S02.E06: The Bad Mother

[Melina22]

People have made so many excellent points as to the unreality of so many aspects of this show. I respect their thoughts. 

My rebuttal is that

1. I don't really care because it's a highly entertaining, fictional, OTT TV show. Unreality is to be expected. 

2. As a true crime fan, and an observer of life in general, if there's anything I've learned it's that anything can happen to anyone at any time. And frequently what happens makes no apparent sense and seems impossible. Yet it happens. People do ridiculous, inexplicable things. Judges, policemen and lawyers make head-scratching, even indefensible decisions all the time. I've learned never to say, "Oh, that would NEVER happen." Because it probably already has. 

Edited July 15, 2019 by Melina22

[zobot81]

20 minutes ago, Melina22 said:

1. I don't really care because it's a highly entertaining, fictional, OTT TV show. Unreality is to be expected. 

With you 100%.  I just hate those terrible computer animations.  They trigger me for some reason.

https://j.gifs.com/vZ4MEA.gif

[Chaos Theory]

1 hour ago, Johnny Dollar said:

There’s only one episode left and HBO has already said there won’t be a S3. This won’t end well for the viewers. Literally every main character has their own major storyline, in addition to the original BLL. How the hell are they going to be able to wrap up all of these loose ends in less than an hour?  Particularly since half of each episode consists of someone in their car listening to bad cover songs. 

Things never really end.   Does Renata stay with a husband she doesn’t trust?  Does a husband who doesn’t trust her stay with Madeline?  Does Celeste lose her kids or does she finally find the strength to leave Perry and his ghost?  Does Jane come to terms with her rape?  Does Bonnie come to terms with being the one who pushed Perry to his death? 

Those are the only questions that need to be answered.  

Edited July 15, 2019 by Chaos Theory

[Ms Blue Jay]

8 hours ago, FemmyV said:

Very uncomfortable but I'm glad it's there. I'm glad the show is depicting the effects of domestic abuse in so many various ways: showing what victims go through, what they do to themselves, and how resolution doesn't come wrapped up in a few weeks/months of therapy.

I agree that it's good to show, but I would think it's more accurate to call Bonnie's background child abuse instead of domestic abuse, which is usually reserved for situations like Celeste's.

I like seeing Bonnie's background; what I find uncomfortable and manipulative is Bonnie's fantasy of killing her mother that the show made seem real at first before pulling back.  I just find this to be a very unintelligent gag meant to shock.

3 hours ago, txhorns79 said:

She's bringing some of these men into her home without knowing much, if anything, about them.  For all she knows, the guy could be dangerous and harm her or her sons.  At best, that's reckless behavior.  And yes, I know that she was married to someone who did physically harm her, so getting to know someone first isn't always a good screen, but to just bring home randoms is a bad idea as well.    

Celeste was doing this when the boys weren't home.  But I take your point.

[DrSpaceman]

1 hour ago, Johnny Dollar said:

There’s only one episode left and HBO has already said there won’t be a S3. This won’t end well for the viewers. Literally every main character has their own major storyline, in addition to the original BLL. How the hell are they going to be able to wrap up all of these loose ends in less than an hour?  Particularly since half of each episode consists of someone in their car listening to bad cover songs. 

it will be tough

And very true about the bad cover songs.  While in their car.  Riding along ocean drive, pensively considering their plight and possible fate. 

[Ms Blue Jay]

2 hours ago, DrSpaceman said:

Diddling the help.......the cherry on top for Renatta's whole situation.  And $72000 just in back pay?  They haven't been paying her for longer than just the time this bankruptcy has been going on I am guessing.  That has to be a years pay or more.  Even if you don't include the, uhhh, "stress" pay. 

It was supposed to be a severance.  I wonder if the nanny signed an employment contract.  I wonder how the severance was determined.  

Everyone seems to be so sure Celeste stopped taking Ambien but based on what? I don't remember this ever portrayed onscreen.

Edited July 15, 2019 by Ms Blue Jay

[Ellaria]

32 minutes ago, Chaos Theory said:

Things never really end.   Does Renata stay with a husband she doesn’t trust?  Does a husband who doesn’t trust her stay with Madeline?  Does Celeste lose her kids or does she finally find the strength to leave Perry and his ghost?  Does Jane come to terms with her rape?  Does Bonnie come to terms with being the one who pushed Perry to his death? 

Those are the only questions that need to be answered.  

And I'm fairly sure that they cannot be answered effectively in one episode. While I am perfectly fine with leaving some of these situations open-ended, I believe that lots of time was wasted in getting to the point that we are at right now. 

If there is truth to the report that the director, Andrea Arnold, lost creative control over the end product, then we have a possible explanation as to why some story lines feel unsatisfying and rushed. Link: https://www.indiewire.com/2019/07/big-little-lies-season-2-andrea-arnold-lost-creative-control-jean-marc-vallee-1202156884/

Frankly, every viewer's opinion is valid, regardless of whether they are "hate-watching" or not. Are there deleted scenes that could have pulled the narrative together in a more cohesive way? Possibly but we will never know. 

10 hours ago, freebie said:

One of the big problems with this season is that the detective is such a cypher you could assign any number of reasons for her extreme interest in this situation. And any of them would be more interesting than the big fat zero in terms of characterization that we have now. Maybe - in an amazing plot twist - the detective is actually investigating the death of Perry's brother, and this is all just part of an elaborate ruse to lure Mary Louise to Monterey!

Exactly - why has the detective received no characterization? She keeps lurking around the background in many scenes. Why was Corey interviewed off screen? Sure, some of these are creative choices which are bound to please some and annoy others.

My sense is that next week's finale is going to be full of surpise twists and gotcha moments and that seems unnecessary based on what we have seen to date.

Edited July 15, 2019 by Ellaria Sand

[Ms Blue Jay]

3 minutes ago, Ellaria Sand said:

Frankly, every viewer's opinion is valid, regardless of whether they are "hate-watching" or not. Are there deleted scenes that could have pulled the narrative together in a more cohesive way? Possibly but we will never know. 

