|
|
Post by lizmc on Feb 18, 2018 2:49:33 GMT
We'll have a new episode on the 26th: As Murdoch investigates a murder with connections to vaudeville entertainers Harry and Al Jolson, Watts unravels a mystery about his own family.
|
|
|
|
Post by lizmc on Feb 21, 2018 23:35:46 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by Fallenbelle on Feb 24, 2018 10:06:00 GMT
We'll see if I'm wrong or not, but I suspect that Julia has a miscarriage this episode. I don't know definitively that it's this episode, but just making an educated guess based on breadcrumbs and clues from social media.
I'll admit that I didn't care for Watts very much in the beginning, but that he's definitely growing on me. Looking forward to learning more about him.
|
|
|
|
Post by lizmc on Feb 24, 2018 17:35:24 GMT
We'll see if I'm wrong or not, but I suspect that Julia has a miscarriage this episode. I don't know definitively that it's this episode, but just making an educated guess based on breadcrumbs and clues from social media. I'll admit that I didn't care for Watts very much in the beginning, but that he's definitely growing on me. Looking forward to learning more about him. I agree....if not this episode, the next, as I definitely think they are heading that way........it will result in screams of protest and people threatening to never watch again, but it would be very real to the period.... |
|
|
|
Post by Terence's Top Hat on Feb 27, 2018 17:03:52 GMT
This was a great episode. I kind of liked how the recurring characters (Watts, John, etc.) were up front for this one, while the main characters were more in the background. I liked how John fell for an older woman. Watts finding out more on his past. Higgins almost playing a big brother role to John. Great appearance by the fertility scientist (I wish I could remember her name). I always enjoy when she makes her way into an episode. She's interesting. So interesting I'd like to know more about her, such as, is she really helping William and Julia, or does she have something more sinister up her sleeve??
I never guessed who the murderer was.
|
|
|
|
Post by murdochic on Feb 28, 2018 12:16:14 GMT
I thought this episode was mediocre and I've never been a Al Jolson fan because of his blackface routine. Julia only being in two scenes the entire episode was ridiculous. Less Watts or John and more of the main characters would've helped this episode be more interesting.
I'm not convinced they'll go the miscarriage route with Julia. That would be cruel after her and William already losing Roland. MM can't go on forever and they only have so long for W/J to have a child so the clock is ticking. Especially considering the characters ages. If they do go the miscarriage route then I hope it doesn't damage the Murdoch marriage and they somehow achieve their family whether biologically or through adoption.
|
|
|
|
Post by Fallenbelle on Mar 2, 2018 22:04:32 GMT
This was a great episode. I kind of liked how the recurring characters (Watts, John, etc.) were up front for this one, while the main characters were more in the background. I liked how John fell for an older woman. Watts finding out more on his past. Higgins almost playing a big brother role to John. Great appearance by the fertility scientist (I wish I could remember her name). I always enjoy when she makes her way into an episode. She's interesting. So interesting I'd like to know more about her, such as, is she really helping William and Julia, or does she have something more sinister up her sleeve?? I never guessed who the murderer was. I agree. This was a good episode, even if it was light on the traditional characters, but the subject matter was interesting enough and Watts has grown on me enough that I enjoyed it and I enjoyed a look at the Jewish community of turn of the century Toronto. I also enjoyed the appearance of Demeter (can't recall her real name either) and poor William at being reduced to a donor, lol! I don't think she has anything nefarious planned, she just doesn't like men...but she's dealing with it because it's a chance to test her theory. Whom I hope doesn't have anything up her sleeve is Violet Hart...if they "single white female" her character, I'm going to be pissed. |
|
|
|
Post by randomkiwibirds on Mar 7, 2018 3:34:48 GMT
This was a great episode. I kind of liked how the recurring characters (Watts, John, etc.) were up front for this one, while the main characters were more in the background. I liked how John fell for an older woman. Watts finding out more on his past. Higgins almost playing a big brother role to John. Great appearance by the fertility scientist (I wish I could remember her name). I always enjoy when she makes her way into an episode. She's interesting. So interesting I'd like to know more about her, such as, is she really helping William and Julia, or does she have something more sinister up her sleeve?? I never guessed who the murderer was. I agree,it was nice to give some of the recurrer's a chance in the spotlight! Although it wasn't my favourite episode of the season I still enjoyed it - though I did miss George! The fertility scientist (I usually just end up calling her Demeter), I enjoy as well! she's just so blunt it's great! For being a new born rabbit though it sure was big and had a lot of fur! "Unfortunatly it's male" made me crack up! Providing a bit of lightness in a rather heavy episode dealing with heavier things. |
|
|
|
Post by Terence's Top Hat on Mar 7, 2018 17:46:22 GMT
Yes, that's what I adore about her that you nailed--her bluntness! She's a great character.
Fallenbelle, nice to see you posting. I missed seeing you around.
|
|
|
|
Post by Hodge on Mar 22, 2018 16:20:31 GMT
With the exception of Watts I found this to be one of the most boring episodes of the entire series. I actually didn't really watch after the first viewing and turned it off after the third; I usually watch all evening.
|
|
|
|
Post by bookworm1225 on Apr 5, 2018 20:56:00 GMT
Acorn.tv got this episode this week. A few more weeks, and I'll finally catch up...
