Season 3 has been begging for a mercy bullet for seven weeks. "Adele: Week Seven" was a second-rate attempt, but probably the best these writers can possibly do.
Let's hope the series dies while we still have fond memories of the first two seasons.
"My door will always be open to you."
"It's OK. You can close it behind me."
Really? Really?
Good grief.
I kinda feel the same way.
shareI would agree except for Sunil's sessions which I feel were the best of all in any of the seasons. I'm glad we had Season 3 for Sunil.
I say they should fire Dan Futterman and Anya Epstein, and hire back the old writers.
I did enjoy Sunil and Adele, but for me, the most compelling thing about the first two seasons was the writing.
This season the actors had to carry the whole project.
I agree with GetTight, I thought Adele's and Sunil's sessions were great, especially Paul and Adele's. I think Adele's unattached nature worked very well for the type of therapy Paul needed. As she pointed out, Paul has a pattern where he needs to be taken care of. She prompted him with the tough questions with minimal nurturing and exposed him to his own self-defeating repressing ways. Being with Gina, I'm not sure that's something he's had in a good ratio in a long time and it's something he needed. I also thought Adele's body language was very interesting. There was so much subtlety in her performance. I was almost distracted by Amy Ryan's past performances(The Office, etc) and it almost didn't seem believable that she could be that kind of therapist but that impression soon dissipated as the season went on. Sunil was a new kind of character and the first non-american patient. Although I found it strange how quickly he initially opened up to Paul, I largely enjoyed his sessions.
I hated Jessie. I felt he even had the perfect look for that or a similar kind of character, but I had no sympathy for that kid whatsoever. They made no successful attempt to account for his behaviour or his outright denial about everything; it was irksome. The actress's story-line just seemed squandered. I felt that it could have been great if she didn't seem so "normal". Ultimately, following someone like April or Mia was going to be difficult but what the hell?
As for the writers, they had 2 damn years to find people; certainly they had plenty of time to find good writers and come up with a plethora of good scripts. They must have been sitting on their thumbs until the last minute.
Although I found it strange how quickly he initially opened up to Paul, I largely enjoyed his sessions.
I hated Jessie. I felt he even had the perfect look for that or a similar kind of character, but I had no sympathy for that kid whatsoever. They made no successful attempt to account for his behaviour or his outright denial about everything; it was irksome. The actress's story-line just seemed squandered. I felt that it could have been great if she didn't seem so "normal". Ultimately, following someone like April or Mia was going to be difficult but what the hell?
Yes, the acting was excellent, up to the bar set in the first two seasons. The writing was adolescent and the run of the series was too short.
I'm not much good at office politics, so I'm always completely baffled when a production company does this to a series. This was a clear case of letting In Treatment die on its own stick.
Why? Maybe there was a contract clause that needed minimal compliance of some kind. Maybe an senior executive wanted to fry a relative, in-law, or other personal enemy charged with producing the series. We may never know...
What we do know is what's immediately visible to us: HBO deliberately destroyed the series this season.
hire back the old writers.They'd have to hire one or more Israelis, who probably aren't available. All the stories in the first 2 seasons of IT were taken from the Israeli series on which IT was based, and that show only went for 2 seasons. I agree the writing wasn't as good this season, but they had to hire brand new writers; they had no other choice.
Actually, they did have another choice. They could have hired writers who were as good as the Israeli writers. Why they failed to exercise this option is part of the question of why they allowed this series to go into the dumper.
The idea that "they'd have to hire one or more Israelis, who probably aren't available" suggests that they couldn't possibly find writers of that caliber in this country. I don't buy it.
The idea that "they'd have to hire one or more Israelis, who probably aren't available" suggests that they couldn't possibly find writers of that caliber in this country. I don't buy it.Point of clarification: I said that about the Israelis in response to the poster who suggested they hire back the old writers. Of course they could've hired better writers than the ones they chose - but how to know that in advance? Not always so easy to predict. I agree they made poor choices.
Guess I made the same mistake about what Paul and Gina's profession actually is.
