MovieChat Forums > Rectify (2013) Discussion > New Dimensions for Daniel

New Dimensions for Daniel


At first I was not overly fond of last night's episode. I didn't like what it showed about Daniel who seemed to be a lot more surly and unlikable or how it showed little affection between Amantha and Jon or Ted and Janet. Just all-around it wasn't a feel-good episode. In hindsight, I see that was the point.

This show's writers might be the best character writers to ever do it. They have now rounded out Daniel's character. Unlike shows that go the cliché route, this show did not adapt the attitude that all victims are always right or likable; this show shows that he is a human being, which makes it all the richer. At first I thought his telling his mom to "move on" was cruel, but again upon further review, it was just his way of wanting to be a human instead of a symbol. He needed to be able to breathe and make mistakes and love and learn like a human being instead of this symbol for "a poor victim of the justice system." I now get that.

What a season thus far in terms of character development! Teddy the villain is now the one you feel sorry for, Daniel is the moody one inches from the next outburst lol. Amantha who was obsessed with her brother before has now moved on in a mature way, while level-headed Jon is now the rabid dog with the bone. The show just keeps growing and growing through its characters.

Thoughts on this last episode?


"If it doesn't make sense, it's not true." -- Judge Judy

reply

You make some good points about the “feel bad” episode. I felt the rush to move things toward closure hampered some of the scenes. Daniel’s reluctance to dredge up the trauma of his imprisonment in therapy is understandable, much more so than his pushing Janet away. She has been bereft over his absence for nearly two decades, so a bit more patience with her need to “know he is real” would have been reasonable. He is a son, not a symbol, to his mother. It’s just lunch.

That said, the larger issue of bondage was apt. The use of the Nashville Parthenon was inspired. I have been there and the replica is impressive, the Athena within delightful. Daniel is hidden by one of the massive pillars, trapped by the past, as it were. Janet appreciated Daniel’s words, grasping the larger implications.

“I’m glad you said it. It needed to be said. I’m glad I heard it.”

Honest communication is risky but necessary. It never assures a desirable outcome, yet is clearly preferable to the alternative. I like the "stained glass" window at Chloe's. Sans dogma and ritual, they break bread and struggle to speak and hear.

Teddy and the tears of a clown. He takes aim at “the devil” and ends up shooting himself. Ironic, yet comedic. He’d better have pulled that belt tight. Plenty for Teddy to contemplate as he convalesces. The inventory of the store is his, should he be up for the challenge of making a go of it on his own.

reply

Honest communication is risky but necessary. It never assures a desirable outcome, yet is clearly preferable to the alternative. I like the "stained glass" window at Chloe's. Sans dogma and ritual, they break bread and struggle to speak and hear.

Teddy and the tears of a clown. He takes aim at “the devil” and ends up shooting himself. Ironic, yet comedic. He’d better have pulled that belt tight. Plenty for Teddy to contemplate as he convalesces. The inventory of the store is his, should he be up for the challenge of making a go of it on his own.
Wow. I am blown away by your profundity. Very well done. 👍

(Seriously, this show has to have the most articulate, insightful viewers!)


"If it doesn't make sense, it's not true." -- Judge Judy

reply

It's always good when Pequod shows up on any board.

You, too!

"It's JUDGE Bitch!"

reply

Thank you! I enjoy your posts as well!


"If it doesn't make sense, it's not true." -- Judge Judy

reply

He is a son, not a symbol, to his mother. It’s just lunch.



Exactly. He may want free of her worry and concern and love, but his rejection was for himself. But she's his mother; letting go as in "just stop being concerned about me, stop calling me, stop trying to see me, leave me alone," is cruel, imo. Why can't he say "I have to work through this on my own. I know you're worried but there's not really anything you can do. I'll stay in touch. Not as much as you'd like, perhaps, but as much as I can handle. Okay?"

reply

Why can't he say...

Because that wouldn't be faithful to the nature of the character and his situation. And because more generally speaking, if dramas had more diplomatic characters nobody would bother with them.


"You must not judge what I know by what I find words for." - Marilynne Robinson

reply

And because more generally speaking, if dramas had more diplomatic characters nobody would bother with them.



Seriously? They have to be cryptic and unknowable and strange for anyone to care about them? Bother with them?

How about I Never Sang for My Father? A great movie about conflict, about a man and his son misunderstanding one another, about old resentments, about trying to get approval and never feeling as if you quite managed it, about expectations and control and "breaking away" no matter what the age.

