S03.E04: The Hour and the Day

[mxc90]

8 hours ago, grawlix said:

That was an odd piece of filming/editing.  It looked like the vigilantes were close enough to identify that the man running was Woodard, but there was no indication that they recognized who he was.  It could be that they filmed the sequences and the editor did what he could to preserve the story line.

 

They were blinded by hate.

[WaltersHair]

Quote

That was my takeaway. He stopped to talk to the kids right in front of Head Redneck's house, presumably HR's kids. He didn't bring his slow moving trash vehicle because he would have had to take the roads, he went by foot so he could cut through the yard on the way back. He knew those guys were going to come for him sooner or later- by baiting them he made sure it was on his schedule and he was ready.

This is never crossed my mind. Very interesting if true.

It also leaves me conflicted about the character. Up to this point he's been easy to pity, but deadly forced used in this manner is excessive. Understandable to a degree, but he couldn't know if anyone including children would be collateral damage.

Quote

On another board I read about this show, there are a couple of people who think everything centers around the chicken plant. The mother worked there and I think even the black guy with the weird eye worked there too

 I mentioned something similar two episodes back. We were shown the chicken plant, the child charity, and the dead grand daughter. Since then they've lured us away from the chicken factory as a larger target.  Could be writer slight of hand, could be a red herring.

[Medicine Crow]

Loved the show & the ending!!!

[shapeshifter]

59 minutes ago, WaltersHair said:

4 hours ago, Drogo said:

That was my takeaway. He stopped to talk to the kids right in front of Head Redneck's house, presumably HR's kids. He didn't bring his slow moving trash vehicle because he would have had to take the roads, he went by foot so he could cut through the yard on the way back. He knew those guys were going to come for him sooner or later- by baiting them he made sure it was on his schedule and he was ready.

This is never crossed my mind. Very interesting if true.

It also leaves me conflicted about the character. Up to this point he's been easy to pity, but deadly forced used in this manner is excessive. Understandable to a degree, but he couldn't know if anyone including children would be collateral damage.

It didn't occur to me either until I read it here, but now it seems obvious.
And I think Trash Man thought it out so completely that no children would be harmed. 
At least, that's a possibility, and it's the story I prefer.

Edited January 29, 2019 by shapeshifter

[bilgistic]

I thought the group of angry rednecks (or whatever) trashed Woodard's go-kart last episode when they pulled him out and beat him up. That's why I assumed he wasn't driving it around this episode.

[Jextella]

On 1/28/2019 at 5:01 AM, Gobi said:

When they interviewed the doll maker, I thought she indicated her left eye when she said the man who bought the dolls had a dead eye. The man Hays and West found had a dead right eye.

 

 

You deserve bonus points for that observation!

20 hours ago, Drogo said:

Woodard's not planning to get out of this one alive.  Aside from the Claymore at the front door, he rigged a tripwire to a grenade outside the back entrance.  He's planning to go down and go down swinging.  He saw those detectives pull up and probably assumes he's either a) getting killed by vigilantes or b) getting arrested for a little boy's murder, but definitely one of the other.

"You like kids, generally?"
"What the fuck's the right answer to that?"  -> Says it all.  Woodard knows there's no winning for him, and hasn't been for a long time.

 

I was sad to see Woodard's fate.  I agree that he knew there was no winning.  I also feel this gave him both a method and a justifiable reason (in his mind), to get of the cycle he was stuck in - the one he articulated so well at the police station (can't remember the exact words...must re-watch).

Edited January 29, 2019 by Jextella

[Bannon]

With a story like this so much depends on sticking the landing at the end, so who knows how it'll turn out, but there were some exceptional scenes in this episode, writing, acting, and directing, and the contrast with previous seasons is pronounced. It all starts with the writing, and I don't know if David Milch had any influence beyond credited episodes, but the improvement in dialogue over previous seasons is especially notable. Amelia and Hayes in the restaurant was tremendous in particular, as were the scenes with Mr. Purcell in the depths of suicidal grief, and Mrs. Purcell and Amelia. Heartbreaking stuff that turns to dreck without the right writers, actors, and direction. 