Well the ice cream scene for sure.

https://www.vanityfair.com/hollywood/2019/07/meryl-streep-big-little-lies-ice-cream-reese-witherspoon

But honestly, I don't even know how the Great Meryl Streep can make the call that a scene will be on the DVD extras.  ?  How would she even know a thing like that at this stage?  And I love and respect her a great deal but how would she be able to make that call?  LOL

Edited July 15, 2019 by Ms Blue Jay

[Blakeston]

 

 

1

 Advanced issues found

▲

 

 

1

2 hours ago, Chaos Theory said:

We also see Celeste being questioned on things a man would never get questioned on.  What man would get questioned on his sex life?

If the man's seven-year-old children walked in on him post-coitus with a half-naked stranger, then I could easily see it being brought up in a real-life custody hearing. Same goes for an incident in which one of his seven-year-olds walked in on him asleep in bed with a stranger in their home.

I don't think a man would be subjected to interrogation about every woman he slept with following his wife's death (including encounters outside the home), like what happened here.

But in real life? I don't believe for a second that would happen to a woman in these circumstances either. An empathetic judge like that one would have handed ML's lawyer his head on a platter. I don't expect a campy show like this to be perfectly realistic, but this was just silly.

[BigBlueMastiff]

10 hours ago, Ms Blue Jay said:

For me, the random sex isn't really an issue.  That affects the boys how?  What scares me is the Ambien and the driving.

Uh, inviting strange men into your house when you have children, and passing out, not knowing what exposure the kids might have to these men is a huge problem. If what ML's attorney said was true, the kids talked to random strange men in their mother's bedroom, and the mother had know knowledge whatsoever. What if one of these men was a pedophile? Random sex is an issue when you expose your kids to it.

[DrSpaceman]

19 minutes ago, Ms Blue Jay said:

It was supposed to be a severance.  I wonder if the nanny signed an employment contract.  I wonder how the severance was determined.  

Everyone seems to be so sure Celeste stopped taking Ambien but based on what? I don't remember this ever portrayed onscreen.

Yes I remembered later it was supposed to be severance, not back pay. 

Seems like a whole lot of severance pay too, but whatever, that was not the important part.

[teddysmom]

42 minutes ago, Blakeston said:

3 hours ago, Chaos Theory said:

 

 

1

 Advanced issues found

▲

 

 

1

  3 hours ago, Chaos Theory said:

We also see Celeste being questioned on things a man would never get questioned on.  What man would get questioned on his sex life?

Fun fact: Meryl Streep was in Kramer v Kramer, when Dustin Hoffman's character has a date over to spend the night, the son gets up and sees her walking naked to the bathroom.  

I don't believe it was brought up in their custody hearing. 

I wish they had just had the Gordon cheating with the nanny plot, or the bankruptcy but to keep piling on Renata seems a little over the top. 

There seems to be no through line re the show, just random scenes of the various characters' lives, then the big court room scenes. 

I can't wait to see Celeste nail ML's hide to the wall next week. I wonder if it's ML on the stand, or Perry's father. 

[Ms Blue Jay]

47 minutes ago, BigBlueMastiff said:

Uh, inviting strange men into your house when you have children, and passing out, not knowing what exposure the kids might have to these men is a huge problem. If what ML's attorney said was true, the kids talked to random strange men in their mother's bedroom, and the mother had know knowledge whatsoever. What if one of these men was a pedophile? Random sex is an issue when you expose your kids to it.

That would be like saying you can't expose your children to adults because what if one of them is a pedophile.  The same could be said for teachers, coaches, scout leaders, pastors, etc. and honestly it's probably a lot more likely.

I agreed that the Ambien was a problem more than having sex with a man when your children are staying at an entirely different person's house.  I'm quite sure single mothers don't all become celibate for fear their children might see a man one day.

[sunshine23]

14 hours ago, CleoCaesar said:

What the bleep was that. 50 minutes of sheer idiocy in the courtroom. And pretty much everywhere else.

Now if you'll excuse me, I have to go find some children I'm tangentially related to and file for full custody because their mother pushed them once and took sleep medication after her husband's violent death.

This whole season seems to be made up of nothing by time filler; Bonnie sitting in the hospital, Madeline dancing in her dress, Celeste drinking vodka, Jane at work, Renata's bankruptcy hearing (although see below). There has been nothing of substance this year. As for Bonnie and her stupid moping, my mother had lung cancer and her femur broke because of osteoporosis which resulted in surgery and a stay in a rehab/nursing home. While I visited every day while the kids were in school, I didn't abandon my care of them to sit there and watch her sleep. Poor Skye has 2 loser parents.

13 hours ago, Ellaria Sand said:

That’s EXACTLY what I thought Gordon was paying Juliette for, too. Wonder how they arrived at the figure of $160,000?

I believe the first poster was being sarcastic. As stupid as this was, it again gave Renata a great scene in the car.

[Haleth]

1 hour ago, Ms Blue Jay said:

Celeste was doing this when the boys weren't home.  But I take your point.

If what the lawyer said was true (and he wasn't challenged on it), the boys were home at least once when Celeste had a stranger in her bed.

1 hour ago, Ellaria Sand said:

 Why was Corey interviewed off screen?

So we'd all think he was a cop for a week.

[chenoa333]

Sorry to know this is the last season. Although the last episode was disappointing, I like this show enough to hang in there for the remainder of S2 and even (the no longer happening) S3 

[teddysmom]

3 hours ago, zobot81 said:

air enough (and I do love a good 48 hours reference)!  The problem for me is that the prosecution presented a simulation in which Perry literally fell further down the stairs, just because he was pushed.  They didn't show him clearing the flight of stairs and launching to his death from a forceful push.  And at the very least, I do not understand how the blessed hell they can distinguish between a fall or a push based on a difference of landing twelve inches up or down the stairs.

There's a new doc series on Netflix called "Exhibit A" which delves into how junk science has convicted people because the people using it aren't trained properly.  

Did the lawyer state this was evidence from the police, or just somebody he hired to use software and show someone tripping backward?  What are that person's credentials? 

Celeste needs a better attorney. 

