If you're going to express doubt, then please address that evidence and tell me which of it doesn't exist, that I've totally manufactured.
I think I have...and you keep saying I haven't. I've pointed out what Daniel does and says that appear deliberately mysterious; I've pointed out that,
in my opinion (which is all I have) his regression in E1S4 was unexpected and unnecessary and a writer's construct, not organic to the character. I've mentioned his dialogue which can be esoteric (a word I've overused but which seems germane) and "writerly". I've mentioned his behavior and inability to communicate meaningfully as being worse, without reason, this season than in Seasons 1-3. And I've said that I think all that is deliberate, a way of "re-setting" the series so that Season 4, the final season, becomes a microcosm of the series: damaged Daniel's progression, as if his "recovery" begins from here, as if he and everything he did and everything that occurred in Seasons 1-3 don't exist. I've also said that if the writers choose to do this, it's their business, but that long time fans might take issue with it. Some have.
What is the responsibility of the viewer? At what level of perception and/or initiative do you draw the line?
The viewers of this series, you mean, which probably aren't the viewers of Sesame Street, or even Friends (dating myself now) or Arrested Development, or Survivor?
For some, the requirement to exert effort, to make a sacrifice of time and energy, results in a more meaningful and satisfying experience than to passively receive that which is obvious to all viewers.
So if McKinnon's writing appeals to those types, what is the problem? Are those who prefer instantly accessible stories finding a shortage of them?
One could also argue that the kind of exerted effort you describe means the writer, playwright, screenwriter, hasn't done his job. Anyone can find anything -- almost -- in the kind of "art" you think this is, but sometimes a cigar seems to be just a cigar. I'd be willing to bet that most of the viewers didn't get all McKinnon and Young apparently intended -- and you saw -- in the gelato scene. Instead what they seem to have taken away is the number of times "gelato" was actually said. Was that lazy viewing? Or ineffective writing?
I am the first to agree that there is great satisfaction in experiencing what we've experienced before. I'm not a snob, I love feeling comfortable, rolling easy with the familiar. But there is also satisfaction in more challenging work. The point of all art isn't to reinforce that which seems obvious to us. Some of it strives to express states of being that aren't routine, that we may have never or rarely experienced, yet we have the capacity to access. This takes nuance; access likely won't be quick.
Please don't misunderstand me. I'm not talking about "comfortable" or "obvious" or even quick. I'm talking about interest. I'm talking about reaction. I'm talking about truth. Something that intrigues or captures attention or makes one feel, react,
know, because it is real, true. Daniel, Chloe, the gelato scene does not seem real to me. It feels "constructed", artificial, someone's idea of clever writing that imparts meaning that I think is not apparent. That's what I meant by amateurish, which may have been a little harsh.
Rectify is not, in my opinion, in the realm of the kind of art you describe. It might have been, in a different venue, perhaps, or with a different writer. I again refer you to Breaking Bad, the character of Walt, the choices he makes and how they affect him and others, and that final heartbreaking scene in which he is reflected in a shining silvery tank that represents his discipline, his skill, his life, his choices, and his denouement. Walter White is a tragic hero; Shakespeare worthy. In my opinion.
McKinnon has created some interesting characters and has centered them around one, a man who went to prison at 16 and is released 20 years later, a man whose maturing experiences were suspended, stolen, are, therefore, missing. Worse, he's been assaulted and terrified and traumatized by his prison experiences. He comes out wounded and damaged. That's a powerful story, full of tragic, dramatic, intense, strange, wonderful possibilities. The very stuff of good drama. And I think McKinnon started well. But in order to suspend the ultimate -- Daniel's full recovery, and, perhaps, the answer to the actual mystery -- "who killed Hanna Dean?" -- he had to stretch the progression, which he did, sometimes too much, in Seasons 1-3. In Season 4, he started over: Daniel in relapse, worse than before, and without the support of his family, without Tawney, the one person he was able to relate to because, as someone has pointed out, she had also been "in prison", as an orphan and as Teddy's wife. By "starting over" as I think McKinnon has, he has made Daniel more peculiar and less interesting...and, frankly, somewhat tiresome, at least to those viewers who already know him.
The other -- all that you get from his behavior, his dialogue, his interaction with others -- is just either not visible to me or -- I suspect -- not engaging. I just don't care enough about him. Is that my fault or the writer's? A little of both, perhaps.
reply
share
Whatlarks
8 years ago
I do keep saying you haven't addressed the evidence because you reiterate your doubts as if I've never presented it. You say "in my opinion (which is all I have)." But that's only "all you have" if you choose not to confront what has specifically been offered.