[Milburn Stone]

1 hour ago, Bannon said:

With a story like this so much depends on sticking the landing at the end, so who knows how it'll turn out, but there were some exceptional scenes in this episode, writing, acting, and directing, and the contrast with previous seasons is pronounced. It all starts with the writing, and I don't know if David Milch had any influence beyond credited episodes, but the improvement in dialogue over previous seasons is especially notable. Amelia and Hayes in the restaurant was tremendous in particular, as were the scenes with Mr. Purcell in the depths of suicidal grief, and Mrs. Purcell and Amelia. Heartbreaking stuff that turns to dreck without the right writers, actors, and direction. 

Ditto to all of above, and in particular, one moment in the restaurant scene had so many subtle layers. It was when Hays speaks the words about the disgusting acts that "people who seem to love children" do to children, when just at that moment it turns out in the wide shot that the white waitress is standing right over them in the predominantly white-patroned restaurant. Not a word more is spoken, but you can sense the subtext: Shame over the silent judgment being levied against him for talking that way in a genteel public place and maybe being a pervert himself, racial shame (he can imagine her thinking "what else do you expect from these people?"), proud rebellion against that shame ("I'm justified, I'm a detective investigating a case"), knowledge that his proud rebellion won't mean squat ("it doesn't matter if I'm right, she still sees my color and thinks I'm 'one of those people' who doesn't know how to behave in public"), and on and on.

Edited January 29, 2019 by Milburn Stone

[Ottis]

I'm missing something about Julie. We know that evidence was found that Julie is still alive. And then Hays looks at the video and sees her in the store (that's Julie, right?). So which came first? Did he already know Julie was alive, and then saw the video to confirm it? Or was seeing that video what showed him she was alive. And if it was the former, why does it matter that he sees her on video? They knew she was alive. Now they see a video, so OK, I guess? These time lines make me rethink too much!

[Drogo]

Just now, Ottis said:

I'm missing something about Julie. We know that evidence was found that Julie is still alive. And then Hays looks at the video and sees her in the store (that's Julie, right?). So which came first? Did he already know Julie was alive, and then saw the video to confirm it? Or was seeing that video what showed him she was alive. And if it was the former, why does it matter that he sees her on video? They knew she was alive. Now they see a video, so OK, I guess? These time lines make me rethink too much!

They definitely get confusing.

They knew Julie was alive because her fingerprints were found after a robbery.  Seeing her on video was important because they could see who she was with or if she was alone and also they could get a picture of what she looks like today to go by and/or show to people in the area.  She's not living as "Julie Purcell" anymore, so they really only have her appearance to go by if theyr'e going to locate her.  

[shapeshifter]

31 minutes ago, Drogo said:

They definitely get confusing.

They knew Julie was alive because her fingerprints were found after a robbery.  Seeing her on video was important because they could see who she was with or if she was alone and also they could get a picture of what she looks like today to go by and/or show to people in the area.  She's not living as "Julie Purcell" anymore, so they really only have her appearance to go by if theyr'e going to locate her.  

So Hays wide-eyed ah-ha moment was just him recognizing her before anyone else.
Oy. I spent way too much time thinking he already knew it was her and trying to figure out what else he was seeing.
This makes so much more sense.

 

 

1 hour ago, Milburn Stone said:

Ditto to all of above, and in particular, one moment in the restaurant scene had so many subtle layers. It was when Hays speaks the words about the disgusting acts that "people who seem to love children" do to children, when just at that moment it turns out in the wide shot that the white waitress is standing right over them in the predominantly white-patroned restaurant. Not a word more is spoken, but you can sense the subtext: Shame over the silent judgment being levied against him for talking that way in a genteel public place and maybe being a pervert himself, racial shame (he can imagine her thinking "what else do you expect from these people?"), proud rebellion against that shame ("I'm justified, I'm a detective investigating a case"), knowledge that his proud rebellion won't mean squat ("it doesn't matter if I'm right, she still sees my color and thinks I'm 'one of those people' who doesn't know how to behave in public"), and on and on.