[Bama]

Didn’t we see something in the first season - maybe from one of the non Monterey Five mom’s police interview - that hinted at the French nanny sleeping with Gordon?  Or another father?

 I swear I remember something like that.

[junemeatcleaver]

Quote

I agree that it's good to show, but I would think it's more accurate to call Bonnie's background child abuse instead of domestic abuse, which is usually reserved for situations like Celeste's.

Domestic violence is an umbrella term for any violence that occurs between family members.  Celeste's situation was intimate partner violence and Bonnie's child abuse, but both are domestic violence.

I've been enjoying this season, I resubscribed to HBO for this and don't regret it.  Guess I don't mind the show being a bit over-the-top because it's classic David E. Kelley and I've always liked his shows until they completely went off the rails.

[BigBlueMastiff]

1 hour ago, Ms Blue Jay said:

That would be like saying you can't expose your children to adults because what if one of them is a pedophile.  The same could be said for teachers, coaches, scout leaders, pastors, etc. and honestly it's probably a lot more likely.

I agreed that the Ambien was a problem more than having sex with a man when your children are staying at an entirely different person's house.  I'm quite sure single mothers don't all become celibate for fear their children might see a man one day.

No it's not the same. Taking ambien or drinking to the point of passing out with random men in a house with your kids, seems irresponsible at best and negligent at worst. And as for your examples, I would check out any adult that had contact with my kids, especially clergy and scout leaders, given their issues. I did not say anything about single mom's being celibate, so don't put words in my mouth. Maybe this Celeste-type  behavior would be fine for you around your kids, it is not for me.

[teddysmom]

1 hour ago, Haleth said:

If what the lawyer said was true (and he wasn't challenged on it), the boys were home at least once when Celeste had a stranger in her bed.

Lots of single moms date men and have them spend the night without announcing it to the kids. Baby sitter goes home, Mom and boyfriend go to bed. Doesn't make Mom a danger to the kids.  May not be the best decision, but I'm sure it's happened, and doesn't require the courts to take the kids. 

[sadie]

The core problem with this season is it is all hinges on this “murder”. It just takes me out of every scene that detective is seen sitting there looking smug and over interested. The whole season would have been a lot more credible was it just based on how their lives were affected after Perry died. They didn’t need the “murder mystery”, it just makes no sense that this cop believes these 5 women plotted to lure this guy to the edge of a staircase under construction, during a party, somehow goade him into beating the crap out of Celeste and then having the tiniest one of all of them push him to exactly the point he needed to be to get impaled. I mean, c’mon! 

They could have just:

Had Bonnie struggle with the guilt of pushing him while watching her abusive mother die.

Have Ed and Maddie deal with the aftermath of her affair.

Renata still gets the bankruptcy story.

Celeste and Jane still have to fight crazy grandma for custody because Celeste is off the rails. Jane can still have intimacy issues with the boyfriend.

The problem is they only planned one season so how it ended worked last year, but wanting more accolades and $$$ drove them to season 2 where they can’t erase that buggy little detail of them lying to the police. Boo on you David E Kelly.

Edited July 15, 2019 by sadie

[LibertarianSlut]

3 hours ago, Melina22 said:

Judges, policemen and lawyers make head-scratching, even indefensible decisions all the time. I've learned never to say, "Oh, that would NEVER happen." Because it probably already has. 

I don't wholly disagree with you, but judges are constrained by the laws of evidence.  I can't quote all the posts talking about it, but there is no way that simulated video of Perry falling would have made it into evidence without laying the proper foundation.  ML's attorney would first have to prove--likely at a separate evidentiary hearing--that the video about the fall was relevant to the issue of Celeste's fitness as a parent.  I'm not sure how he does that.  

Then, assuming it gets in, an expert witness--a forensic person--would have to take the stand and testify at length about how the video was made and the basis of his or her findings.  Celeste's attorney would be free to cross-examine the witness, as well as put her own forensic witness on the stand.  Celeste couldn't be expected to testify with regard to the video until it was authenticated.  Yes, when this happens, it takes hours, sometimes days.

 BUT if the family court judge would have said, "ah, to hell with it, I'll let petitioner's counselor play a video and allow him to question the respondent without laying the foundation whatsoever--I'm feeling trusting today!" Celeste could just stop everything while she makes an interlocutory appeal.  So even if it's true that the judge could have theoretically tried to allow this, the hearing would be stopped for the appeal, because it just flies in the face of the rules of evidence.  The judge could face serious professional consequences for doing such a thing.  If Celeste's attorney was too corrupt to object, Celeste would have stopped the hearing in her own right as an attorney.  It's just something you learn in Evidence and Civil Procedure classes in law school. You don't have to be a practicing trial attorney to know these things.  So I feel confident in saying that would never happen that way.  

I understand that crazy shit goes on in small towns, (hey, the song "The Night the Lights Went Out in Georgia" wouldn't be a great song if it didn't resonate with the audience on some real-life level, which is why I said I don't wholly disagree with you).  But this is a courtroom full of sophisticated, professional people.  It's not going to happen here.  

Also, I understand family court has more relaxed procedures, but I don't know how this show (and every show set in a courtroom) gets this wrong:  lawyers cannot testify.  They can only ask questions.  Pretty much any statement an attorney makes outside of opening and closing arguments is not going to be allowed unless it is directly leading to a question.  For example, "You testified you had sex with 40 men.  Was it protected?"  Would be allowed.  "Mrs. Celeste, it boggles my mind that you think it is ok to sleep with 40 men and raise children.  Can you explain that to the court?"  No dice.  

I understand that not everyone is a lawyer, but the fixes are so easy.  David Kelley can just hire a real California family lawyer sit in the writers' room and they can make drama out of stuff that actually could and would happen.  I have seen plenty of real courtroom scenes that were plenty dramatic, so it's clearly possible.  The show just thinks we're too stupid to care, when clearly a lot of us do.  And the writers are too lazy.  I already decided that if I ever become a cop, I am going to stop watching TV, because it would make me insane with the amount of license they take with regard to police procedure.  

