S01.E02: Never Mind

[ElectricBoogaloo]

Quote

At the Melrose family's glorious house in the South of France, young Patrick has the run of the magical grounds. His father David rules with cruelty and his mother Eleanor has retreated into self medication and booze. Bravely imaginative and self-sufficient out of necessity, 9-year-old Patrick encounters the volatile lives of adults with fear. They are expecting guests for the weekend, but this afternoon is profoundly unlike other summer days, and the shocking events that precede the guests' arrival tear Patrick's world in two.

Promo:

[ElectricBoogaloo]

David is not only a horrible person for abusing his wife and son, but the fact that he expects Patrick to thank him one day for giving him the "gift" of detachment just makes him a million times worse. He clearly enjoys being an abusive asshole who terrifies everyone, as evidenced by the scene with the poor housekeeper. And his creepy mind games with Eleanor are terrible. She had to sneak out of the house just to pick up HIS friend from the airport. WTF? The fig story was just...fuck.

All the adult men are assholes. Nicholas and Victor are both varying degrees of dickwads. Yes, Nicholas, it's all Bridget's responsibility to make sex pleasurable for you - as you are clearly doing the same for her. Yes, Victor, Anne should have gotten out of bed to make you breakfast. Yes, Nicholas, Anne should have ironed Victor's suit since she's just along as the traveling hausfrau. I guess at least Victor left with Anne. I wouldn't have been surprised if he'd stayed since he was clearly intimidated by David from the beginning.

[atlantaloves]

This episode was just horrible, and frankly I hate every single character in this episode. Not sure if I can finish the series even though my love knows no bounds when it comes to Mr. Cumberbatch, but hell he wasn't even in this episode for more than 5 minutes.  It's hard to like a program when every character is a monster. 

[Endeavour]

That was a tough watch - relentless. 

[100Proof]

So David buggered son Patrick? I was waiting for the sound of a strap whacking Patrick after the bedroom door closed but there was none. That plus the threat David made about 'ever mentioning what happened' in Patrick's bedroom during the dinner party, he must've rogered him to teach him some kind of 'lesson'.

Way beyond being cruel, that's sick.

Edited May 21, 2018 by 100Proof

[IntrovertGal]

9 hours ago, Endeavour said:

That was a tough watch - relentless. 

Agreed! The only remotely likeable adult person in this episode was Eleanor's friend Anne (oh and possibly the housekeeper) but she also did not do enough to help poor Patrick. Even though the child actor playing young Patrick does not resemble Cumberbatch in the slightest, I think he did a good job conveying how broken and frightened he was. David Melrose is a true monster, a despicable person without an ounce of empathy, and even though Eleanor seems to love her son her inability to protect him and her cowardice are inexcusable.

At least the episode ended on a hopeful note with adult Patrick coming to the end of his withdrawal. Next week's episode looks to be more Cumberbatch-centric again.

[spottedreptile]

10 hours ago, IntrovertGal said:

David Melrose is a true monster, a despicable person without an ounce of empathy,

So what is David Melrose's story? Was the same thing done to him as a child? Don't get me wrong, he's a vile person who ruins his son's life for whatever perverted reasons he comes up with to himself, but people aren't born this way. What makes him so cruel and so horrible. As for Eleanor, she must be terrified of her husband to refuse to protect her son. 

On 20/05/2018 at 9:32 PM, ElectricBoogaloo said:

On 20/05/2018 at 9:32 PM, ElectricBoogaloo said:

but the fact that he expects Patrick to thank him one day for giving him the "gift" of detachment just makes him a million times worse

I'm guessing this also refers back to David's childhood. It seems self-reflective. 

