath of it, there'd have been no help to be found.

[pezgirl7]

I just saw that Jackson Gann, who plays Joseph, posted a photo on IG of him filming the deleted scene with Daniel. He said:

Quote

@thedanielbruhl and I traveled to London to shoot an extra scene for #thealienist finale. Unfortunately the scene was not used (yet) but it was great to reconnect with the Alienist team again . #lukeevans you were missed.

I wonder if they decided to add a scene with Joseph due to the fan's positive reaction to him? Maybe they didn't think people would be so invested in his character at first? I think they filmed scene around March 18, so it really was a late addition.

Edited April 9, 2018 by pezgirl7

[Pogojoco]

On 2018-03-26 at 10:36 PM, pezgirl7 said:

Wow, that was some nail biting drama there!

I loved seeing John be so worried about Joseph, and how relieved he was when he found him. I would have liked a little scene of them together at the end.

I think I'm the only one who didn't want to see John and Sara get together. Although that kiss was super sweet and tender. I liked how Sara said that John was really only in love with what he doesn't have, and he didn't deny it. John taking her carriage was cute! If they had shown more of that version of Sara we had seen in the end, maybe I would have been more on board with them as a pairing.

I thought it was a bit overkill (pardon the pun) at first to have Sara be involved in her father's suicide, but then when she shot Connor (yea!!!!) and Teddy made his comment about how she could always do what had to be done, it made more sense.

I'm kinda disappointed that we never found out why Japheth murdered the boys, and what water had to do with it. And why he doesn't like tabbys! I guess some things are just meant to be a mystery.

You are definitely not the only one who isn't on board for a John/Sara thing. I just don't think they have chemistry and I kind of wish they'd made her a lesbian or something. She's an awesome character, and I like him, too but no. 

[LadyChaos]

On 3/26/2018 at 11:47 PM, Cotypubby said:

 

So we never get any more info on the whole “John gets drugged in the brothel” thing? Weren’t we meant to think he was raped and then that is just never mentioned again? Wtf!?

While not specifically stated, it is implied he was raped by several people when Conner says in the next episode that (paraphrasing) "even if he remembers he'll not say anything to anyone because it would ruin his good name...and noting that John will have trouble sitting for quite some time." Plus later when he was found he was found incoherent without pants.

Personally, I think he's blocked it out, and doesn't remember yet. I think they were leaving something for him to deal with later. In the second season, I would be interested to see if he remembers and if it becomes something that tests his resolve about not drinking. I was disappointed to see that they chose not to address it or reference it at all in this sense. Knowing season 2 is much shorter, might suggest less room for character development to address it so we will see.

On 3/27/2018 at 12:17 AM, minamurray78 said:

 

Also, kudos to Sara for being the ONLY person who thought to bring a weapon in the event of a confrontation with a very violent and strong multi-killer. Although we don´t know that she hasn´t been carrying that little thing around all the time, but still, no excuse for John and specially the doctor, who knew they were going to meet the killer with no police around. 

On 3/27/2018 at 9:06 AM, ElectricBoogaloo said:

In John's defense, he thought they were going to a different location where the would have a bunch of armed police backup so he didn't bother bringing any weapons to the opera. Laszlo, on the other hand, planned this all along so it was stupid for him not to bring any kind of weapon.

To be fair, John didn't know where they were even going, and Laslo was hoping to talk to Japeth, not kill him, which IMO was absolutely stupid. His need to get answers over the human psyche override common sense and he was willing to risk all their lives and potentially others if he escaped just to talk to Japeth and find out why.

 

On 3/27/2018 at 8:50 AM, sugarbaker design said:

However, the soft side of me got even softer at the point where Sarah Howard is looking at John Moore holding and consoling an unconscious Joseph.  That was awesome.

On 3/27/2018 at 5:11 PM, thuganomics85 said:

While I think any potential John/Sara pairing will have long term obstacles to overcome, they were pretty nice together in their few moments.  I do wonder if Sara has a point about wanting things that he "can't have", but I believe that he really believes his feelings for her are legit.