Speaking of which,

--I don't buy that Aquarium Guy was at the station talking to the police.  The police usually come to you in these situations. I would never go down to a police station to cooperate in an investigation that doesn't directly pertain to me, and I'm not sure how many people would.  You want me?  Come knock on my door.  We'll see where it goes from there. 

--they have not worked hard enough to get us to care enough about Bonnie's mother to spend what feels like fully half the show watching her sleep.  I'm not sure if I care what it symbolizes, because it's boring.  

--I wasn't...charmed by Maddie in the wedding dress the way Ed was.  At the beginning of the scene, Ed tells the girls to put their mom's food in the fridge, so Maddie had a rough idea of when Ed would be returning.  This cute little wedding dress singing felt calculated to me.  I'm surprised Ed fell for it.  

--Renata was gold again.  I think it was really good of the show to have Gordon and Renata driving down that same road that they drove on a few episodes back, with Renata raging within an inch of their lives both times.  The stuffing of the tissues into Gordon's mouth was hysterical.  Renata's SL carried the show for me last night.

--Again, Jane having a ton of free time doesn't seem real.  Even if the surfboard was loaned, where did she get her adult wetsuit that fit her like a glove?  This isn't a person making minimum wage, I'm sorry.  And if school was cancelled for parent-teacher conferences (which we always had after school as kids)...why wasn't Jane, ya know, at the school, conferencing?  (The little kid actor plays Sheldon in Young Sheldon.  It's funny, because Sheldon is always in school, even college, as a kid, and in this part, it seems like he's frequently missing school).  

--Count me in as someone who doesn't give a toss if Ed bangs Huge Tits over there.  For the love of God, just let something happen already!  

I am so ready to put a fork in this show. 

[izabella]

5 minutes ago, teddysmom said:

Lots of single moms date men and have them spend the night without announcing it to the kids. Baby sitter goes home, Mom and boyfriend go to bed. Doesn't make Mom a danger to the kids.  May not be the best decision, but I'm sure it's happened, and doesn't require the courts to take the kids. 

I wouldn't call these guys Celeste's boyfriends.  She doesn't even know their names or even remember them afterwards.

[teddysmom]

4 minutes ago, izabella said:

I wouldn't call these guys Celeste's boyfriends.  She doesn't even know their names or even remember them afterwards.

I realize that I was just pointing out that kids walk in on parents, single or not, and aren't scarred for life.  

Like I said, not her best decision, but not reason to take her children. 

[Razzberry]

4 hours ago, zobot81 said:

I'd also like to add that, being a true crime insane person, prosecutions seem to always struggle to convict the "pushed from a high place" murder case.  There's so much room for doubt without any witnesses.

Exactly.  Staircase injuries are extremely common - second only to car accidents - which make the suspicions of the detective hard to fathom.

And Renata not knowing her nanny was also doing her husband?  Please, the nanny always does the husband, everybody knows that.

[teddysmom]

1 hour ago, LibertarianSlut said:

5 hours ago, Melina22 said:

Judges, policemen and lawyers make head-scratching, even indefensible decisions all the time. I've learned never to say, "Oh, that would NEVER happen." Because it probably already has. 

I don't wholly disagree with you, but judges are constrained by the laws of evidence.  I can't quote all the posts talking about it, but there is no way that simulated video of Perry falling would have made it into evidence without laying the proper foundation.  ML's attorney would first have to prove--likely at a separate evidentiary hearing--that the video about the fall was relevant to the issue of Celeste's fitness as a parent.  I'm not sure how he does that.  

Then, assuming it gets in, an expert witness--a forensic person--would have to take the stand and testify at length about how the video was made and the basis of his or her findings.  Celeste's attorney would be free to cross-examine the witness, as well as put her own forensic witness on the stand.  Celeste couldn't be expected to testify with regard to the video until it was authenticated.  Yes, when this happens, it takes hours, sometimes days.

 BUT if the family court judge would have said, "ah, to hell with it, I'll let petitioner's counselor play a video and allow him to question the respondent without laying the foundation whatsoever--I'm feeling trusting today!" Celeste could just stop everything while she makes an interlocutory appeal.  So even if it's true that the judge could have theoretically tried to allow this, the hearing would be stopped for the appeal, because it just flies in the face of the rules of evidence.  The judge could face serious professional consequences for doing such a thing.  If Celeste's attorney was too corrupt to object, Celeste would have stopped the hearing in her own right as an attorney.  It's just something you learn in Evidence and Civil Procedure classes in law school. You don't have to be a practicing trial attorney to know these things.  So I feel confident in saying that would never happen that way.  

I understand that crazy shit goes on in small towns, (hey, the song "The Night the Lights Went Out in Georgia" wouldn't be a great song if it didn't resonate with the audience on some real-life level, which is why I said I don't wholly disagree with you).  But this is a courtroom full of sophisticated, professional people.  It's not going to happen here.  

Also, I understand family court has more relaxed procedures, but I don't know how this show (and every show set in a courtroom) gets this wrong:  lawyers cannot testify.  They can only ask questions.  Pretty much any statement an attorney makes outside of opening and closing arguments is not going to be allowed unless it is directly leading to a question.  For example, "You testified you had sex with 40 men.  Was it protected?"  Would be allowed.  "Mrs. Celeste, it boggles my mind that you think it is ok to sleep with 40 men and raise children.  Can you explain that to the court?"  No dice.  

I understand that not everyone is a lawyer, but the fixes are so easy.  David Kelley can just hire a real California family lawyer sit in the writers' room and they can make drama out of stuff that actually could and would happen.  I have seen plenty of real courtroom scenes that were plenty dramatic, so it's clearly possible.  The show just thinks we're too stupid to care, when clearly a lot of us do.  And the writers are too lazy.  I already decided that if I ever become a cop, I am going to stop watching TV, because it would make me insane with the amount of license they take with regard to police procedure.  

Speaking of which,

--I don't buy that Aquarium Guy was at the station talking to the police.  The police usually come to you in these situations. I would never go down to a police station to cooperate in an investigation that doesn't directly pertain to me, and I'm not sure how many people would.  You want me?  Come knock on my door.  We'll see where it goes from there. 