You say that "Anyone can find anything -- almost -- in the kind of 'art' you think this is." That is true. So if the implication is that the specific evidence I've presented is too far-fetched in this case, how can I give weight to that criticism unless you actually address that specific evidence? How can I know why you think it's strained or even non-existent if you don't speak to the specifics?
For example:
- No mention of the context informing Daniel's self-destructive act with the pool. You cited the pool as an example of his being completely enigmatic: "we need to understand Daniel to some degree, not merely speculate about him." I presented context from the show that helps us understand his act. Well, it either exists or it doesn't. If you doubt it, why won't you confront the specific evidence for its existence?
- No mention of the context informing Daniel's kitchen demolition. You stated that "unexpressed anger" might account for it, but you neglected 9/10ths of the episode that helps us understand the emotional influences on him the led to his impulsive act. Does this specific context exist or does it not?
- You acknowledge banishment, the radical shift of context in Daniel's life at the beginning of S4. As imperfect as it was, his entire supporting structure, all that he's just begun to reclaim that made him feel "real" is gone. His tenuous sense of control eliminated yet again. This huge change happens only "a few months" after his release. I noted that McKinnon had Daniel regress temporarily following the end of his relationship with Tawney, in "Girl Jesus." Given that this context exists, how can his regression be "without reason?" What about it is "peculiar" and not a natural response to an even greater disruption?
If the context I've presented is "not visible" to you, that must mean you've reviewed it and have come away stlll believing it doesn't exist. I would find that perplexing unless I could understand specifically what you think I've made up, or made up too much. If it's a case of "I suspect -- not engaging," then you're acknowledging its existence, but finding flaw with it. Which would be legitimate and interesting and productive criticism. It would be something to engage with, to reflect on.
Yes, I mean the viewers of this series. What is okay to make their responsibility? Baked into the show's nature is revelation of a unique character not so much through overt indication as by implication. It's an associational form more common to lyrical films. The design befits a character whose journey centers on a struggle to discover who he is after being denied development of a distinct and secure sense of self. This takes place over a period of only a few months.
As mentioned in answer to your question, the "point" of this design is the pleasure of the process. That quality is a major reason why I consider this show so rare and fulfilling. If this design is meant to appeal to people who share that sensibility, then it's not a reasonable charge to say it's flawed because it doesn't appeal to those who don't. If people don't take pleasure in looking carefully at nuanced context, sometimes on review, then a drama is bound to underwhelm and disappoint. But it's not the fault of the drama. And again, this show is not that difficult; it's not late Godard.
Breaking Bad uses more overt strategies with its antihero. Walt's character is understandable early on. We know that a huge but feeble ego increasingly drives his decisions. He actually devolves as time goes on, becoming nearly one-dimensional as he quarantines and then eliminates conscience. He reduces his humanity. It's the Skyler character who increasingly takes on the heavy lifting in terms of compexity, because unlike her husband she can never shrug off conscience and rationalize everything. Strikingly, this character tends to be misunderstood because her cues aren't as overt as Walt's; instead, the strategy is to supply context that viewers need to pay relatively more attention to.
"You must not judge what I know by what I find words for." - Marilynne Robinson
reply
share
LoBo_77018
8 years ago
Do you people not have jobs? Who has the time to go into all of this detail?
reply
share
ToHelenBackAgain
8 years ago
Who has the time to go into all of this detail?
People make time for what they enjoy. This show, being so internal, tends to draw viewers who enjoy analysis.
"That quiet confidence that comes with being completely off your nut."
reply
share
Whatlarks
8 years ago
I have a job. With the more detailed reflection, my posts aren't usually real time, but delayed transmission. I'll read a post, and in my off hours jot things down in MS Word. I often let it stew for a while. Then I'll post my reply on a break, or early morning or evening.
Also, in an exchange like this I'm not posting new details. I'm reminding someone of details I'd posted days ago. It doesn't take very long to do that.
