I'm behind, and this is a relatively unimportant question, but-- why did Jane seemingly leave her job as a bookkeeper to be an educator at the aquarium? A huge career shift and one that doesn't really make sense, plot-wise, unless teaching/marine biology were her passions and staying in Celeste's apartment (I presume she's paying) has alleviated financial need... thoughts?
The director of the first season knew when to get out. One season was enough.
This episode felt so disjointed that I’m not sure I’m going to continue with the series. The show is covering too many story lines, all at once. It feels as if they advance each branch of the tale (which is itself lacking substance) by a couple paragraphs each episode. And they do so one sentence at a time. So we get a quick glimpse of each character, and then it’s all wrapped up with a song, and the very long credits run. Between the recap of earlier episodes at the start, and the overlong credits, there just ain’t much in between.
We are supposed to infer that Celeste is indeed self-harming, yes? Shortly after Dr. Reisman asks her about the bruises on her arms, we see a scene of Celeste finishing up putting her makeup on, and self-consciously tugging down her sleeves. The implication is that she was applying concealer to her forearms, right?
9
@CD, that’s how I interpreted it. There’s no way she got bruised breaking up her kids’ fight. (And BTW, it sure looked like she smacked that kid hard, yet no mention was made if that.)
I really can’t stand all the scenes shot in cars, especially parked cars. It’s dull to look at and it just feels lazy.
5
Completely addicted to this show but would have to have an appointment with Dr. Reisman to find out why. I think that weasel played by Meryl Streep is going to try for some kind of custody bid. She was snooping on Celeste’s meds: opioids! Great! And peering in a plotting way at Celeste wrestling/manhandling her kids to get them to stop fighting. That Mary Louise is up to something. Mark my words.
17
Actually, Weigert's been one of the most important fulcrums in the series, and her portrayal of a good therapist dead-on. Notice how gingerly she approached Celeste & Perry for quite a while, but with Madeline & Ed's less dangerous situation she offers to help the couple by level-setting the ground to less guarded and more open terrain. Therapists can be very confrontational, even in an initial meeting.
8
@Karl, I agree. And that is why I will never go to see a therapist. I have known a few, and even in one-on-one conversation they seem to constantly analyze and judge. Creeps me out. I find myself squirming.
2
@Karl - from my experience w/therapists, if they are *not* confrontational in the initial meeting, see another therapist. The best therapists, IMHO, are those that challenge one’s misconceptions - not invalidating but challenging - so that healing can happen. The ones to watch out for are 1) so apathetic they don’t take a single note or offer any real feedback; 2) seem to need the client ($$$) more than you need them - i.e., “...so what time would you like to meet next week??”, or 3) ask some of the same questions about very important issue you’ve already covered - more indication that they’re truly not listening. Not to be didactic, but any business model predicated on the “billable hour” needs to perpetuate the revenue stream. Think very hard as to whether you really need a therapist, or whether keeping a journal (password on your computer) or meditation would be better.
3
Kudos to HBO for bringing up tangentially the issue of climate change scare-mongering in this episode. As an adult, I can differentiate between propaganda and salient evidence, but children cannot. I don't know if children are being told in elementary school that the end is nigh due to climate change, but I do see the shameless appeals directed at children by the environmental groups on the issue, and I don't think there's anything more ethical about that then there is about trying to sell children sugary cereals or soda. Kids in the single-digit age groups are too young to sort this stuff out and process it to make a reasoned decision.
9
I enjoy the show a lot but, being a therapist myself, the portrayal here of one is really cringe-worthy. We don’t talk like that. This is definitely not an accurate representation of what psychotherapy is like.
9
@Tom, hmm. I asked a therapist I know (socially, not as a client) about the portrayal, and she said it was pretty true to form. Perhaps it depends on what modality you use. Or who you are.
3
The therapist makes my skin crawl. She's so smug. What's up with Nicole's accent, as well as her and Shailene's weird bangs? In fact, all the characters bug me - but I still kind of love the show!
4
Great re-cap. Very much enjoying season 2. Meryl Streep is stealing every scene. She's so creepy and believable. And love Laura Dern. Overall great cast, script and setting.