I wonder, though - is being a Jewish detective better or worse than being a Catholic detective? (Not that I think Brackenreid or Murdoch would give it away, especially if it is bad for his career.)
|
|
|
|
Post by shangas on Apr 6, 2018 21:03:45 GMT
Jews have always been discriminated against. Why, I have no idea. I have loads of Jewish friends. It's not like they have red skin or something.
Religious persecution was definitely a thing in those days, though. We get reminded several times throughout the series that Toronto (and therefore Canada) is a protestant (likely Anglican) city (and country) due to its connection to the British Empire. Which makes sense. But there were definitely large enclaves of Jews there. Britain was one of the few countries that would allow open Jewish immigration in the late 1800s. As Brackenreid once said: "There's two types of Jews in this city: There's this new lot, fresh off the boat, they keep to themselves. Then there's the older generation, from England..."
The 'older generation' would be the ones who settled in England in the mid or early 1800s, escaping persecution in Europe.
The 'new lot' would be the ones escaping Russian pogroms in the 1880s, 1890s, and fleeing to England, Poland, Germany, America, Canada, etc.
|
|
|
|
Post by lizmc on Apr 7, 2018 6:48:33 GMT
Jews have always been discriminated against. Why, I have no idea. I have loads of Jewish friends. It's not like they have red skin or something. Religious persecution was definitely a thing in those days, though. We get reminded several times throughout the series that Toronto (and therefore Canada) is a protestant (likely Anglican) city (and country) due to its connection to the British Empire. Which makes sense. But there were definitely large enclaves of Jews there. Britain was one of the few countries that would allow open Jewish immigration in the late 1800s. As Brackenreid once said: "There's two types of Jews in this city: There's this new lot, fresh off the boat, they keep to themselves. Then there's the older generation, from England..." The 'older generation' would be the ones who settled in England in the mid or early 1800s, escaping persecution in Europe. The 'new lot' would be the ones escaping Russian pogroms in the 1880s, 1890s, and fleeing to England, Poland, Germany, America, Canada, etc. Re the religious makeup of Toronto (and Canada). Toronto in this time period, right up to post WWII, was dominated by the Orange Lodge, which was Northern Irish and Methodist. To work in the police, fire services and any City job, you, more or less, had to be an Orangeman, or have connections to it......all mayors in post Confederation Toronto were members of the Orange Lodge, until Nathan Phillips, who was Jewish, was elected in the mid 1950s, in an election campaign which featured anti Semitism of a nature which most people today would find repulsive and very surprising, considering what had just happened in the war.....what broke the Orange Lodge's hold were the waves of immigration in the years after WWII of people who were from Italy, Eastern Europe and Northern England, then in the 60s, from South East Asia and the West Indies......this also applied to most of Southern Ontario. There would also have been a large Anglican presence as well, but at this point in history, it didn't have the same political clout. In Northern Ontario, there was a substantial French speaking population, which was predominantly Catholic. Quebec was largely French speaking and Catholic, but with substantial political power held by the smaller English speaking population. As for the rest of Canada, the balance varied according to where the original settlers came from and when, with large areas of the country settled by the Scots & Irish, with Ukrainian settlement in the West, in the early 1900s. Politically, the country tended to divide along religious and linguistic lines, with things coming to a head in WWI, especially during the debate as to whether to have conscription. The Conscription Bill passed in late 1917 and caused tremendous division, with Quebec (against) pitted against Ontario (in favour), with repercussions still felt today.
Anyone visiting Toronto today would have trouble fathoming the hold of the Orange Lodge, but in my lifetime, we started getting rid of the repressive liquor, labour, and Sunday closing laws. I can remember the windows in Eaton's Department store, founded by Timothy Eaton, who was as Orange as they come, being completely covered on Sundays, just in case you might be tempted.....there were no movies, theatres, amusements like bowling allies open on Sundays at all. Toronto didn't get its first cocktail lodge until the Silver Rail opened in the late 40s and it wasn't until around 1980 that restaurants were allowed to have outdoor licenced patios in the summer. Those had been banned in case children saw people drinking and enjoying themselves........(I remember being taken to Montreal as a child to visit relatives in the 1960s and being absolutely amazed that that people went to restaurants and actually enjoyed themselves....I remember asking if that was allowed....) Religious divisions were still very prevalent until late in the 20th century, with private clubs specifically barring Catholics and Jews, and anyone who wasn't WASP........
|
|
|
|
Post by shangas on Apr 10, 2018 6:40:58 GMT
There's no delicate way to say this, so I'll just say it.
That sounds incredibly conservative and oppressive.
|
|
|
|
Post by lizmc on Apr 10, 2018 7:11:06 GMT
There's no delicate way to say this, so I'll just say it. That sounds incredibly conservative and oppressive. Yup, you are right, it was........fortunately, the Toronto of today is drastically different than the Toronto I grew up in...... |
|
Jan 30, 2013 21:44:55 GMT
Jan 30, 2013 21:44:55 GMT