"You must not judge what I know by what I find words for." - Marilynne Robinson
reply
share
mme3924-1
8 years ago
Without quoting extensively from your post, I say this:
To address and debate the specifics which you seem to require, "I disagree with what you say and this is why" I'd have to go back and re-watch a lot of episodes. I agree I am being general in my general criticism of S4 and of Daniel's character in S4, and some of his behavior in Seasons 1-3, and of the writing of his character in general. I do not specifically say why I think your POV is wrong, or that I disagree with it nor am I interested in doing that, knocking down point by point. Instead what I'm saying is "this is my POV", understanding that yours is different. I don't think either of us is "right" or "wrong"; I think we interpret differently, that you, partly because you are more willing, see meaning that may have been meant but is not apparent....at least to me...and I suspect, others. I'm not getting from it what you are, thereby my enjoyment of it -- my understanding, if you choose -- is not as great.
I don't have the time to go back and re-watch the episodes, and frankly, not sure I have the interest, either. Is it unfair of me to be so general, so casual...and yet so critical? Perhaps. But I began with a dissatisfaction with S4E1 and only through this dialogue with you have I expanded that to include other criticisms. I admit that what some see and describe as a mesmerizing, thoughtful, deliberate, sustained and eloquent examination of a life -- Daniel's-- I see as a not altogether successful effort at writing a tv series about a man such as Daniel. I see flaws where others see intent.
If I decide I can expound further, I will.
reply
share
Whatlarks
8 years ago
To address and debate the specifics which you seem to require
So you can make judgments without basis in fact, but if someone responds with evidence implying contrary meaning, that's being over-fastidious. It's not just a personal idiosyncracy to require addressing specifics; it's the only way to have a constructive dialogue. Otherwise, people are just voicing and re-voicing opinions as if into a vacuum.
frankly, not sure I have the interest, either
Serving notice of that attitude upfront - "Here is my opinion and I'm not sure I have the interest in reviewing contrary evidence" - would have saved time and energy for both of us.
X
Jane's hair is completely obscured
by her hat. You can't tell its colour.
You have to guess.
Y
Actually, Jane's hair pokes out from
under the hat. Look at her picture on
FaceBook.
X
And the hat doesn't work with her face.
Y
Wait, about the hair: you can actually
see it. Look at the picture.
X
You see what you want to see. People
who want to see it, see it. Maybe
it's not really there.
Y
Please, just look at the picture.
X
I don't feel like looking at the
picture. Maybe another time.
"You must not judge what I know by what I find words for." - Marilynne Robinson
reply
share
mme3924-1
8 years ago
So you can make judgments without basis in fact, but if someone responds with evidence implying contrary meaning, that's being over-fastidious. It's not just a personal idiosyncracy to require addressing specifics; it's the only way to have a constructive dialogue. Otherwise, people are just voicing and re-voicing opinions as if into a vacuum.
I never said you were being over fastidious. I said my criticisms were more general while you cite specific dialogue and describe how you find symbolic meaning in a scene about eating gelato. I don't find that, and it's enough to say I don't find it; it's not necessary that I make a thesis out of it, by citing what you wrote and why I find it not persuasive. It would be ridiculous to quote what you write and say "not, too!" So I don't.
Without quoting chapter and verse -- the dialogue, as you do -- I think it's enough to say that I found no symbolism in the gelato scene, and I said why. Daniel was in a house he didn't know, he was uncomfortable -- but hey, he's always uncomfortable -- and the woman he's with raids the refrigerator and finds a huge supply of gelato which she digs into and finally persuades him to try. He likes it! (mindful of the old cereal ad). And then she gets a call from Rick; he's on his way back, they don't know how near. So they frantically clean up their mess. Cute scene...maybe. Does it draw them closer together? Apparently, though it was not clear to me why. Was it the sharing of gelato? Apparently, but again why? She persuaded him to try something new, something he had no experience of -- is that symbolic for stepping out of his shell, of discovering what he's missed (20 years of living outside prison), allowing himself to taste the sweetness and goodness of life? To trust her, to trust that it will be good, not bad? Maybe. It just was not that indicative to me. The writers -- or something -- didn't convince me. Is that on me? Maybe.
It's enough to say, as I have several times, that I see the character of Daniel as too "constructed", that his regression in this season seems abnormal and unnecessary and deliberate, for a specific reason: to explain to new viewers who he is so that McKinnon can treat this final season as a composite or complete story of this series. It's my assessment of Daniel and the writing of the character that you object to and seem to expect me to defend...in spades. I've said that I find the other characters, for the most part, real and believable .... painfully believable. Daniel, the very focus of this series, is, to me, a false note, and I've said why. To paraphrase Jessica Rabbit, he's written that way.