--they have not worked hard enough to get us to care enough about Bonnie's mother to spend what feels like fully half the show watching her sleep.  I'm not sure if I care what it symbolizes, because it's boring.  

--I wasn't...charmed by Maddie in the wedding dress the way Ed was.  At the beginning of the scene, Ed tells the girls to put their mom's food in the fridge, so Maddie had a rough idea of when Ed would be returning.  This cute little wedding dress singing felt calculated to me.  I'm surprised Ed fell for it.  

--Renata was gold again.  I think it was really good of the show to have Gordon and Renata driving down that same road that they drove on a few episodes back, with Renata raging within an inch of their lives both times.  The stuffing of the tissues into Gordon's mouth was hysterical.  Renata's SL carried the show for me last night.

--Again, Jane having a ton of free time doesn't seem real.  Even if the surfboard was loaned, where did she get her adult wetsuit that fit her like a glove?  This isn't a person making minimum wage, I'm sorry.  And if school was cancelled for parent-teacher conferences (which we always had after school as kids)...why wasn't Jane, ya know, at the school, conferencing?  (The little kid actor plays Sheldon in Young Sheldon.  It's funny, because Sheldon is always in school, even college, as a kid, and in this part, it seems like he's frequently missing school).  

--Count me in as someone who doesn't give a toss if Ed bangs Huge Tits over there.  For the love of God, just let something happen already!  

I am so ready to put a fork in this show. 

ITA re your entire post. I was questioning so much of what was allowed, considering Kelley has a history of writing shows about lawyers, that court room scene was bananas. 

Corey going down to talk to the police at the station. Nope and not w/o an attorney, and even then, why?   You want to know about the accident, ask the witnesses, not some random guy Perry's victim is dating. 

Bonnie never leaving the hospital - my father was in a medically induced coma for about 3 weeks, I was his only relative in town, and I didn't sit at the hospital all day.   What good is it doing, the nurses will call if something happens or she wakes up when you aren't there. 

I thought Madeline was drunk with the wedding dress dancing.  This scene and the singing "Natural Woman" in the car was cringeworthy. 

1 hour ago, Razzberry said:

"pushed from a high place"

It was an owl!!  

I'm assuming that as a true crime fan you'll get my lame joke. 

😂

Edited July 15, 2019 by teddysmom

[Blissfool]

4 hours ago, BigBlueMastiff said:

 If what ML's attorney said was true, the kids talked to random strange men in their mother's bedroom, and the mother had know knowledge whatsoever. 

I am basing this solely on courtroom knowledge I've gained by watching Judge Judy on a regular basis, so I may very well  be wrong, but...

Wouldn't these conversations be hearsay? ML's lawyer said, "If Josh told his grandma that he tried to get in bed with his mom, but there was a stranger there, he'd be lying?"

Who's to say ML isn't making it up?

[teddysmom]

24 minutes ago, Blissfool said:

4 hours ago, BigBlueMastiff said:

 If what ML's attorney said was true, the kids talked to random strange men in their mother's bedroom, and the mother had know knowledge whatsoever. 

I am basing this solely on courtroom knowledge I've gained by watching Judge Judy on a regular basis, so I may very well  be wrong, but...

Wouldn't these conversations be hearsay? ML's lawyer said, "If Josh told his grandma that he tried to get in bed with his mom, but there was a stranger there, he'd be lying?"

Who's to say ML isn't making it up?

Exactly!!  

Esp since Celeste didn't remember it, and did the guy tell her?  Did she admit it happened? 

[bybrandy]

1 hour ago, LibertarianSlut said:

--Again, Jane having a ton of free time doesn't seem real.  Even if the surfboard was loaned, where did she get her adult wetsuit that fit her like a glove?  This isn't a person making minimum wage, I'm sorry.  And if school was cancelled for parent-teacher conferences (which we always had after school as kids)...why wasn't Jane, ya know, at the school, conferencing?  (The little kid actor plays Sheldon in Young Sheldon.  It's funny, because Sheldon is always in school, even college, as a kid, and in this part, it seems like he's frequently missing school).

While I tend to agree that Jane isn't at all treated like a character making minimum wage, and I don't know why they haven't just admitted she has a trustfrund from the parents that she doesn't want to rely on but does more than she'd like...  but parent teacher conferences/teacher work days/et al were absolutely days we had off at school, but the parent at the conference had like a 15 minute convo with the teacher.  It wasn't something that took all day and sometimes if your parents had been in contact with the teacher recently they'd skip you.  

Wet suits are designed to fit like a glove.   I got mine super, super cheap(admittedly years ago)  because the wet suit had been special ordered by a customer who didn't like it.  It couldn't be returned so the shop put it on deep, deep clearance.  Turns out the person who made the original order?  My sister. My sister is 3 inches and very slender where I was very curvy.  

I mean I don't disagree that Jane's lifestyle doesn't fit what we know about Jane's background, the conference thing and the wet suit thing are pretty easy hand waves.

[Umbelina]

4 hours ago, teddysmom said:

ITA re your entire post. I was questioning so much of what was allowed, considering Kelley has a history of writing shows about lawyers, that court room scene was bananas. 

Corey going down to talk to the police at the station. Nope and not w/o an attorney, and even then, why?   You want to know about the accident, ask the witnesses, not some random guy Perry's victim is dating. 

Bonnie never leaving the hospital - my father was in a medically induced coma for about 3 weeks, I was his only relative in town, and I didn't sit at the hospital all day.   What good is it doing, the nurses will call if something happens or she wakes up when you aren't there. 

I thought Madeline was drunk with the wedding dress dancing.  This scene and the singing "Natural Woman" in the car was cringeworthy. 

It was an owl!!  

I'm assuming that as a true crime fan you'll get my lame joke. 

😂

Rolling Stone agrees with you.