 

 Somewhere upthread and/or on an earlier episode's thread someone made mention of the season being informed by the BLM movement. Your post elegantly dissects an example of this--whether it was on purpose or just a result of the times in which your post was written and the times in which the show was written, cast, performed, and directed.
I don't think the complexities you begin to unpack, @Milburn Stone, would exist in a pre-BLM world--but that's just my opinion/lens. 

Edited January 29, 2019 by shapeshifter

[Dminches]

On 1/27/2019 at 11:04 PM, clack said:

Something is up with Amelia. She continually evades Hays's questions about her past. She also seems to be frequently acting, trying on various personas.

Not that I think she's involved with what happened with the kids. Hays wouldn't still love her, as he seems to do even now.

Or maybe he doesn't remember that before she died he didn't love her.  If he has dementia he may not recall the end of their relationship.

[Ottis]

3 hours ago, Milburn Stone said:

Ditto to all of above, and in particular, one moment in the restaurant scene had so many subtle layers. It was when Hays speaks the words about the disgusting acts that "people who seem to love children" do to children, when just at that moment it turns out in the wide shot that the white waitress is standing right over them in the predominantly white-patroned restaurant. Not a word more is spoken, but you can sense the subtext: Shame over the silent judgment being levied against him for talking that way in a genteel public place and maybe being a pervert himself, racial shame (he can imagine her thinking "what else do you expect from these people?"), proud rebellion against that shame ("I'm justified, I'm a detective investigating a case"), knowledge that his proud rebellion won't mean squat ("it doesn't matter if I'm right, she still sees my color and thinks I'm 'one of those people' who doesn't know how to behave in public"), and on and on.

I suppose. Just as the waitress showed up, Hays started talking about the fact people do shitty things to kids and said either fuck or shit. As far as we know, the waitress had no context for their conversation. So whatever color you are, talking about harming kids and saying "fucking" out loud as a waitress ambush serves you is embarrassing. I would feel that way for sure. I don't think we saw the waitress's face, so attaching meaning beyond that seems like a stretch though certainly this entire show is laced with racial triggers so I wouldn't be surprised. The camera lingered over the woman they interviewed, and Hays face, when he asked her about the man who bought the straw figures and where he lived. "Over Johnson Corner, with the rest," was more or less the response.  The show was all over that visually. 

[Jextella]

13 hours ago, Dminches said:

Or maybe he doesn't remember that before she died he didn't love her.  If he has dementia he may not recall the end of their relationship.

I read or heard somewhere...I think it was Nic P??? that the 3 worlds collide with the elderly Wayne Hays and it is at that moment - and against the backdrop of dementia - that everything becomes most clear to him.  Something like that.  I hope so.  It would be a crying shame to not have FULL resolution of his/this story.

Edited January 30, 2019 by Jextella

[tennisgurl]

So much to digest this episode! I am starting to suspect that the chicken farm has something to do with all of this, it just keeps coming back again. Lucy Purcell worked there, as did the lazy eyed guy, and the mysterious guy in charge has his children's fund, there are a lot of connections to this chicken farm. Plus, something about chicken farms gives me the creeps. 

I know I've said it before, and will probably say it every week, but Mahershala really is amazing, in every iteration of Hays. I am especially fond of 2015 Hays, he does a great job at playing a man who is clearly slipping his old age, but is still there enough to realize what is happening, and is trying to get some closure while he still can. But, I think I like the 1980 plot the most. The early years of his romance with Amelia, tons of weird townsfolk, the subtle and not subtle racial issues (which is ever present, but most obvious in the early 80s so far), the still fresh crime, there is so much to chew on every single scene. 

The 1980 scenes also have some of the funniest banter between Roland and Wayne, like Roland commenting on Waynes frequent threats of prison rape "you got something you wanna share?" and Roland talking about all the hot girls at the church, and then Wayne looking over while talking to the priest to see Roland chatting up the hot parishioner he was looking at earlier. 

Amelia is quit fascinating to me, its so hard to figure out what to make of her. She does seem to really like Wayne, but how much of her interest is in him, and how much is in the case? She is REALLY interested in getting information on it, and we know she later writes an acclaimed book about the case,so what is her motivation? And she does seem to be rather manipulative when it comes to getting information. Again, a lot of it is seems to be a mix of things. I think she did want to offer support to poor, falling apart Lucy Purcell, but she also came there looking for information. And there is clearly some stuff in her past she doesent want to talk about. She said she got into the anti war/black panther movements, right? Maybe things went too far, and she ran back home to avoid something? 