As for the socio-economics comments - only Renata (who may be bankrupt) and perhaps Celeste would be considered UHNW. Not sure what line of work Bonnie's husband is involved with.
Does anyone else like the score - Cold Little Heart by Michael Kiwanuka -
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=cold+little+heart
13
@Jonathan, love the music. It’s a huge boost for that performer’s career.
As for what Bonnie’s husband does for a living, or Ed, it’s all unclear. As in many tv series, the money is just there, until it isn’t.
3
@Passion for Peaches
Ed is supposed to be a software engineer, which isn't so crazy because they can often work semi-remotely in places that are near the bay area. Not sure what Nathan does, but I think it's also tech related.
1
I cannot stop playing that song! The sound of it is wonderful but has there ever been another song about love that’s so full of self-loathing?
Has anyone else noticed that most of the scenes where the women are talking are filmed in a car? The camera is behind them (in the back seat?) so we see the backs of their heads and profiles when they turn to each other. It happens all the time and is tedious and distracting. Women talk to their friends everywhere, so why does the director always film them from the back of the car?
4
@Anne
It's the view that the children (in the backseat) would have.
12
@Anti-Marx, I doubt that the women are supposed to be having those discussions in front of the kids. Highly unlikely. Way off base.
I assumed that the car was supposed to be a stolen moment of intimacy between managing kids, complications and overly-dramatic life events.
3
I’d rather read a recap than slog through watching them all lie,lie, lie!
3
@Jay
That's the point. Lies and where they get you. We're supposed to feel unease.
5
It's difficult to identify with any character except the working class woman who was raped by Alexander Skarsgard (sorry, can't remember her screen name). The rest of them are all filthy rich, bourgeois, reactionary clowns. I do wonder if Zoe Kravtiz is going to suicide by walking into the Pacific, though.
1
@Susan
How much income/net worth are we supposed to think they have? Madeline drives a Mercury, and they all send their kids to public school. Are they in the 1%? In NYC, 1% starts at an income (single or combined) or 700k/yr. Renata wears Gucci everything. Anyhow, I don't think they are "filthy" rich, at least not by Manhattan standards. They are richer than working class people.
3
@Anti-Marx <--lame screen name. Monterey is very expensive due to Silicon Valley being somewhat nearby. If you look at the size of the homes the characters are supposedly living in (except for the working class character), they're booj. If somebody is driving a "Mercury," it's because Mercury paid for product placement. Witherspoon's ex-husband and Kravitz look like they own acreage out in the woods. That kind of real estate is not accessible to anybody with "regular" jobs unless they have family $$ to boost them into it. And look at their ages. Is Witherspoon even 50 years old? It's either family money or they're exploiters, or both. That makes them booj.
2
@Susan - I don't feel the need to identify with any of these women. For the most part some of them are not very likable. They are narcissists.
1
I confess to being a bit lost as to why the 5 would have all agreed to lie about Perry's death. Were they banking on Madeline's vast experience in beating murder raps?
The one thing I seem to remember from "Bonfire of the Vanities" is that the correct response in this situation is, "Officers, you're conducting an investigation. I know nothing about investigations. Please speak to my attorney."
8
@Allen Rebchook Especially because all of them except for Shailene Woodley are rich enough to afford great lawyers. I can already see the ending with Streep, though - she comes around to understanding her son was a monster and doesn't tell the cop they did it.
5
@Susan They're not only rich, they also seem reasonably intelligent and sophisticated. It isn't as if we're talking about five high school students.
Looking just at Renata, is she really ready to commit a felony on the advice of the woman who messed with her daughter's birthday party?
2
@Allen Rebchook
Great legal advice...I'll try to remember that!
They lie because it's their default, their lifestyle. If they don't lie, many other lies would be exposed: paternity of Ziggy, infidelity of Maddie, Bonnie having an abusive father, & Bonnie being the perpetrator. They think they are protecting Bonnie, themselves, and their children. The question is if Bonnie can make it.
3
My favorite part of this episode? Celeste’s therapist suggests Celeste is an addict and Perry was her drug. In the next scene, Jane and aquarium-boy are walking down the street and you can hear ‘Love is the Drug’ by Roxie Music playing in the background.