Quote

Even though they feature the same cast and the same visual and editing style — complete with Bonnie imagining herself confessing to the crime, in the same way she imagines euthanizing Elizabeth with a pillow — the family court scenes feel like a different show than the one we’ve been watching. Instead of Kelley bending himself to material for which he’s not ideally suited, now it’s him bending the entire show in a direction where it seems out of place. The climax of the season appears like it will take place on and around the witness stand, with Celeste (in a very Kelley move) volunteering to act as her own attorney so she can examine her hated mother-in-law. This should be a blast to watch, between Kidman and Streep thundering at one another and Kelley doing what he does better than anyone in television history. But will it be Big Little Lies at that point?

Yeah, I  don't buy the Jane's boyfriend thing at all.  One way or another?  He's got to be in on this, with either the cops or ML.

 

3 hours ago, bybrandy said:

1 hour ago, LibertarianSlut said:

--Again, Jane having a ton of free time doesn't seem real.  Even if the surfboard was loaned, where did she get her adult wetsuit that fit her like a glove?  This isn't a person making minimum wage, I'm sorry.

She's from Santa Cruz, frankly, I'd be shocked if she didn't own a wetsuit, and a wetsuit that doesn't fit "like a glove" is completely useless.

They really aren't that expensive either, and she's a common size, so finding a used one in that area wouldn't be hard, but I suspect she's owned it for quite a while anyway.

[bybrandy]

39 minutes ago, teddysmom said:

Bonnie never leaving the hospital - my father was in a medically induced coma for about 3 weeks, I was his only relative in town, and I didn't sit at the hospital all day.   What good is it doing, the nurses will call if something happens or she wakes up when you aren't there. 

I don't think there is a wrong answer here.  Different scenarios.  Different people.  I think Bonnie's issues with her mom make her more apt to be present because people with unresolved issues can often be... although, obviously not always.   My mom had 2 massive medial issues in consecutive years and one time we did the round the clock thing including my sisters taking turns coming out so I wasn't alone dealing with it.  To eh, everything is good.  No worries. And I don't think we were wrong in either case.   

I don't think it is helping Bonnie's mother at all but I think it is something Bonnie needed because she needed to be at the hospital if a chance for closure came about.

[Penman61]

7 minutes ago, bybrandy said:

I don't think it is helping Bonnie's mother at all but I think it is something Bonnie needed because she needed to be at the hospital if a chance for closure came about.

Agree that Bonnie needs to say those things for closure and she's right to hold an abuser accountable, but...damn if it isn't just sad to imagine that--as the show suggests with the single tear--that Bonnie's mom can hear everything but can't say anything back. 

[slowpoked]

15 hours ago, Slovenly Muse said:

With the news that broke this week about the behind-the-scenes drama of this season, I'm not surprised it's a mess, but there's more at work here than just stylistic or editing issues. The writing this season is TERRIBLE.

I had the interesting experience of rewatching season 1 last week while on vacation with someone who wanted to see it, and it really puts this season into perspective. So much of season one was built on mystery, intrigue, and a sort of intensity that was genuinely difficult to watch at times. Celeste's scenes with her therapist were heart-wrenching, but also sensitive and nuanced, and one of the most human and complex portrayals of "the battered woman" that I've ever seen. That was all 100% Lianne Moriarty. It took Celeste all last season to come to terms with the fact that her husband was a monster, and he wasn't going to get better. This season, we're almost at the end, and it seems she's only now STARTING a journey of figuring out what her hazy healing/grieving process has even been. Last season, she wanted to go back to work and reclaim her life. But I guess the idea of her having a life outside her family was just dropped?

That was my first thought two episodes in. There's a substantial difference between the writing last season and this season, and it's affected the show. The main difference is that the first season is based on the book, which was highly regarded and accepted. And it also finished the story. The problem with writing this season is that now, Lianne Moriarty have to write with these actresses in mind, including Meryl Streep, and it's a difficult situation because she has to write a new story since the book was done. 

I thought last night was a bad episode. The actresses, especially Nicole, tried to save it as much as they can, but good acting against bad writing (and editing/directing) can only go so far. The slut-shaming was just too much. No one will ever question a man sleeping around if he was in Nicole's shoes.

If Law & Order writes better family court scenes than your show, you know you're in deep trouble. Opening it to public was just a ruse to get the detective and the rest of the Monterey Five in there, but there's just no way that is based on real life, as most of you noted. I mean, nothing that led to this custody "battle" is actually based in real life. Like most of you noticed, there has to be a tangible situation that proves Celeste to be a danger to her kids before any custody issues come up - a visit from Social Services, reports from teachers in school, violence, etc. Not just because a grandma thought she should bring a custody battle to court. 

On a very shallow note, Nicole looked really good last night, especially on her second court appearance. And her acting during the courtroom scenes rival that of her acting during her therapy sessions in the first season. She's really shone in these series, bad writing aside. 

[teddysmom]

13 minutes ago, bybrandy said:

My mom had 2 massive medial issues in consecutive years and one time we did the round the clock thing including my sisters taking turns coming out so I wasn't alone dealing with it.  To eh, everything is good.  No worries. And I don't think we were wrong in either case.   

I don't think it is helping Bonnie's mother at all but I think it is something Bonnie needed because she needed to be at the hospital if a chance for closure came about.

Totally see your point. And my father hadn't had a stroke where his life may be hanging in the balance.   I was feeling bad for Bonnie having so much on her shoulders to deal with.

33 minutes ago, Umbelina said:

But will it be Big Little Lies at that point?

I have said all along this season should be re titled "Big Little Bad Decisions". 

[Blissfool]

25 minutes ago, Penman61 said:

Agree that Bonnie needs to say those things for closure and she's right to hold an abuser accountable, but...damn if it isn't just sad to imagine that--as the show suggests with the single tear--that Bonnie's mom can hear everything but can't say anything back. 

I'm just worried that now she knows the secret about Perry's death. Loose lips sink ships.

[iMonrey]

Quote

Now if you'll excuse me, I have to go find some children I'm tangentially related to and file for full custody because their mother pushed them once and took sleep medication after her husband's violent death.

I posted about this last week - the ease with which ML got a court date for this case was absurd. I understand artistic license and all that, but it's hard for me to believe someone of David E. Kelley's experience isn't aware of how savvy viewers are these days, with so many true crime shows. 