Not much mystical/philosophical stuff this week, beside 2015 Hays being haunted by people from the Vietnam War, but lots of movement on the plot, and good character work.

[AuxArx]

On 1/28/2019 at 5:01 AM, Gobi said:

When they interviewed the doll maker, I thought she indicated her left eye when she said the man who bought the dolls had a dead eye. The man Hays and West found had a dead right eye.

I noticed that, too, but thought she was just seeing it from her perspective, like a mirror image.  Maybe they'll come back to that. 

As an aside, that actress has been in many local theater productions and commercials in Little Rock.  I've seen her in a couple of plays and she's always good. 

[ridethemaverick]

14 hours ago, shapeshifter said:

So Hays wide-eyed ah-ha moment was just him recognizing her before anyone else.
Oy. I spent way too much time thinking he already knew it was her and trying to figure out what else he was seeing.
This makes so much more sense.

 

 

 Somewhere upthread and/or on an earlier episode's thread someone made mention of the season being informed by the BLM movement. Your post elegantly dissects an example of this--whether it was on purpose or just a result of the times in which your post was written and the times in which the show was written, cast, performed, and directed.
I don't think the complexities you begin to unpack, @Milburn Stone, would exist in a pre-BLM world--but that's just my opinion/lens. 

I find these posts confusing. Are some under the impression that racism/racial unrest related to the police only started after Ferguson? 

Anyhow, I enjoyed this episode. I agree with those who found some of the acting/dialogue to be less than stellar but it didn't overshadow the good stuff for me. Amelia and Hays continue to blow me away in their scenes together and Lucy really got a chance to shine this week. 

[shapeshifter]

7 hours ago, tennisgurl said:

So much to digest this episode! I am starting to suspect that the chicken farm has something to do with all of this, it just keeps coming back again. Lucy Purcell worked there, as did the lazy eyed guy, and the mysterious guy in charge has his children's fund, there are a lot of connections to this chicken farm. Plus, something about chicken farms gives me the creeps. 

Well, since you're not the only one mentioning the chicken farms as a potential clue, maybe it's so. Symbolically, chickens are creatures whose ancestors could fly but who now live cooped up in their own filth--like a lot of the people populating this story.

 

7 hours ago, tennisgurl said:

And there is clearly some stuff in her past she doesent want to talk about. She said she got into the anti war/black panther movements, right? Maybe things went too far, and she ran back home to avoid something? 

Maybe she was peripherally involved in a bombing or other action that cost lives. If so, Hays' Vietnam background might make her feel like her own secrets can be kept hidden too.

Edited January 30, 2019 by shapeshifter
apostrophe

[tennisgurl]

On 1/28/2019 at 8:47 AM, Pat Hoolihan said:

They are stepping up the "race" aspects in the show, I suppose to fit in with today's BLM ideology and make the show "relevant"

I am a bit confused as to what that means, or what exactly "BLM ideology" means. The ideology that...black lives matter? And its not like racism or the often strained or deadly relationship between police and minority communities started when BLM became a big cultural voice, its been around for pretty much ever. The setting of the story is Arkansas in rural communities and small towns, part of it is set in 1980, and the main character is a black police officer. It would be weird if race never came up. If anything, they've underplayed it, and focused mostly on the crime and Wayne and his life throughout the years. And that life includes being a black police officer who deals with institutionalized racism at work, and some members of the black community considering him to be a sell out. I dont think its a cheap ploy to get Woke points, its just a natural part of the story and this setting. And this isnt exactly the first show to talk about racism, so I dont really get the issue here.

Edited January 30, 2019 by tennisgurl

[Pike Ludwell]

9 hours ago, tennisgurl said:

I am a bit confused as to what that means, or what exactly "BLM ideology" means. The ideology that...black lives matter? And its not like racism or the often strained or deadly relationship between police and minority communities started when BLM became a big cultural voice, its been around for pretty much ever. 