24
Liking season two a lot.
17
What ever happened to the cafe guy who was so supportive of Jane when she was threatened by Gordon, after her altercation with Renata about the false accusations against Ziggy? He accompanied her on the fateful night of Perry’s death, but then disappeared into the ether. I sure liked him a lot better than “surfer dude,” although I suppose he just wasn’t weird enough to satisfy the needs of the scenario. He also looked to be about Jane’s age (at least before she got bangs) whereas the new kid doesn’t look a day over sixteen- or maybe it’s just me.
31
@Susan He does look very, very young, but apparently the actor is 34.
4
@Susan
The surfer guy is more conventionally attractive (taller, better hair) than cafe guy.
1
@Susan The aquarium guy got on my nerves, too. I can't stand people who throw a bunch of questions at the server? "Can you check if this fish was raised in sterile ocean water and fed only organic seaweed?" Take a hike. I would have ended the date after that dinner! And why do guys ALWAYS want to touch you? Even after she recoiled after he tried to kiss her, he still wanted to hug her on a subsequent date. Why can't he let Woodley dictate the terms of physical contact?
20
I find the character of Mary Louise repetitive and besides the point. Perhaps the show needs a live and obvious villain, as if Perry’s ghost isn’t sufficient enough. Streep’s character and performance feels like a retread of her Mother Superior in Doubt.
9
@MissyR, I so disagree! Streep as the nun in doubt was terrifyingly direct. Streep as mother of a brutalizer is aggressively passive-aggressive, a completely different character.
34
@MissyR I think we're gonna find out Perry was involved in his brother's death...and Mom sorta already "knows" that...
37
@garypettey
I've also been triangulating that plot point! Also, Mary Louise's subtle beastliness casts her somehow mirror's Bonnie's slyly domineering mother.
Monster-makers, the both of them?
5
Thought this episode was a bit slow - the plot is dragging a bit in the midseason. But I am still interested in how it will turn out. Laura Dern is riding a fine line between character and caricature and I think she put a toe or two over the line this week into caricature. She brought it back a bit but geez! Poor sweet amabella doesn’t seem much like her mom. I think a second grader would see right through that Dr Bo Peep stuff. Can you imagine Madeline’s young daughter buying that?
I love Nicole Kidman’s performance but I keep picking up on her Australian accent from time to time. I don’t recall if they set her up as a native Australian in the show.
I am liking the bonding between Madeline and her teenage daughter. It’s nice to see them come together in time of stress.
14
@MAJ
Totally agree about the accent creeping in from time to time and it distracts me. As it's taken from a novel set in Australia, maybe they decided to let her character hail from Australia but I can't find confirmation of that anywhere. I do also agree that Kidman's performance, as well as the rest of the cast, is well done.
8
@MAJ It has slipped through in other films. She needs to get with her voice coach to control that. I remember once in the entire run of Longmire when Taylor's Aussie accent crept in, and it was only for a few words. But Kidman needs more control over that.
3
@Penn I think Kidman is kind of a one-trick pony. Maybe I haven't seen her in enough work, but she's always the contemplative depressive. LOL. I don't get that she has much range.
10
Last weeks episode where Dr Reisman had Celeste put Madeline in her place in Perry's abuse was incredible and she continues to be so powerful in each episode...this episode was weakest of S2 so far, but Robin Weigert continues to bring it!
15
@Bob I agree, a fine actress. I was astounded to discover she was Calamity Jane in both "Deadwoods". Night and day from the same performer.
15
@Paducah
She also played the Mormon pioneer woman in the diorama that/who comes to life in HBO's film adaptation of Angels in America, Part II, a key scene that she nails in close-up (it wasn't quite as intimate on stage for the Broadway theatre audience in the original run, even in the relatively intimate space by Broadway standards). Search for "Angels in America - change" on the YewTyoobe if you missed it. It's a magnificent scene from Tony Kushner on how people change.
