MovieChat Forums > Jobimfan > Replies
Jobimfan's Replies
I didn't know this show was considered a comedy and when I was watching the first episode and the first thing I thought of, tone wise, was how much this show is like House of Cards. If you go back to HoC's British roots it is a comedy. It's not a comedy in the way that Monty Python or one of the great Britcoms are. There are no quirky eccentrics or mustachioed, blustering superiors. (A Fish Called Wanda is not all that British in terms of comedy, it's more like an American comedy with Pythonesque dimensions.)
A better way of thinking about Succession is as a Dark Dramedy.
One reason I think a lot of Americans will have a problem with this show is that usually, we laugh at the characters finding themselves in situations that are over the top and/or we could never imagine we would be in. With Succession, much of the humor is rooted in a discomfort we understand.
We've all been Greg at some point in our lives: awkward, unsure but trying to play it off. A lot of have had Toms in our lives, a person who says things that seem mean and offensive but follows it up with a smile and "I'm just kidding".
The last part 1/3 or episode 6 [spoiler]was cringe humor at its best. Most people have been in the position of running late for something important. while every traffic nightmare that can happen does. While Kendall is running to get to the office, he's listening to his coalition fall apart *and* a paparazzo is watching him and questioning whether he is back on drugs or not.
Kendall doing the walk of shame after being fired is more uncomfortable than funny. The faces of the other people in the office who are trying to ignore and gawk at the same time is definite comedy gold. [/spoiler]
So yeah, this is all about rich assholes behaving badly but, they actually have consequences for being assholes and those consequences can make for some delightfully painful, dark comedy.
Floating around out there on the Internet somewhere, someone has recut of series one and two into chronological sequence. I don't mind the jumping around in time but seeing it laid out chronologically was very helpful. It also (I thought) gave the Indians' story much more of an emotional punch to the gut.
AZT was the first "super drug" used to treat HIV infection and it was introduced in 1985 or 86. By 1990 we understood the difference between having AIDS and being HIV positive. If Jay began taking anti virals as soon as he was diagnosed, his infection wouldn't have become AIDS and would look completely normal.
As a side note, while HIV infection is still very serious, people can and do live a normal lifespan and even die from conditions not associated with HIV infection at all (i.e. heart disease).
It blew up on twitter so I decided to google it and found stuff in the media, blogs, and other websites in both the UK as well as Australia.
They don't show every single thing, the important thing to focus on was his interview with the hosts and contestants. People got all crazy because it seemed like he didn't eat the food but we don't know if he did or didn't.
The other big role he played was in being a booster for indigenous Australian food. This version of Masterchef is seen all over the world and I'm sure that some people might have tuned in to see that episode because the prince was on it. Great for their ratings and great for Australian food.
One of my favorite scenes from this series is the meeting between Elizabeth and Ross in the church. There is something so bittersweet in that these two people who were each others' first loves are finally letting each other go for good. Even though you know that he should, and will, stay with Demelza anyone who has ever said a final goodbye to a first love will feel that scene in their bones.
It would have been about 4.5 million pounds today (2018).
I was confused by the end of this as well, I feel as if they episode ran too long and the end was butchered to make it fit for time.
I get that he gave the nephew 10K, but I got the impression that he gambled and frittered most of the money away. If he had kept most of the money, I think he would have opened that garage. The 30K he got would have been worth about 3.4 million pounds in today's money so he had a pretty big windfall.
That whole episode just seemed off because first Tom is flirting very heavily with the young kitchen maid and as soon as they try to make him a gentleman, it seems like all of a sudden he's in love with the nephew's girlfriend. That made him come off like some kind of cad. And the nephew's girlfriend was pretty down to earth and sensible and all of a sudden she's talking like every other shallow, vapid young woman of wealth. She says she's going to marry the nephew even though she knows he fiscally irresponsible and ask her father to increase her allowance.
The last thing that confused me is who Tom was chauffeuring for. First, I thought it was for the dead woman's sister and then I thought it was for the nephew's fiancee' and then I just wasn't sure at all.
Can anyone shed more light on the final 5 minutes of this episode?
One reason so many of the men found her so exciting and enchanting was that she was a breath of fresh air. She was a chef when there were no female chefs and owned and ran a very expensive, high class hotel (in her own right) when women didn't do that either. That novelty alone would make the aristocratic set notice her.