You inspired me to look up psychoanalyst, psychologist, psychotherapist and psychiatrist to see what the differences are. I already knew that the psychiatrist is an MD and can write Rx's, but I confess I'm still in a fog about the differences between the others.
One dictionary I used said that psychoanalysts' treatments were based on examinations of the sub- (or un-) conscious, whereas psychotherapists worked with other methods such as cognitive therapy, etc.
Other dictionaries didn't make much of a distinction between the non-psychiatrists, but you have to keep the limited abilities of this researcher in mind. My experience is on the couch, not in the chair!
I had it figured this way:
psychiatrist - MD
psychologist - PhD in psychology, maybe but not necessarily clinical work
psychotherapist - PhD in psychology specializing in clinical work
psychoanalyst - same as psychotherapist (but this is on place where I could be wrong with that subconscious examination)
therapist - degree in social work and/or MS/MA in psychology and/or mental
healthcare (a lot of this depends on the state where the practitioner is licensed). The one hypnotherapist I went to was in this category too.
The cost of the therapy is in reverse order in that list, starting with the most expensive at the top and the cheapest at the bottom.
Therefore, the bottom is usually where I wind up for therapy. Here in NH, the therapists do the counseling while the psychiatrists write Rx's and do virtually no counseling.
Oh yeah, here the in NH the psychiatrists have the ECT guns too.
Well Jem333, you kept me out of the bars for another night. Thanks! It was fun looking into that stuff.
I'm a psych major and technically a psychologist is a BA and up. To practice therapy you need a PhD or a PsyD, which is a doctoral degree that focuses less on research and more on clinical studies. Psychoanalysis is just one way of practicing therapy, one technique (famous because it was created by Freud.) A therapist isn't really branded as a psychoanalyst anymore. You're right in that psychoanalysis as a method does heavily involve exploring the sub conscious, but no therapist is labeled strictly a psychoanalyst, practicing only that technique. They employ a host of different techniques depending on personal preference and the patient. The general practice of one on one sessions is generally referred to as psychotherapy. That's not necessarily a type of therapist either. Most practitioners who have only masters degrees are counselors and social workers and arent considered therapists. Hope that helps..
shareA few corrections here:
1. Nobody who has just a BA in psychology is called a "psychologist." That's only PhDs and PsyDs.
2. While most psychotherapists use a variety of different methods, some practice only psychoanalysis. Also, there are several different sub-methods of psychoanalysis.
2. Counselors and social workers are occasionally, but not generally, considered "therapists."
Wow, I don't know how far you got in psychology, but your post shows that you either had lousy teachers or didn't pay attention. I'm not going to waste time trying to straighten out your thinking.
It is better to be kind than to be clever or good looking. -- Derek
Season 3 may have been different but I still liked it. I especially loved Sunil's sessions and - after a while- I even got attatched to Jesse.
My favourite patients are still Sophie, April and Laura though.
I carry your heart; I carry it in my heart.
Disagree. I found the last episode with Adele moving. She broke through to Paul better than Gina ever did, and because of that he was in so much pain that he had to leave her and work things out for himself. We'll never know if she really was alone in her impending motherhood or if they could have been compatible together, but they had a bond.
Adele surprised me. She was so understated at first that I thought the actress was either overdoing the professionalism or was too camera-shy, without much charisma. But her sessions with Paul bloomed. My respect for the therapist and the actress grew.
By contrast the season 1 episodes with the petulant Laura seem ridiculous now.
Season 1 was great. Season 2 wasn't as good, but I think Apri saved it. IMO. But season 3, and especially Jesse, was terrible. I don't hate gays, but damn. all the crap about suck this, suck that, anal stuff...I do not care to here it. And the way he talked to her mother, was VERY Very rude. I would not put up with a kid that talked to me in that way. Homosexual or not. There were no stand out segments, but I suppose Sunil was the best. But nothing stands up to the same level as the shows in season 2, let alone season 1. I can see why this show was cancelled.
share