Yes, I can make judgments. It's what people do. I have a basis in fact and have stated it, just not as nuts and bolts as you apparently require.
I've also said -- before my last post -- that my interest was not as great as yours. It should come as no surprise that I wrote "frankly, not sure I have the interest, either." I don't have the passion for this series that you seem to have, which I've also said. I find it disingenuous of you to say I could have saved us both a lot of time and energy had I said that up front...when I did say it up front. Neither of us is required to respond to the other; we both could have saved ourselves some time prior to this; we apparently chose not to.
Your quoted dialogue: Cute.
A little snarky, but cute.
reply
share
Whatlarks
8 years ago
it's not necessary that I make a thesis out of it
But I didn't imply that this was necessary. I offered several examples of meaningful context in response to your assertion that none existed. Having presented them, I asked in each case if you believe they exist or not. Am I making them up? So for example the context leading up to the kitchen scene - does it exist? Yes or no? And so on.
describe how you find symbolic meaning in a scene about eating gelato
See, the scene isn't "about" eating gelato. Yes, it brings them closer. But the end result to any scene or sequence isn't the whole shebang. This moment, the climax of the scene, is about Chloe making an offering to an agitated Daniel that is designed to calm him. It could have been any intense experience, whatever has the capacity to take his mind off his reflexive paranoia.
Yes, Daniel is "always uncomfortable" - which is why this moment is important in terms of trust. He is also uncomfortable in a particular way in this scene (not uncomfortable as in socially awkward, etc.) because he feels that they are trespassing. As we know, he's been made to understand in no uncertain terms that he can't afford to mess up. We also know that he lacks a good radar for the lines, and when he's about to cross them, and this informs his emotional state.
We observe characters doing something at a particular moment in a scene - in this case the scene's climax - and assume it's informed by recent experience. We don't look at a scene, or a stage in a scene, in isolation. The idea that my interpretation is focused on the "symbolic" makes the process seem esoteric, but it's not, really. The context informing this stage of the scene is overt. Again, this isn't experimental cinema.
Now, if I may indulge in the truly symbolic for a moment, eating dessert is a clear substitute for sexual pleasure. That implied meaning and its emotional value is given a destablizing twist in final scene of the episode, which reminds us of how oppressive sexual pleasure was to Daniel in solitary confinement, stuck next to a psychopath who used it as a weapon. The overhead shot looking down on him in New Canaan as he curls up and clutches the sheet evokes a similar shot in prison as he curled up and drew the blanket over his head to try and drown out the sound.
I have a basis in fact and have stated it
You've claimed that Daniel is unknowable, yet evidence demonstrates that this is not necessarily true. It's not a "fact" when you say his regression "seems abnormal and unnecessary and deliberate." Of course it's deliberate, but as for the other two descriptors, to say that something "seems" a certain way refers to an impression, not a fact. Again, no need for a thesis. You acknowledged that his support structure, as flawed as it was, is gone, his circumstances radically altered. Given this context, is it truly "abnormal" for the character to temporarily regress?
when I did say it up front
I read that you don't have the same passion, but I didn't take it to mean you lacked enough interest to even look at evidence arranged for your consideration regarding the idea Daniel-is-unknowable. Even to respond yes or no that it exists.
I take responsibility for persisting despite indications that this was the case. Clearly even now I am a sucker for the idea that if I can just find the right way to express things...
I will also say that I find this season less compelling. I'm not hot on the casting of Chloe, who is such a vital character. I thought the scene when Avery and the New Canaan woman recommended PTSD therapy was unbelievable - Avery would have done it one-on-one, the setup would have been far more sensitive, given their recent one-on-one exchange. And I think the music cues are not nearly as discreet and inspired. There are probably other things.
Edited to add, because I am a nerd:
DANIEL
A lot of the time, I feel like...
CHLOE
Like what?
DANIEL
Like danger, Will Robinson.
CHLOE
Danger around me?
DANIEL
Around anything. Everything.
CHLOE
Sometimes when I'm afraid I try
to focus on the thing that I'm
afraid of.
DANIEL
I don't want to do that.
CHLOE
Okay. No problem. What if you you
put your attention on something
else, then?
"You must not judge what I know by what I find words for." - Marilynne Robinson
reply
share
mme3924-1
8 years ago
is about Chloe making an offering to an agitated Daniel that is designed to calm him.