Add to that the fact that the other working class women they encountered were women of "easy virtue" or who worked for them. As you can see from Charlie's interactions in the first episode, this class of man was used to taking their pleasure "below stairs" but demanded that men treated her with respect and as an equal.
She was nothing like the wives, sisters, and mothers of the society men who frequented her hotel. They had no frame of reference for someone like Louisa, she was an iconoclast, and that is what made her so alluring to them.
It was based on a woman named Rosa Lewis who was called The Duchess of Jermyn Street. She ran the Cavendish Hotel in London. They borrowed a lot of the details from her life for this story, [spoiler]including her being pressured into a marriage to a wastrel who she threw out and a relationship with the then Prince of Wales who later became Edward VII.
They invented the romance with Charlie, the illegitimate child and her hotel staff was much larger of course[/spoiler]
If you want to read something written by a contemporary of hers, Evelyn Waugh created a character based on her in his book Vile Bodies.
I agree with you.
I think at first he does see the hosts as life size actions figures that he poses and scripts as he wishes. That's the reason he spends the episodes up through the Japanese world looking very puzzled as Maeve, Hector, and the rest of the hosts make choices he didn't write for them. He's like a kid whose GI Joes started walking and talking on their own.
Next, I agree that I think he saw Maeve and Hector as analogs for him and the ex girlfriend. But I think at the end of Sizemore's story I think a funny thing happened. By the end, Sizemore saw the hosts are sentient beings with a rich, complex emotional life; as human as humans if not more; and Sizemore became a host, reciting a pre-programmed script and even being killed by the goons who were killing hosts.
Ponderous.
I think I got a speck of dust in my eye when he jumped out and began reciting that speech.
A big part of me wishes that Sizemore accidentally gets picked up with the hosts and because he's still barely alive, Felix and Sylvester can make a host version of him. It's not gonna happen but I can still dream.
IIRC, he had based Maeve on a woman he loved and lost and Hector on himself (or at least the man he wanted to be). I think that by the time Maeve is shot the first time, he is very distraught because he's fallen in love with her. In the end, by reciting that speech while Maeve escapes he has finally become the man he imagined himself to be when he wrote Hector's lines.
I've gone on the record as saying that I don't think that separating families is the best or even a good way of addressing illegal immigration. I've seen pictures released by the government from inside the facilities and it is grim.
You have your position on this and I'm not going to insult you by implying that you have not given careful consideration and research into it. I am sure you have.
Lest you think I practice tunnel vision, if you look at my computer, you will find that the news sources I read are diverse, from MSNBC to Pacifica Radio and NPR to Fox News. In addition, I have good friends who work at several NGOs and governmental agencies (including, the UN, the Catholic Worker's Movement, the NYC, 4 state and the federal government) who are either observing or directly involved with this situation. None of them are political appointees. I get plenty of input from varied sources.
The vast majority of illegal immigration is about $$, not sanctuary. Public policy cannot be based on the odd sad or shocking anecdote, it has to serve the widest set of circumstances and the fact is that someone will fall through the cracks. In terms of "evil foreign policy creating bad conditions for poor foreigners", it's the butterfly effect, no matter how well intentioned any policy will be there will always be some negative unexpected circumstances.
As flawed as some people think it is, even under the Trump administration the US has the most liberal border policy of almost any country. While it is great to be outraged at the idea of government sanctioned family separation, that outrage should be tempered by the fact this sad outcome begins with their parents' poor choices.
And since you mentioned Snopes.com, they have always been an outstanding resource and are quick to point out when any person or group manipulates accuracy for the sake of sparking public outrage: https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/immigrant-girl-never-separated/
First, the whole sleeping in cages thing is propaganda. Right now NYC has about 1000 of the migrant children in foster care as do several cities across the country. They are currently looking for a larger place, IIRC a base, so they have a single site to house them all.
This is not an easy situation, no one wants children to be separated from their parents
Is it a good situation? Hell no, children should be with their parents. In NYC doctors are reporting kids showing signs of trauma. I have concerns about how vulnerable these children are. However, just because there are people making statements that are highly inappropriate and cruel doesn't change the fact that their parents broke the law. Just because the situation is sad and heartbreaking doesn't change the fact that their parents broke the law. The parents put their children in jeopardy in the first place.