Edited May 21, 2018 by spottedreptile
grammar

[atlantaloves]

This sort of thing just seems to go from family to family...abuser to abuser....but I don't care. THERE IS NEVER AN EXCUSE. I am not liking this series at all, it is just nasty for the sake of being nasty. And that MOTHER....What's her name (Jennifer) that is playing his mother is just repeating the same acting ticks she did in her Dorothy Parker and the Vicious Circle film. (which by the way was wonderful) === I need a stiff drink and a needle myself after watching this tripe. 

[msrachelj]

the mother, eleanor? ( i don't think the actress is any good at all, he monotonous voice drives me nuts) is the one who had all the money and owns everything, correct? why does david rule the roost? why can't she just throw his ass out? she's more than financially well off. oh and i hate her for not helping her child , she probably knows he is being abused and the scene at the dinner table where she would not go to him, but cowed down to her husband. sickening. 

[Dessert]

The series is not trying to make an excuse, in any way, for the parents abominable behavior. I’ve read the books, and Patrick, for all of his faults, does not continue this abuse with his own family.

[spottedreptile]

On 25/05/2018 at 10:24 AM, Dessert said:

The series is not trying to make an excuse, in any way, for the parents abominable behavior. I’ve read the books, and Patrick, for all of his faults, does not continue this abuse with his own family.

Which I suspect is the point of the thing. Yes, you can be hideously damaged by something in your early childhood, but it is possible to get past the scars and stop the cycle, for some people at least. 

[ozzy]

On 5/24/2018 at 1:02 PM, msrachelj said:

the mother, eleanor? ( i don't think the actress is any good at all, he monotonous voice drives me nuts) is the one who had all the money and owns everything, correct? why does david rule the roost? why can't she just throw his ass out? she's more than financially well off. oh and i hate her for not helping her child , she probably knows he is being abused and the scene at the dinner table where she would not go to him, but cowed down to her husband. sickening. 

I think the monotone voice and flat affect has to do with the pills she was necking with her morning bourbon

[Vmc]

I’m not a fan of the actress, but if you’re having such a strong reaction to the character, then maybe the actress is doing her job.

[ozzy]

13 hours ago, Vmc said:

I’m not a fan of the actress, but if you’re having such a strong reaction to the character, then maybe the actress is doing her job.

Jennifer Mason Leigh ALWAYS does her job.

[msrachelj]

3 hours ago, ozzy said:

Jennifer Mason Leigh ALWAYS does her job.

i guess i see (hear) it differently. she always sounds that way to me. but to each his own. 

[Vmc]

Changing the subject—I’m surprised Benedict’s friend James Rhodes hasn’t been mentioned in light of the topic of the books.

[Eyes High]

Is it just me, or is this...really bad? Like, excruciatingly bad?

I read that the novels are semi-autobiographical, but if I hadn't known that, I would have assumed that the series was some kind of cunning Marxist parody written by someone who was writing propaganda to convey the moral rot of the upper class. The father is so ridiculously cruel and monstrous, the mother such a stereotypical blowsy alcoholic, their friends so hideously unlikeable...It's all sort of silly, isn't it? 

I've read a few passages from the novels, and from what I've seen the prose is quite beautiful, like this bit from Bad News:

Quote

Heroin was the cavalry. Heroin was the missing chair leg, made with such precision that it matched every splinter of the break. Heroin landed purring at the base of his skull, and wrapped itself darkly around his nervous system, like a black cat curling up on its favourite cushion. It was as soft and rich as the throat of a wood pigeon, or the splash of sealing wax onto a page, or a handful of gems slipping from palm to palm

However, when you do an adaptation, short of voiceovers, you're down to plot and dialogue, and the silliness often shines through, and that seems to be what has happened here.

...And yes, Jennifer Jason Leigh was terrible. 

Edited May 28, 2018 by Eyes High

[Cheezwiz]

Quite the collection of awful humans (with the exception of Anne) in such a stunningly beautiful setting. Everyone too cool for school, and full of sour disdain.

