|
|
Post by hannikan on Mar 1, 2012 0:51:48 GMT
Yeah, he was pretty close to Jasper's territory. He worked as a Mountie in British Columbia. I did think Dr. Grace's comment about Julia's marriage was a little out of the blue, but she's been working closely with Julia and presumably has seen Darcy and Julia together. She being younger and romance driven, saw quickly that Darcy and Julia do not have a passionate relationship. She may have even heard from George about Julia's past romance with William. I didn't think bringing the badge was weird. He is a guy who likes symbolism and would have wanted to make that gesture to show to himself he had moved on. I thought it was a little weird that he brought his suit and detective hat. He wouldn't have an occasion to wear those as a miner. Maybe he thought he would before he got there.
|
|
|
|
Post by shangas on Mar 1, 2012 2:03:58 GMT
The suit and hat isn't as crazy as you think.
In Victorian times, unless you were REALLY rich, you didn't have many clothes.
I'd describe Murdoch as being middle-class. He's well-off and has a good job and earns a decent, comfortable wage. But a man like him would not have had many clothes. In all likelihood, he would probably own only one or two good suits, and the rest being a hodgepodge of odd trousers, waistcoats and sportscoats. He said so himself in one episode, he only owns two pairs of shoes.
Taking his black suit and the homburg (that's what the hat is) to Klondike doesn't seem that strange to me. Apart from a few other bits and bobs, it was probably the only decent set of clothes he owned.
And don't forget that in Victorian times, a suit was made to last. It's not like these days where suits are made of light, prissy, floppy material that wears out after twelve months.
In Murdoch's day, a suit was something that was bought ONCE, and worn for the rest of your life. They were made to be VERY long-lasting. In fact, it was fairly common for a decent suit to be handed down from father to son over the generations, they lasted that long.
|
|
|
|
Post by petunia on Mar 1, 2012 2:36:32 GMT
I too agreed that the episode seemed a bit disjointed. It is as though they tried to cover too many things. Both murder cases were too simplistic and unlike other occasions when real people were brought in (H.G. Wells, A.C Doyle) the Jack London character did not seem to fit into the storyline.
What I thought was done well though, was the staging for the rest of the season. The relationship between Brackenried and Murdoch is definitevely changed now. Giles as the new chief inspector is a brilliant idea. Finally, as mentionned in a previous post, it would be nice to see Julia and her new assistant become friends. It would help in developing Julia's character. I have found her character development stalled in season 4. I hope more time will be spent on her this season. Finally the last scene of Julia sadly pensive in the morgue does suggests that that storyline is far from over.
|
|
|
|
Post by hannikan on Mar 1, 2012 3:22:46 GMT
The suit and hat isn't as crazy as you think. In Victorian times, unless you were REALLY rich, you didn't have many clothes. I'd describe Murdoch as being middle-class. He's well-off and has a good job and earns a decent, comfortable wage. But a man like him would not have had many clothes. In all likelihood, he would probably own only one or two good suits, and the rest being a hodgepodge of odd trousers, waistcoats and sportscoats. He said so himself in one episode, he only owns two pairs of shoes. Taking his black suit and the homburg (that's what the hat is) to Klondike doesn't seem that strange to me. Apart from a few other bits and bobs, it was probably the only decent set of clothes he owned. And don't forget that in Victorian times, a suit was made to last. It's not like these days where suits are made of light, prissy, floppy material that wears out after twelve months. In Murdoch's day, a suit was something that was bought ONCE, and worn for the rest of your life. They were made to be VERY long-lasting. In fact, it was fairly common for a decent suit to be handed down from father to son over the generations, they lasted that long. Yep, I knew all that. But something to keep in mind, I suppose. |
|
|
|
Post by hannikan on Mar 1, 2012 3:25:57 GMT
I too agreed that the episode seemed a bit disjointed. It is as though they tried to cover too many things. Both murder cases were too simplistic and unlike other occasions when real people were brought in (H.G. Wells, A.C Doyle) the Jack London character did not seem to fit into the storyline. Yeah, I agree that Jack London was not as well integrated into the plotline as previous characters have been. He and William didn't have much chemistry together. |
|
|
|
Post by shangas on Mar 1, 2012 5:37:43 GMT
I'm sorry.