When this episode ended with the judge about to deliver her verdict when ML hadn't even been questioned, I was floored. WTF? ML could be a serial killer for all the judge knows. Isn't the whole purpose of the trial to determine whether the children would be better off with their grandmother? You mean to tell me the grandmother never even took the stand? What kind of asinine trial is this?

Quote

 I know nothing  about custody hearings but I’m 900 percent certain they aren’t open to the public and that they don’t go into huge detail about mommy’s sex life. Strange men in the house yes but the number of people fucked?

With a slide show, no less.

Quote

--they have not worked hard enough to get us to care enough about Bonnie's mother to spend what feels like fully half the show watching her sleep.  I'm not sure if I care what it symbolizes, because it's boring.  

Agreed. Also: didn't last week's episode end with Bonnie heading into the police station? The scene in this episode where she appears to be spilling the truth to the detective turned out to be a fantasy sequence, I guess, so what happened? Did she not end up going into the station?

[MaggieG]

1 hour ago, teddysmom said:

Exactly!!  

Esp since Celeste didn't remember it, and did the guy tell her?  Did she admit it happened? 

Is it possible she didn't even know it happened? She seemed a little shocked when Denis O'Hare brought it up. If she brought home a rando, they had sex and she took and Ambien and fell asleep, maybe she didn't even realize Max (or Josh) came into the room? Max (or Josh) saw the guy sleeping and just left the room and later told ML. Or told the therapist the boys were supposed to speak with.

[hoodooznoodooz]

Jane said, “Actually, I came to Monterey in search of a good man. A good man who happened to have a bad night.”

What does that mean?

Edited July 16, 2019 by hoodooznoodooz

[freebie]

2 hours ago, Razzberry said:

Exactly.  Staircase injuries are extremely common - second only to car accidents - which make the suspicions of the detective hard to fathom.

Plus, the detective knows -- and had graphic physical evidence of -- Perry's assault on Celeste. She knows he was off-the-rails violent in the moments before his death, so why isn't it plausible that Perry went to kick Celeste again, missed and fell? Also, I don't know many cops, but the ones I do know would take one look at this situation and think the bastard got what he deserved.

So, why doesn't this particular detective think that way? What's *her* damage? They keep harping on how Celeste learned of Perry's "infidelity" that night, as if that somehow justifies the line of thinking that Celeste alone or in a broad conspiracy with her mom friends, including her "rival" Jane, cooked up an immediate plot to whack her asshole hubby. If that was in any way plausible, why would the recent knowledge of Perry's unfaithfulness trump years of him smacking Celeste around?

My head hurts from thinking about how illogical this is.

[Blissfool]

42 minutes ago, hoodooznoodooz said:

Jane said, “Actually, I came to Monterey in search of a good man. A good man who happened to have bad night.”

What does that mean?

Wow! i didn't catch this amidst all the yelling, but I'm guessing she meant that she was hoping that Ziggy's father would turn out to be a good man --- good man who had a bad night when he raped her. 

For the sake of her child.

i think.

Edited July 15, 2019 by Blissfool

[DrSpaceman]

I thought the wedding dress scene was ridiculous too.  It made me think of the Friends episode where Phoebe, Rachel and Monica all dress up in wedding dresses and her boyfriend shows up unexpectedly.  They play it off as ridiculous and comical though, the type of over the top girly cliché it appears.  Here they make it seem like such a romantic and great thing to do, a middle aged woman putting on her wedding dress and singing her wedding songs?  If my wife did that, I'd think she was nuts

Agree too about the detective and have wondered as well why she would care so much about this case and spend so much time on this one case where a sleazebag died and that has basically been closed for a year or so to most people.  SHe has nothing better to do, no more important cases to work?  Spending an AWFUL lot of time it seems just on a hunch that someone is lying, despite 5 eyewitnesses all saying the same thing. 

And then Jane, have wondered as well how she lives in that city, even in that apartment, with no income to support herself in such a place. 

On the other hand, Nicole Kidman IMO has been the star of this show, has played the role perfectly.  And something so unlike anything I have seen her in before. 

[Lemons]

9 hours ago, lala2 said:

I'm a family lawyer, and where I practice, family cases are definitely open to the public. They are not closed proceedings so anyone can sit in the courtroom and observe. Again, where I practice, if a judge has scheduled a single custody hrg for the day, the courtroom is usually not packed though ppl can still observe. It's not packed because most ppl have better things to do with their time than watch random ppl's custody proceedings. That said, I saw nothing unbelievable about the open courtroom. I could also see a lawyer bringing up the number of sexual partners a parent has and his/her drug use as a way to show the court that the parent is unfit. Bringing a lot of random men/women around your kids could be problematic. The most problematic thing Celeste did was bring this random man to her home. He could have molested her children while she was passed out or robbed them. It's just not a good look in custody court. 

I have no idea why this hearing was concluding without ML getting on the stand. That made no sense to me and was the most unbelievable thing about this hearing. This was not a child abuse/neglect proceeding, which would be closed to the public; this was a custody hearing. ML would definitely testify. And that's assuming ML even has standing to petition the court for custody, but I am not familiar w/CA laws so I assume she is able to file. 

Celeste can definitely represent herself in this case, and is probably better off doing so. I did notice all her friends were in the courtroom, and I thought they were supposed to be witnesses so they shouldn't have been sitting in there. 

That said, this hearing is weird. In a case like this, there would have been depositions, discovery, a pretrial conference to go over witnesses and evidence that will be presented....but there doesn't appear to have been any of that. 

What state doesn’t close family court?  

A GAL would have interviewed all parties so it wouldn’t be like the grandmother wouldn’t have been questioned. But Celeste’s attorney would obviously have put her on the stand. 

The most ridiculous thing was the demonstration on if he was pushed or not. Wouldn’t have happened but I guess they don’t have time for a criminal trial. 

[hoodooznoodooz]

9 minutes ago, Blissfool said:

Wow! i didn't catch this amidst all the yelling, but I'm guessing she meant that she was hoping that Ziggy's father would turn out to be a good man --- good man who had a bad night when he raped her. 