It can be done with realistic characters and realistic dialogue and still be moving, a series or a film people with "bother" with.

reply

Seriously? Please indicate where I stated or even implied that characters have to be cryptic and unknowable and strange for anyone to care about them.

"Realistic" is a relative term. What is realistic in one context is not in another. Do you believe that the characters and the context influencing them in Never Sang are equivalent to Rectify?


"You must not judge what I know by what I find words for." - Marilynne Robinson

reply

Do you believe that the characters and the context influencing them in Never Sang are equivalent to Rectify?



It's about the human condition. What is the old writer's advice: "set your story first in pre historic days, then in the 16th century, then in modern day (or however it goes) and if it's still true, then write it."

Conflict is conflict. Damaged people are damaged people. The reasons for their damage is only background; it's what they do as a result of it that is the story. Daniel's story is not set in prison, but upon his release, among his family, friends, the community.

But you've reminded me why responding to your posts is frustrating and joyless. You can't just disagree, you have to insult while doing it: "You misread that badly?" Your opinion, sir. Or ma'am.






reply

Seriously, to be told you've misread says nothing about your character, only that you've read me wrong. I asked if you'd please indicate where I stated or even implied that characters have to be cryptic and unknowable and strange for anyone to care about them. You chose not to answer. The fact is I didn't say or imply anything like those things, so it's only reasonable to conclude that you misread, and badly.

Conflict isn't equivalent to any other conflict unless one is taking a reductionist approach. Daniel isn't in prison, but the influence of 20 years in solitary on death row does not magically disappear after a few months of release. If you reduce far enough, it's easy to believe that that the characters and the context influencing them in Never Sang are equivalent to those in Rectify. But the moment you accept more than a reductionist viewpoint, that approach can't be sustained.

Some dramas, by nature of their characters and context, and/or a dramatist's chosen means of expression, are overt. They don't ask viewers to work as much, or as much in certain ways. You've asserted that Daniel is unknowable, and provided three examples to support that view - the pool sabotage, the kitchen demo, and his regression once at New Canaan. In response I provided setup context in each case that does help viewers understand his state of mind. In one case - the kitchen - that context made up the overwhelming majority of the episode prior to the event. You'd effectively overlooked the entire episode, and yet blamed the writer. So this is not a matter of poor craftswork, but a matter of wrong kind of craftswork for you as a particular viewer.


"You must not judge what I know by what I find words for." - Marilynne Robinson

reply

[deleted]

I myself would be heartbroken.

But please remember that on top of everything else, Daniel is still emotionally stuck at age 18. A very smart, very well-read age 18, but 18 nonetheless. He needs time to grow into adulthood.

Believe you mean, teens can say cruel things their parents, even if they don't mean it and the phrasing is all that's off.

reply

But please remember that on top of everything else, Daniel is still emotionally stuck at age 18. A very smart, very well-read age 18, but 18 nonetheless. He needs time to grow into adulthood.
Good point. 👍


"If it doesn't make sense, it's not true." -- Judge Judy

reply

Believe you mean, teens can say cruel things their parents, even if they don't mean it and the phrasing is all that's off.



Yes, I know. And your Freudian slip is telling, isn't it? "mean" for "me". LOL.

reply

lol Yes, I was just about to edit that for typo.😃

reply

To me, Daniel's speaking to his mother about letting him go was intended as a kindness, and I thought it was clear enough that she saw that herself. Janet's in a very strange position... essentially she has a child who died, yet he's alive. He's letting her off the hook of feeling responsible for him. It doesn't mean they'll never speak again, this isn't Old Yeller, it's about the burden.

It's also for him of course. She is in many ways a stranger to him now and he could do without the pressure of being expected to know how to behave with her, too. He's entitled to feel that and to want it. I'm pleased to see him begin to figure that out and do some self-determining. That's excellent progress under the circumstances.

I don't feel sorry for Teddy. I thought the shooting was hilarious.

I think Jon will go into the prosecution side of things, and we're seeing that begin for him.

I didn't like Daniel's argument with Chloe only because I didn't need this spelled out, and I found it hard to believe that she was truly so lacking in empathy and imagination that she required it. Increasingly, she is not so much a character, as a painfully obvious device to get Daniel expositing aspects of his character. Aspects that I thought were stronger when shown but unsaid.

However, it did provide the opportunity to witness Daniel allowing himself to be openly angry with a woman he likes, and I liked how reassuringly normal his anger was. It could have been anyone, having that spat. Nothing about his behavior there said "dangerous." So now he knows that about himself.

"It's JUDGE Bitch!"

reply

[deleted]