Poor Patrick - and from reading about the real life St. Aubyn, that assault was not a one time thing - he was raped repeatedly during his childhood and no one - including his addled Mother - protected him. It does make one wonder how the father became such a monster - was he born a sadistic psychopath, or did someone do the same to him? Or was it a combination of both? From what I understand, physical & sexual abuse was a part of the upper crust school system for boys, and simply passed on from one generation to the next. It's a miracle that Edward St. Aubyn managed to survive, and break that cycle with his own loved ones.

[Mindthinkr]

This episode was difficult to watch on so many levels. I’m continuing on (although late to this series in terms of when I began it) slowly as it is so much to digest. It is horrible what this dear child has had to endure and I only hope for the author of this series IRL had some catharsis spelling out his history and the examination of the society that he lived within. The ladies were pretty clear at the table about how they felt about David and how their partners sucked up to him. Why? They wanted to comfort Patrick but knew that the consequences weren’t worth it. David’s wealth was based on his wife’s inheritance. He was pompous. Unfortunately sociopaths can be very charming and Patrick’s mother was obviously taken in by that. None of the men dining at the dinner party that night had any ballocks. What hold on the men does Mr Melrose have?  The delivery of  “I will snap you in two” by Patrick’s father was chilling. 

I will say that I enjoyed seeing the thowbacks in fashion. 

[Kirsty]

Way late to the game here, I just watched this one. It took me a few tries too, as there was such a terrible/excellent sense of dread in the first half of the episode. The only time I thought the show overdid it was the close-up of David stepping on a fig and squeezing its flesh out with his slippered foot. That was overkill. Keep it subtle, show, this isn't a children's cartoon!

On the other hand, the early scene with the housekeeper outside trembling, while David kept her standing there weighed down with the heavy tray was a brilliant way to show us what kind of man he was. I guess he was a sadist and he enjoyed his power over her, an old woman and a kind employee. Having both wife and son creeping around the house terrified painted a pretty vivid picture too.

I loved the two American women's bright costumes when they went driving, the yellow dress and the red dress with matching scarves. Also Bridget's fantastic outfits that look to me like clothes you'd buy at a vintage shop and wear to a costume party!

I was afraid they were going to show more of the sexual abuse. Jesus, what we saw told the story very effectively. That poor child - did he even have the words for what was done to him? And the way his father forced him to behave as though nothing had happened in the following scenes. My understanding of the kid breaking the glass and throwing himself down the stairs was that he needed to be comforted. He couldn't ask for comfort for having been raped, but they would and did bandage his bleeding hand and comfort him when he fell down the stairs.

Imagine growing up there, as vulnerable as a small child is to his father. No hope of escape, no control over what's done to you, a monstrous parental figure playing controlling mind games with you when he's not raping you. This episode told a horrendous story well.

I enjoyed the relationship between Bridget and Nicholas! He was wretched to her obviously, but I found it very believable when he criticised her conversation and her clothes, and when he yelled at her at the airport in front of people. I found the men's lack of respect for the women generally to be very believable for the era.

Quote

It does make one wonder how the father became such a monster - was he born a sadistic psychopath, or did someone do the same to him? Or was it a combination of both?

I wondered too. What the fuck is wrong with him? I just assumed he was a paedophile whose talk about toughening children up is a bullshit cover or rationalisation for his sexual desire. But I'd also buy that he's repeating the pattern of what was done to him. They did talk about his father's power over him a couple of times in the episode.

If he only controlled his wife by way of fear and manipulation, then I'd say that it was his way of showing her who's boss in spite of her wealth and his relative penury; it was his way of punishing her for his having to depend on her financially. No doubt he resented having to marry for money after he was cut off by his father. It's not just a case of a bad marriage, though; he enjoys having everyone in the household terrified of him. I think Bridget should keep walking, because after this episode it wouldn't surprise me if he raped any woman or young person on the property -- wife, son, guest, or employee. No one's going to call the cops on him for rape in 1967, and he knows it too. Good performance by Hugo Weaving.