IMO John is the opposite of Sara and Kriesler. Where Kriesler and Sara shut everyone out and closed off their feelings because of their past, John kind of 'wallows' in his emotions and seeks of human connection with people he views cannot hurt him, but still allow him to feel. I think that they struggle is that in the few moments we get to see them have real interaction, John and Sarah really do connect and he makes her laugh and brings her out of herself. However, Sarah would prefer to deny he is legitimate in his claims because its easier to push him away. For all intent and purposes her father raised her to be a man and she was taught to act like a man. So she learned to be stoic and hide her emotions, which she said her father often did. The few times its been brought up that as a woman she should marry and have children, she's gotten angry. I think fears that loving someone, would take away the freedom she has.

As it started, I think John did view her as a thing that he couldn't have, so wanted. Over time though, he has grown to respect her and care for her as the woman she is.  The difference is, where he is someone who is open and free with his emotions, its easier for him to talk about. Sara, who isn't free with her emotions (especially because her father raised her that way, and because where she works she can't afford to appear emotional around all the men who would just as soon see her leave) isn't ready to fully open up or believe John.

I think Dakota did a good job portraying someone who has severe RBF, is closed off, stoic, and if a product of a father her raised to hide her emotions and act like a man.

 

On 3/27/2018 at 6:54 PM, minamurray78 said:

I had forgotten about John's brief encounter with Astor. I wonder what was the point of that scene. John seemed to finally be over his fiancee leaving him for Astor. At least he said so to Kreizler on that train ride. Was that scene supposed to be confirmation? Was it necessary? Or was it meant to be something else?

IMO, I think it's meant to highlight that John wasn't as over the betrayal as he'd like to think. I mean, by no means should he have taken up the offer for drinks but there were better ways to handle it. I think think it was mean to work as an introduction, for a 2nd season.

John is one of those people, IMO, that are loyal to the people he cares about to a fault. He was drinking and whoring before he met Julia, but I would bet he gave up whoring while he was with her even though I think he never slept with her. I think he is the type to fully throw himself in a relationship with someone he loves, so her sleeping with Aster probably felt like the ultimate betrayal which was compounded by, I'm sure, Aster making sure everyone knew. So now everyone knows that Julia was a 'loose woman' and John is openly gawked at over it. It probably was the reason Julia moved to Washington DC, to avoid gossip. Unless I missed something, Kriesler's remark about visiting her in DC would imply she is unmarried. Her reputation is now ruined. So while, John might be on the road to making his peace with what happened, I don't think he has yet. I wouldn't be surprised is Jack is back in s2 and makes a move at Sara.

Other thoughts--

I watched the 1st season in 2 days. I saw some complaints about the heavy focus of the season being on brothels focused on young boys, and how given the state of the Victorian era, it seems unlikely to have been that common of a thing. The way I see it, the show is about serial killer targeting boy prostitutes, so its going to focus heavy on that aspects. I don't think there were that many and nor prevalent all over the city. It seems to me, there weren't that many of those brothels, and they were all clumped together in a seeder part of town which the characters spent a lot of time in to figure out the killer. The majority of people in the city, may not have even know those places exist, and we know that the Police department, who was supposed to be shutting those brothels down, were getting paid to look the other way. We also saw the brothel get shut down, and then immediately reopen across the street. 

I don't think it is Sara, necessarily, that is causing John to stop drinking. I think it is a combination of things like: getting drugged, raped(though he doesn't remember yet), the case, getting jumped and beaten. I think he drank to drowned his emotions, and while he was initially portrayed as a drunk and a user, I think its clear that of the three is the one with the biggest heart and most free with his emotions. He tries his best to see the best in everyone and keeps coming back to help the people he cares about no matter the hurt they cause him and personal cost to himself. Personally, I think he is a better friend than Kriesler deserves.