Do you see this offering as similar to, representative of, holy communion? A promise of "forgiveness of sins" of "life everlasting"? It's not an accident that faith, belief -- forms of belief, Tawney's fundamental Christianity, for one....and the theme of "being saved" whether in a religious or practical or emotional or psychological context....is a theme of this series.
I was not aware that eating dessert symbolizes sexual pleasure, but I'm not sure if this makes the writer's intent more apparent or less. She's pregnant, he's been celibate for years...until his release (no pun intended on "release")....it's not clear to me where this is going.
You've claimed that Daniel is unknowable...
Not quite. I said he is, as constructed (and perhaps performed) murky, deliberately mysterious, too esoteric. I think they meant to make him unknowable, and therefore tragically intriguing and appealing and sympathetic, but that instead he is a cipher, and that, because of the way S4 began, he has become an uninteresting and somewhat boring cipher.
to say that something "seems" a certain way refers to an impression, not a fact.
We are not dealing in facts. It is all impression. We are each analyzing what we see in this character, in this fictional series.
You acknowledged that his support structure, as flawed as it was, is gone, his circumstances radically altered. Given thIs context, is it truly "abnormal" for the character to temporarily regress?
Yes. Because at the end of S3 he was determined, not frightened, as Janet was, but relieved to be going away. Then in E1 of S4 we see a Daniel who not only has not progressed, but who has stepped back beyond what he was when he first came out of prison. I think it's a cheat of the character and of the audience because I think it's false. Would he have some issues? Probably. But to be as he is presented, moving, acting, talking robotically, without any awareness of those around him, is, again in my opinion, a deliberate re-set because the writers wanted to take him back, to re-introduce him to old viewers and introduce him to new viewers as the damaged, wounded, distrusting, possibly guilty Daniel. So that his journey forward would be more dramatic, have more impact, and be more meaningful. It's always more interesting to see the full long hard trek, rather than starting in the middle.
They are, in effect, saying, the Daniel you saw last is not the real Daniel. This is the real Daniel, and he's suffering and damaged and strange. He doesn't know if he killed a girl. And he has a long way to go to be "normal" and will he ever get there? But, hey, we're going to introduce him to this art making young woman, who, by the way, happens to be pregnant -- representing fertility, hope, rebirth, a new life -- who will, in turn, introduce him to all the pleasures he has missed, (gelato=sweet, affectionate sex, not just a "release", i.e. masturbation) and, while she's at it, teach him to trust, first her, then others. And who knows where that may lead, but by the end of this season, we will have shown you Daniel's entire story and his outcome.
I read that you don't have the same passion, but I didn't take it to mean you lacked enough interest to even look at evidence arranged for your consideration regarding the idea Daniel-is-unknowable. Even to respond yes or no that it exists.
I don't have time nor, probably, enough interest to go back and re-watch S1-3. I do have enough to continue watching S4, even though I find it flawed. But I've always had reservations about Rectify and I think, upon reflection, it has always been due to the writing and the character of Daniel. It may have to do with my own age and experiences...or perhaps just simple preference that I never "bought in" to this series as I read others have. Having said that, I think many of the performances are stellar, absolutely fantastic, and some of the characters real and true.
I share responsibility for continuing this discussion. Obviously if neither of us were getting anything from it, one or both would have withdrawn some time ago.
reply
share
Whatlarks
8 years ago
We are not dealing in facts. It is all impression.
That's what it gets down to, our fundamental disagreement. I've tried to address that very issue of fact vs. impression by asking you, to take just one example, if certain events prior to the kitchen demolishing actually exist. Did McKinnon include the prior experiences I outlined - in the art gallery, with Kerwin's family, in the diner - or did he not? Am I inventing/theorizing them, or are they verifiable based on observation?
Do you believe that Daniel's impulse came out of the blue, independent of specific experiences? That we can't trace a narrative progression back from effect (impulse in kitchen) to see an accumulation of influences, if not causes?
The kitchen demolishing scene is one of the several examples I presented for you to consider with regard to the idea that we are supposedly not given the resources to understand Daniel "to some degree."
Sure, we must "speculate" about him, but there are degrees of speculation. Mainstream TV, close to zero, because it deals in readily identifiable types. Ambiguity is kryptonite for that realm because they're after homogenization. Sure, Rectify asks for relatively more speculation, but that doesn't equate to an anything-goes approach. Its way of implying meaning is well within the norms of classic narration.