 

Actually I take back the insinuation of them supporting the cultural direction I indicated.  As I think about it more, the two detectives had been acting like total jerks to everyone they interviewed. That was their style. In fact they even wrongly beat up that white guy, who was the wrong guy,  who had done time for being a predator. So when they take their heavy-handed style into the interview with the dead eyed black man, we see him and his neighbors **erroneously** conclude it was racism or some similar wrong, and  overreact and resort to violence. So we see it was too complicated for a kneejerk reaction, like the crowd had. 

Edited January 30, 2019 by Pat Hoolihan

[Milburn Stone]

4 minutes ago, Pat Hoolihan said:

In fact they even wrongly beat up that white guy, who was the wrong guy,  who had done time for being a predator.

I might need reminding of something, but do we know for a fact that he is the wrong guy?

[Pike Ludwell]

2 minutes ago, Milburn Stone said:

I might need reminding of something, but do we know for a fact that he is the wrong guy?

He wasn't the killer of the Purcell girl -- he was not that particular culprit.

Edited January 30, 2019 by Pat Hoolihan

[Milburn Stone]

43 minutes ago, Pat Hoolihan said:

He wasn't the killer of the Purcell girl -- he was not that particular culprit.

The Purcell girl wasn't killed at all. Has the show established that he could not be the killer of the Purcell boy?

[Pike Ludwell]

2 hours ago, Milburn Stone said:

The Purcell girl wasn't killed at all. Has the show established that he could not be the killer of the Purcell boy?

I know. I didn't say she was. As to the boy .. we don't know. We do know that their torture of he guy was illegal and based on minimal evidence, and very heavy-handed police behavior. He could have been the wrong guy or the right guy, but the evidence was absolutely minimal. That is my main point. 

Edited January 30, 2019 by Pat Hoolihan

[Gobi]

2 hours ago, Milburn Stone said:

The Purcell girl wasn't killed at all. Has the show established that he could not be the killer of the Purcell boy?

He had an alibi for the night of the murder, he was with the church group in another town. 

[Blakeston]

On 1/28/2019 at 10:47 AM, Pat Hoolihan said:

They are stepping up the "race" aspects in the show, I suppose to fit in with today's BLM ideology and make the show "relevant".  I do think that the racial situation at that trailer court where they were interviewing that African American with the bad eye was a bit off.  The cops were too heavy handed - as these two usually are -- but within reason, and it led to the black guy way overreacting, assuming racism, and the crowd overreacting in the same way, and becoming riotous. Then the detectives guilt or whatever kicked in and they decided not to prosecute anyone for stupidly breaking their windshield. Funny racial thinking in the writing, I think - other times too.

I'm inclined to agree that scene wasn't especially believable, considering the location and time period. 

Dirt-poor African-Americans in a small town in Arkansas nearly 40 years ago had every reason to be terrified by the police - mocking a white cop to his face doesn't seem like something that would be taken lightly.

[ghoulina]

18 hours ago, AuxArx said:

I noticed that, too, but thought she was just seeing it from her perspective, like a mirror image.  Maybe they'll come back to that. 

I figured she was just pointing to AN eye....and didn't necessarily remember a specific side. 

[sjankis630]

Thinking about Woodard. If he was setting up a Rambo situation, wouldn't he have already had his guns out and ready when he ran back to the house? It is not like he knew he would have 2 minutes to set them out. 

[Pike Ludwell]

4 minutes ago, sjankis630 said:

Thinking about Woodard. If he was setting up a Rambo situation, wouldn't he have already had his guns out and ready when he ran back to the house? It is not like he knew he would have 2 minutes to set them out. 

I was just relieved to see that finally SOMEONE in a TV show, knowing they were in danger, actually made sure to have guns handy to deal with it. I was concerned till I saw him set that first trap, and right then I was like: "right on"!! Of course, now his house is blown up, so maybe that was a bit much.

Edited January 30, 2019 by Pat Hoolihan

[Jextella]

Does anyone think Roland is involved somehow?

In Ep1 when they were searching for the kids, Roland tells the guys with the dogs to get them off him.  It was clear the dogs were picking up on him in some way. 