This is not analogous to the North Korean situation you cited. The children are not being incarcerated along with the parents. As I stated at the beginning of my first comment, if the parents had committed any other crime the same thing would be happening to the children. The first thing I advocate is the parents refrain from breaking the law. In lieu of that, I would have deported the kids with the parents, 14th amendment be damned.
The current administration is continuing the prior (Democratic) administration's policy. Were you as concerned then? Are you saying that we should make an exception for this particular group of criminals?
It's not clear how many of the Candian refugees were former handmaids. June was part of that first group of handmaids and the
Most of the refugees weren't fully integrated into Gilead, a lot of them left early on or even before the war. The full scope of what that society was was still under wraps or beginning to evolve. Also, you would assume that a refugee would speak negatively about the place they left. Anything they might say would be counteracted with propaganda from Gilead.
Also, it's been at least a good year or so and people have short memories. All of the media coming out of Gilead shows an idyllic society. They aren't talking about people being sent to the colonies or gay people being hung and their bodies left on display.
Finally, there is the power of personalization. It's one thing to read, "these outrages are happening" and another to read, "this terrible thing is happening to me". It's the difference between reading about the Holocaust and reading Primo Levi or Anne Frank. It's not one or two people, Gilead can talk that away. But that stack of letters were personal narratives that put the readers in the shoes of women who are being repeatedly raped and impregnated.
If you and your spouse are arrested for drug trafficking, your kids, regardless of their ages, will be taken away from you and sent into foster care. Why should someone who has broken the law and entered the US illegally be treated any differently?
Do I think it's pleasant? No; I don't think *anyone* likes the idea of separating families. I would have handled this differently. But, if you break the law, you take a chance that bad things will happen to you and your family.
The audience (us) know that the handmaids are fertile but considered morally soiled. Few if any of them have volunteered for the job. Gilead portrays themselves as having a happy, content populace and have hoodwinked the world to the point that established cordial diplomatic relations with Mexico and going to establish a relationship with Canada, which up to now has been very critical of Gilead. Now there is a sheaf of letters written by handmaids telling the world how they are regularly being raped in some sick ceremony.
These letters are telling the world how the sausage is made.
I think it's juiced up because it's fiction but I get it.
She's 15 and being buffeted around by some powerful forces. On one hand, she buys into the Gilead way of life hook, line, and sinker. She's probably been raised her whole life to believe what they teach and has seen that people who do prosper in life while those who don't are made to suffer for "not following God's plans". On the other hand, she's in an arranged marriage to a man and has been taught that men are lustful creatures and as a wife she has to submit. However, her husband has 0 lustful interest in her and in fact, pretty much ignores her. This leads to the third force in her life: she's 15. She's full of hormones and prone to crushes on good looking young men who pay attention to her.
Where Nick is 30ish and she thinks he's attractive, the young guard looks to be about 18ish and he pays the attention to her that Nick does not. He hardcore buys into the Gilead vision and I'm sure that's attractive to her as well.
She is terrified about the consequences, that's the reason she gets on her knees and begs for forgiveness. She's so conditioned that she's waiting for him to take a belt to her or otherwise abuse her. She's actually angry because he refuses to abuse her.
I'm excited to see how this plays out.
So I guess the new thing is that every season ends with a main character getting killed. I sincerely hope that at some point they tie all of these alternative universes together.
Jeeeez this got heated, lol.
Yes, black handmaids are fine for a couple of reasons. First and foremost this series is inspired by the book. Margaret Atwood has said that she's not involved with the plot but that she approves of the direction the producers are taking. If it's okay with Atwood, it should be okay with everyone else.
The other reason is cultural. The book was written by a Canadian who wrote through her lens of the American race relations and the far right. In fact, if a Gilead were to set up an Old Testament theocratic government, there would certainly be Blacks who would support it. Although they have a tendency to vote democratic, blacks who vote are overwhelmingly church-goers and much more conservative than most white people think. For example, although the vote Democratic, they are largely anti-abortion and reject homosexuality.
Black and White ultra conservative ministers, like the ones who would set up a Gilead, collaborate all the time. You can be damned sure that there would be Black and Hispanic commanders, and thus, Black and Hispanic handmaids.