By all means take me to task for my interpretation of how those prior experiences informed the scene. But are you really arguing that those prior events didn't happen, and that they would have exerted no influence on Daniel as he stood in the kitchen, alone, noticing the squeaky cupboard door? And that we can't make reasonable assumptions about their connection?
Again, it's not like watching late Godard where the point isn't so much pleasure in character revelation through plot - sometimes they remain ciphers - as it is in the pleasure of experiencing cinematic possibility. In that case narrative is but a pretext, a means of delivering exquisite images so that we end up feeling with the film itself, aka the director's POV, more than with character. Such cases demand many more degrees of speculation than this show does.
I've gotten something out of our exchange. I understand and accept criticism about specifics, so in this case when it comes to Daniel's temporary regression I think it could have been handled more effectively - not that it shouldn't have happened at all. I can see, for example, setting up the regression by having Daniel try a little more, and failing to adjust/fit in/relate.
McKinnon just started him out in a bad way. The setup implies that Daniel has now been a resident for a while, he's got this job, he's been attending group, going through his routine, etc... yet he's failing to adjust/fit in/relate. I.e. McKinnon skipped a few beats instead of showing us the process of decline, even if it was quick. The mantra "get in late, get out early" doesn't apply with equal merit in all circumstances.
I see this as a structural problem, rather than a problem of a character who is too much a construct, or a too-obvious reset to explain who the character is for new viewers, and start at the start rather than the middle. I can understand the latter point, although if McKinnon assumed it's better to start over than in the middle I'm not sure I'd agree with that.
My guess is he figured it was enough to see Daniel trying and failing to fit in during the evening group session, but this was likely too little, and he needed to include other beats to sell the regression. Not in a cheezy montage, so we're talking significant real estate. For all we know he might have shot other scenes to help set up Daniel's decline, but they had to go to make room.
Well, even the exercize of looking over how McKinnon designed his narrative was helpful to me. So thanks.
"You must not judge what I know by what I find words for." - Marilynne Robinson
reply
share
Eva_Marrie
8 years ago
But, hey, we're going to introduce him to this art making young woman, who, by the way, happens to be pregnant -- representing fertility, hope, rebirth, a new life -- who will, in turn, introduce him to all the pleasures he has missed, (gelato=sweet, affectionate sex, not just a "release", i.e. masturbation)
I was seriously hoping he'd get to the affectionate sex part with Tawney instead, because she desperately needs that too. They certainly led us there with the motel scene, but then pulled the rug out.
reply
share
mme3924-1
8 years ago
They certainly led us there with the motel scene, but then pulled the rug out.
They did. But I see why they didn't go there. It would have been a perversion of Tawney's character and her intentions toward Daniel, I think, and cement what Teddy believes was a betrayal, anyway. So I'm glad they didn't. What they did, instead, was show that a man and woman can get something from each other -- friendship, understanding, empathy, caring -- without becoming sexual. Though if Tawney and Teddy divorce and Daniel returns to Paulie, I think it could be possible. But I don't think that's going to happen. The new chick will be his "salvation."
reply
share
Eva_Marrie
8 years ago
Oh, of course nothing happening at the motel made sense at the time.
It's just that I would've liked to see some indication that Tawney is either a sexual being who's repressed and unsatisfied, or an asexual. I just find her lack of a sexuality altogether unbelievably frustrating simply because of her age. The character's in early to mid-20s, when your sex hormones just about eat you alive. No amount of shyness or religiosity staves them off. Some acknowledgement of that fact in the character would go a long way towards making her as much of a flesh and blood individual as Teddy.
Or maybe I've just been watching way too much Masters of Sex, and now see all prestige drama characters though that lens...😏
reply
share
mme3924-1
8 years ago
It's just that I would've liked to see some indication that Tawney is either a sexual being who's repressed and unsatisfied, or an asexual. I just find her lack of a sexuality altogether unbelievably frustrating simply because of her age.
One can be entirely sexual, enjoy sex to the fullest, and yet not want sex with someone like Teddy. Frigidity is not normal; it is usually triggered by a partner. It begins to feel like prostitution almost; the feeling that you just aren't "there" or you could be anybody. Because he doesn't see "her", Tawney, a person in her own right. What he sees is his wife, his spouse, his possession....all with the emphasis on "his". Not saying that he's not good at foreplay or is sexually inattentive; it's the other hours of the day that dictates her response to him in the bedroom. How he treats her as a person, not a sex object. And there Teddy is lacking...and the sad thing is he doesn't even know or understand it. Neither does she, really; all she knows is that she is unhappy and that she freezes up when with him, that she feels rejection (the muffins, the butter) and disapproval instead of love and acceptance and sharing and tenderness.