2
Unpopular opinion: I'm a little bored by this season so far. And I don't buy that the Perry incident would have affected Renata for the previous 12 months, as her husband indicates. If anyone would be able to brush it off and move on, it would be her. If I recall correctly she only somewhat randomly ended up with the group in that area the night he died - she hadn't even been part of the group so much before that. I feel like to her in particular if would be a memory of a freak accident, not something gnawing at her for which she feels remorse or guilt.
19
@Dsandy
I don't think it is the incident itself that is causing Renata problems; rather, it is having to keep the secret about the incident that is the problem. All these other secrets about her life are popping up at once and making it impossible to act like they don't matter. In her mind, her money and self-perceived power have provided her an ability to deal with problems on a particularly transactional basis.
All of the women connected by the incident have had to confront the many secrets and lies they have been living with, but Renata hadn't really even attempted to do so. Now with everything happening to her and her family at once, she suddenly realizes but continues to deny that she no longer has the money and power to paper over them. I think subconsciously she had always been fearful that keeping the secret of the event could never be achieved transactionally. This is what her husband had been picking up on.
15
@Dsandy What was far fetched to me was that Woodley, the only working class person in the group, would agree to go along with the lie. She doesn't have the bucks for a good lawyer like the rest of them. And you don't collaborate with rich people. You just don't. They will mess you over every time.
4
@Susan, the role she has hovers between aspirational “hanger on” and the (tv trope) reluctant outsider. But her child ties her to Celeste. The checks Celeste sends keep her on the hook, even if she isn’t cashing them.
More entitled white people being terrible parents and even more terrible human beings.
I love watching these talented actors work but the show is a huge yawn for me right now.
10
@JD Kravitz is not white. But you're right, the class conditions are horrendous in this show. The only character I can (barely) identify with is Woodley, the only working class character, and she's attractive and white so she will likely be fine. She should never have gone along with the lie, simply because she's working class and the rest of them are bourgeois, and you can't trust the rich.
@Susan Bourgeois = middle class, not rich.
5
@Susan Bourgeois doesn't mean what you seem to think it means...
2
Another great recap. please keep them coming.
Mary Louise is really creepy but I think we already knew that, she's in complete denial about her dear boy and refuses to see that he really was a monster. I think she knew that already though. Another great turn by Ms. Dern, what a great meaty role for an actor and she plays it to perfection. I don't trust Jane's new love interest, something uneasy about him. We shall see. I anxiously await the next episode and re-cap.
31
Much of the sturm und drang that is likely headed our way could be short-circuited if all the major characters would simply sign up for a session or two with Dr. Reisman. I would pay good money to see her "couple counsel" Renata and her hubby. And imagine her peeling away Mary Louise's layers, finally exposing (so I am guessing) her guilt at covering up Perry's killing of his brother Raymond, which is why she is so desperate to prove that Perry really was a dear, sweet man. But (with the exception of the aforementioned Renata cage match), where is the fun in that? So tune in next week to see whose dark secrets are spilled and which character undergoes a major personality change in the space of one episode! (Ok, and I admit, I will be one of the people tuning in.)
41
@Julio
I think the psychologizing is overrated. Perry (Alexander Skarsgaard) is a exceptionally handsome man (in the conventional sense). He's very tall, handsome, and he's younger than Celeste. Very few of my female friends will dump a tall boyfriend or a younger boyfriend. When I was 30, I dated a 35 yr old. She was so thrilled that I was younger (I guess it flattered her vanity) that she was extremely obliging in the bedroom. In general, she was a woman with very high self-esteem (Ivy League professor). I'm not even tall. If Perry had been 5' 8" and 53 yrs old, I think the dynamic would have been better/more interesting. To me, it seems mainly about physical attraction and the ego gratification of having a younger husband. I don't think Celeste's attachment to Perry was much deeper than that.
2
@Anti-Marx Deeply weird (and weirdly self-aggrandizing) take.
10
@CD
Just sharing an anecdote to help illustrate my point. I live in NYC, which seems increasingly to be the exact opposite of Portland. Most of us here work in finance 60 hrs a week and don't have much use for modesty. That's just the culture here. Most of my sociological observations pertain to Manhattan. Perhaps they are less applicable elsewhere.