The other thing is that in the opening montage, there is a scene of Roland's head with a black woman and 2 black kids near a old pick-up in the transparent background. 

Likely red herrings, but I thought I'd ask. 

[Razzberry]

According to Ali the character of Hays was originally written as white, and they didn't re-write it entirely, so I didn't attach anything racial to the restaurant scene.  To me it seemed like a bit of dark comedy.  The things waitresses must overhear!

[grawlix]

9 hours ago, sjankis630 said:

Thinking about Woodard. If he was setting up a Rambo situation, wouldn't he have already had his guns out and ready when he ran back to the house? It is not like he knew he would have 2 minutes to set them out. 

I think Woodard didn't want to put out the guns until he was certain that the vigilantes were going after him.  Someone, like the police, dropping by unexpectedly when he had the guns out would have brought about unwanted suspicion.  When Woodard spoke to the kids, they were in a field near their home.  I think the field was a fair distance away from the house.   Woodard couldn't tell if the father saw him talking to the kids and that the baiting worked.   Confirmation happened when saw the cars on the road heading towards him.

[Gobi]

Could be suicide by vigilantes/cops. If so, he certainly planned on taking some with him.

[Milburn Stone]

13 hours ago, Razzberry said:

According to Ali the character of Hays was originally written as white, and they didn't re-write it entirely, so I didn't attach anything racial to the restaurant scene.  To me it seemed like a bit of dark comedy.  The things waitresses must overhear!

That can be true...and it can be true that the casting of a black actor in the role adds layers of intentional subtext that weren't there before, creating even more depth and richness. Not mutually exclusive.

But of course, your reaction, in which you didn't see a racial component, isn't necessarily wrong either.

Edited January 31, 2019 by Milburn Stone

[ghoulina]

19 hours ago, Razzberry said:

According to Ali the character of Hays was originally written as white, and they didn't re-write it entirely, so I didn't attach anything racial to the restaurant scene.  To me it seemed like a bit of dark comedy.  The things waitresses must overhear!

Interesting! 

I thought the same thing as you. I'm a bit obsessed with true crime. It's not unusual for me to make inappropriate comments in public from time to time. 

[Gobi]

2 hours ago, ghoulina said:

Interesting! 

I thought the same thing as you. I'm a bit obsessed with true crime. It's not unusual for me to make inappropriate comments in public from time to time. 

The scene reminded me of the one in Manhunter, the original Hannibal Lecter movie, in which Will Graham, the FBI agent, falls asleep on a plane with his case file open. A young girl sitting next to him sees the photos of the murder victims and becomes quite upset.

[Drogo]

On 1/28/2019 at 11:18 PM, bilgistic said:

I thought the group of angry rednecks (or whatever) trashed Woodard's go-kart last episode when they pulled him out and beat him up. That's why I assumed he wasn't driving it around this episode.

The trashy golf cart was unharmed, we may all rest easy.  They pulled him out of it to kick his ass.

[ganesh]

I'm interested in how the 90s investigation is going to go now that it's officially kicked off. 

[MBayGal]

Guess it was just me, but I thought the person the detective saw on the video was the kid — Freddy? — they were interviewing/terrifying.  The same hair and build.  How would anyone know what a 10-year-old girl would look like 10 years later?

[shapeshifter]

7 hours ago, MBayGal said:

How would anyone know what a 10-year-old girl would look like 10 years later?

In most cases it would be impossible. But Hays obsessively studied all pictures of 10-year-old Julie Purcell and then obsessively studied the video tapes in which he expected to see 20-year-old Julie Purcell until he found a face that matched for him.

[Rockfish]

3 hours ago, shapeshifter said:

In most cases it would be impossible. But Hays obsessively studied all pictures of 10-year-old Julie Purcell and then obsessively studied the video tapes in which he expected to see 20-year-old Julie Purcell until he found a face that matched for him.

IMO he probably saw a flicker of something—her posture or gait or a world-weary expression—that reminded him of her mom Lucy. Regardless, something made him know immediately that that was Julie, and even though he expected to see her, he wasn’t quite prepared.