For the sake of her child.

i think.

Ooohhh.... Okay. That makes more sense. I didn’t realize that she was originally hopeful about her assailant. Thank you!

[Lemons]

I thought there were previews about questions of Jane being a scammer. 

[ElectricBoogaloo]

10 hours ago, lala2 said:

I did notice all her friends were in the courtroom, and I thought they were supposed to be witnesses so they shouldn't have been sitting in there. 

In the previous episode when they were all gathered on the beach for the emergency night time meeting, Celeste told them that they were all on Mary Louise's witness list.

One of the questioned why ML would put them on her witness list since they're obviously on Celeste's side. That's when the whole idea of ML doing it just so force them to perjure themselves came up. But that makes it all the stranger that ML didn't have any of them questioned.

Even so, technically they were all on the witness list so they shouldn't have been sitting in there listening.

[lala2]

2 hours ago, slowpoked said:

Opening it to public was just a ruse to get the detective and the rest of the Monterey Five in there, but there's just no way that is based on real life, as most of you noted. I mean, nothing that led to this custody "battle" is actually based in real life.

Again, as someone who practices family law, I must say it is not uncommon or unusual for a custody proceeding to be public. It is rare for a custody proceeding to be closed. These proceedings are normally open to the public.  If this had been an abuse/neglect proceeding,then it would have been closed but it's just a custody case. I've observed plenty of custody/divorce proceedings while I'm waiting on my own case to be called. Maybe it's different in some states, but I found nothing strange about that last night. 

I must also say that plenty of grandparents have filed for custody for less than what ML has observed. That is not uncommon. I've seen some really frivolous petitions in my life, and depending on the judge, some of them are actually entertained and granted on an emergency basis.  It happens. There were aspects about the custody proceeding that were wrong, but the proceeding being open to the public and ML filing b/c of Celeste's sexual escapades and her Ambien use were not among the things that were "off." 

That said, where I practice, there are clear rules for when third parties are permitted to file for custody. I am not sure if CA has similar rules, but from what I've seen, ML would likely not have standing to have filed this case against Celeste in my state. Now, could she call Child Protective Services and try to get them involved? Sure, but she hasn't assumed the duties of parenting Max and Josh, so I'd argue her case be dismissed for lack of standing.  

I also have to say that a parent's sexual activities come into play if it concerns the children. As I said in my first post, the worst thing Celeste did was bring some random man home that she did not know. Doing so put her children in danger. If she has done that several times, then most judges are going to concerned.  The real problem is ML knew about that incident.  Yes, single mothers/fathers can have sex w/as many ppl as they want and bring them home around their kids. It will become an issue if a NCP makes it an issue or a nosy grandparent. If ML weren't around, then no one would care (except Celeste's friends) what Celeste was doing. Celeste is in this position b/c she has a nosy MIL, and she was too forthright w/her about things she should have kept to herself. 

[meep.meep]

1 hour ago, MaggieG said:

Is it possible she didn't even know it happened? She seemed a little shocked when Denis O'Hare brought it up. If she brought home a rando, they had sex and she took and Ambien and fell asleep, maybe she didn't even realize Max (or Josh) came into the room? Max (or Josh) saw the guy sleeping and just left the room and later told ML. Or told the therapist the boys were supposed to speak with.

Celeste has been careful to only bring guys back when the twins are not in the house.  ML brought them back very early the one time and so they saw the guy.  

3 minutes ago, ElectricBoogaloo said:

One of the questioned why ML would put them on her witness list since they're obviously on Celeste's side. That's when the whole idea of ML doing it just so force them to perjure themselves came up. But that makes it all the stranger that ML didn't have any of them questioned.

They were put on the list to scare Celeste into settling and giving ML shared custody.  Look, we'll harass your friends just because we can.

[slowpoked]

45 minutes ago, meep.meep said:

Celeste has been careful to only bring guys back when the twins are not in the house.  ML brought them back very early the one time and so they saw the guy. 

That's what I thought too. Until ML's lawyer told Nicole, (paraphrasing) "are your kids lying when they told their grandma that some stranger told them they cannot go to their mommy's bed because she's still sleeping...." and instead of yelling a forceful YES, Nicole was left stammering. I mean, before this episode, we knew about Joe being Celeste's only fling, and the only guy she brought home. This episode has shown that there were indeed multiple guys that Celeste had sexual encounters already, as confirmed by Celeste herself. And that it is highly possible she doesn't remember a lot of them, whether they were at her house or somewhere in public. 

ML might have had her tailed upon the first story the twins told her. And it's just her pure luck that she ran into Joe that morning that confirmed all her suspicions. 

1 hour ago, Lemons said:

That said, this hearing is weird. In a case like this, there would have been depositions, discovery, a pretrial conference to go over witnesses and evidence that will be presented....but there doesn't appear to have been any of that. 

I would hate to think that a sensible progression of this story suffered at the cutting room amidst all the behind-the-scenes drama.

Edited July 15, 2019 by slowpoked

[lala2]

31 minutes ago, Lemons said:

What state doesn’t close family court?  

A GAL would have interviewed all parties so it wouldn’t be like the grandmother wouldn’t have been questioned. But Celeste’s attorney would obviously have put her on the stand. 

The most ridiculous thing was the demonstration on if he was pushed or not. Wouldn’t have happened but I guess they don’t have time for a criminal trial. 

In DC and Maryland, custody proceedings are open to the public. Anyone can come and observe if they wish. They are not generally closed proceedings. If a sensitive issue comes up, it can be closed, but that doesn't normally happen.  Again, abuse and neglect proceedings are definitely closed. This was a custody case. I see no reason why it would be closed to the public.

A quick Google search got me this from the Superior Ct of CA, Santa Clara County (http://www.scscourt.org/general_info/community/visit.shtml):

"Courthouse visits (individuals):  Generally, all Court proceedings are open to the public, with the exceptions of Juvenile Justice Court, Juvenile Dependency Court and select closed hearings."

That is what I would expect honestly.