I began for a bit to believe that we were seeing a "new" Teddy. He shared the information Bobby gave him about "Trey went back" with Amantha and Jared as well as Bobby's apology to Daniel. But then he goes to Tawney's house -- "his" house -- to grill a steak and break in. And then collects all his stuff, piling it by the door. When he could have done all this up front, openly, he, instead, does it sneakily and illegally, after dark, not unlike hiding to watch her undress in the bathroom. I think he did it because sneaky is in his character, and to show her he could, to make her feel vulnerable, unsafe, to show her who's in control....always.
I also thought his suggestion of divorce was Teddy feeling sorry for Teddy. I think he was manipulating her, and didn't expected her to say "yes." He still sees Tawney as the dependent, scared, needy, pliable Tawney he married. He later threw himself a pity party, drinking, not going to work.
Teddy is his own worst enemy and doesn't even know it.
reply
share
Whatlarks
8 years ago
I think he was manipulating her, and didn't expected her to say "yes."
No way he was manipulating her. This was obviously hugely painful for him. I think it was Teddy's great gift to her, one that took no small sacrifice on his part.
His reaction to her "yes" registers that moment of shock when you hear someone say what you'd imagined, but now it's for real. It's not just a thought anymore, it's really happening. This is where your life is going now, for real.
Brilliant acting from Crawford... again. Every shift of emotion registering, from both face and body language when they go wide enough. This for me is close to my favourite Rectify scene.
"You must not judge what I know by what I find words for." - Marilynne Robinson
reply
share
mme3924-1
8 years ago
No way he was manipulating her. This was obviously hugely painful for him. I think it was Teddy's great gift to her, one that took no small sacrifice on his part.
Of course it was painful for him. I'm not saying he doesn't have feelings. Manipulative people
feel; it's how they react and what they do about those feelings that makes them manipulative. They are never up front because they don't trust others enough to be up front. If he was so open about it, why did he break into the house? Why not go there in the daylight and tell Tawney that he had come for his things?
When he brought up divorce he was feeling sad and sorry for himself, about to cry. He wanted reassurance from her, not agreement. He wanted her to say, once again, that what he had done and was doing, was working, that he was right to have acted previously as he did and that they could "fix" it, to acquiesce -- repeat the pattern of their marriage -- not "yes, Teddy, I'll give you a divorce."
His later behavior showed, in my opinion, his reaction to her agreeing to divorce instead of wanting to hang on and reassure him.
reply
share
Whatlarks
8 years ago
For an indication - to my mind a stunning revelation - have a rewatch of the ending to 209, Until You're Blue, when Tawney is drunk, her inhibition/repression slipping. Her face is no longer a blank; her body language no longer stiff but sensual. Watch how she is when she asks Daniel to dance with her, when he takes away her glass and she leans into him to slow dance. I see a person with every potential to be sexual.
Although she says "We can't be together," I think the creative team were aiming to express that she was not very far from that line. Had Daniel been less mindful, I don't think it would have taken much to persuade her to "be together."
I think it's always good to remember the timeline. It's pretty short. And for that time, Tawney has been with a man who didn't recognize her fairly extreme need for gentleness. His way of being kept triggering and reinforcing Tawney's defensive shell.
No amount of shyness or religiosity staves them off.
For Tawney, I think it's deeper, more primal than those things. What's under the shyness and the religiosity, informing their intensity? I think tremendous fear. I think Tawney equates sex with violation. Boundaries broken, leaving her completely vulnerable, as she sees it. Serious buzz kill, nipping those hormones in the bud. When she discovered Teddy gawking at her nude in the bathroom, her mind instantly read that as serious danger.
What the mind can do, despite matter, is astounding. So much of human sexuality depends on state of mind.
"You must not judge what I know by what I find words for." - Marilynne Robinson
reply
share
mme3924-1
8 years ago
I see a person with every potential to be sexual.
Of course she's sexual. It's Teddy -- and more importantly, Teddy's behavior and attitude toward her -- that makes her feel non-sexual, that makes her withdraw. Teddy is controlling and disapproving and rejecting; that's the equivalent of a cold shower, especially when women, especially, need to feel loved and cherished and needed and wanted, not just sexually desired.
reply
share