[Gobi]

3 hours ago, shapeshifter said:

In most cases it would be impossible. But Hays obsessively studied all pictures of 10-year-old Julie Purcell and then obsessively studied the video tapes in which he expected to see 20-year-old Julie Purcell until he found a face that matched for him.

In the '90's, sketches or computer images were already being done of how someone might have aged. One of those helped in John List's capture. We haven't seen one in the show, but I wouldn't rule it out yet, we may see one later.

[Rockfish]

Something that struck me as relatable (and cringe-worthy) as a woman was when Amelia was faced with the choice of comforting another human being who was damaged and hurting but instead chose to try to manipulate her to confide in Hays. You could almost see her calculating whether she should try it and what her odds of success would be, and while the ends may have justified the means had it worked—if Amelia’s words influenced Lucy into reaching out to Hays which would give him more information—she was partly doing it to make herself seem more attractive to him by showing her value as an intelligent, helpful partner. It reminded me of times when I was interested in someone romantically and would do or say something in the attempt of seeming like “the perfect woman for you!” rather than doing what was right. There was also a bit of classism in her assuming she was more clever than the uneducated, drunk white-trash woman. And Mamie Gummer’s acting? Breathtaking and heartbreaking. 

[shapeshifter]

On 1/29/2019 at 4:17 PM, tennisgurl said:

Amelia is quit fascinating to me, its so hard to figure out what to make of her. She does seem to really like Wayne, but how much of her interest is in him, and how much is in the case? She is REALLY interested in getting information on it, and we know she later writes an acclaimed book about the case,so what is her motivation? And she does seem to be rather manipulative when it comes to getting information. Again, a lot of it is seems to be a mix of things. I think she did want to offer support to poor, falling apart Lucy Purcell, but she also came there looking for information.

6 hours ago, eliot90000 said:

I think Amelia is already planning her book even at this stage of the game.

I can't help assuming that Amelia The Author is an alter ego for Nic Pizzolatto, even though he is a white male and she is a black female.
If my assumption is correct, he might be using her character to admit to the world how he feels guilty for having gained some fame and fortune off the misery of others--which, if so, kind of puts him in the "nice guy" category (from my viewpoint), and so I forgive Amelia too.

[Anela]

On 1/28/2019 at 10:01 PM, Medicine Crow said:

Loved the show & the ending!!!

Same. I have no sympathy for the vigilante mob. 

I also noticed the one detective limping, so I hope he wasn't hurt in the blast.

On 1/29/2019 at 12:57 PM, Jextella said:

I read or heard somewhere...I think it was Nic P??? that the 3 worlds collide with the elderly Wayne Hays and it is at that moment - and against the backdrop of dementia - that everything becomes most clear to him.  Something like that.  I hope so.  It would be a crying shame to not have FULL resolution of his/this story.

I hope so, too. It's so annoying to have a confusing ending, and to have to look things up on the internet, to read "the last episode explained" - and people still having different theories, LOL. 

On 1/30/2019 at 6:56 PM, Jextella said:

Does anyone think Roland is involved somehow?

In Ep1 when they were searching for the kids, Roland tells the guys with the dogs to get them off him.  It was clear the dogs were picking up on him in some way. 

The other thing is that in the opening montage, there is a scene of Roland's head with a black woman and 2 black kids near a old pick-up in the transparent background. 

Likely red herrings, but I thought I'd ask. 

This is what I'm afraid of, when I said in another thread that one idea I had, I really didn't like. Not that anything is great when it comes to murdered and kidnapped children. I hope he isn't involved, and has something like a split personality.  

[festivus]

Mamie Gummer has been amazing in this show. I've seen her in several things and I've always liked her very much. I've never seen her play a role like this before and she is slaying it.

Was this the episode when Roland told Wayne "You were never funny"? I got a good belly laugh out of that one. It's almost true but Wayne does have his moments.

The 1980 era racism and Wayne's reactions to it felt well done and true. The old lady using the term Negro which was an already outdated term even before then and then when describing the man with the milky eye by basically saying all black people look alike. I've known many people like her. Then Lucy using a derogatory term when screaming at Amelia in her grief and rage. It's very real and the show is doing a good job in portraying it without shying away like many shows do when doing a period show.