I just thought it was important to understand the historical contexts, is all.
|
|
|
|
Post by hannikan on Mar 1, 2012 5:57:19 GMT
No, it's okay, it's true that he wouldn't have had more than one suit. I just wonder with only a suitcase if he would have brought one given that he would have had little use for it there.
|
|
|
|
Post by shangas on Mar 1, 2012 7:24:54 GMT
I reckon he brought it "just in case".
In fact, I liked the scene in the episode where he finally decides to help his ladyfriend, and the very next shot is him walking down the middle of town with his black suit and homburg. And I'm thinking:
"Murdoch's BACK!"
|
|
|
|
Post by Lucy on Mar 1, 2012 7:28:02 GMT
Perhaps he left in his suit and had to get the other clothes there? That would explain him having his suit.
|
|
|
|
Post by shangas on Mar 1, 2012 7:34:53 GMT
Yeah that sounds plausible. There were probably all kinds of merchants there selling cheap miners' clothes. Clothes that were designed to put up with muck and grime and mud.
|
|
|
|
Post by akarana on Mar 1, 2012 8:53:54 GMT
So, now that I am home again and not on the phone I realized that I forgot two things:
1. The badge: When I saw the scene, I thought that for him it was like a decission. He thought about what had happened and he remembered asking Brackenreid if Julia was happy and he had said yes. So, while remembering it he seemed to have made the decission that she was happy and there would never be any reason for him to go back, so he would never need that badge again. of course I'm not saying that he ever intended to have an affaire with her if she wasn't happy, it's just that what one knows and what one hopes for and dreams about are sometimes not the same things.
2. As for Julia's looks: I also think that she looks different, better in my opinion, and my first thought was that Helen had gained a bit of weight (and if she did it really suits her!). But it could also be a different hairdo or make up. Either way, I liked it.
Ah and one more thing: If they will ever break up the marriage of Julia and Darcy, I do think that her new assistant and then mentioned women's club will have sth. to do with it. If they really become friends and she tells her at one point of her feelings for Murdoch (or she sees it. bc it's quite obvious) they might tell her that it's not necessary to stay married to a man you have only a deep friendship with but don't love. I don't know what laws existed back then and under what circumstances divorce was possible, but maybe they are so 'modern' as to convince Julia to end this farce and follow her heart for her own sake and not care about what society says. Just an idea.
She was quite taken by the last womens club (the one who dressed like men to have some liberties).
|
|
|
|
Post by shangas on Mar 1, 2012 10:27:09 GMT
Divorce in Victorian times was possible, but really only if you weren't filthy filthy rich.
If you were a society lady getting divorced from your rich husband, the social implications were HUGE. You would probably never show your face at a garden party or social dinner ever again. Or at least, not before a very long time had elapsed.
From my understanding of Victorian marriage and divorce, a divorce could happen IF:
- The marriage could not be consummated. In other words, if the husband wasn't man enough to make his lady happy...or pop out kids...then she could claim that as grounds for divorce.
- Either party was adulterous. A condition of divorce for centuries, if either party was found to be unfaithful, then divorce was possible.
- They were both fed up with each other (Divorce by Mutual Consent). If both parties decided that their marriage wasn't working, they could agree to a divorce.
In older times, witchcraft was also an acceptable reason for divorce. But the Salem Witch Trials were kind of...over...by the Victorian era.
In Victorian times, crimes such as Rape-in-Marriage and Spousal-Abuse were not generally recognised (in fact, marital rape wouldn't be recognised in my country until the 1970s, I think). So they were not generally seen as grounds for divorce. In Victorian times, a man was expected to be master of the house and his wife was expected to know her place. It was expected that a man knew of EVERYTHING that happened in his house, and that nothing within his household was ever outside his control. And if his wife acted in a manner, or did something that was immoral or illegal - The husband would get the blame - because it was believed that either...
a). The wife acted under the husband's orders (even if she hadn't).
b). The husband wasn't able to control the wife and her actions. (which he was expected to be able to do).
Depending on the local laws and customs, divorce was easier said than done.
In some countries (as was, I believe, the case in England), you could divorce for the above-mentioned reasons (this was presumably the same for the colonies and dominions, of which Canada was one).
In other countries (America, I believe), No Fault Divorce did not exist.
No Fault Divorce means that you can divorce without either party being 'at fault' (being abusive, adulterous, screwing around, etc).
If No Fault Divorce was not recognised in your country, state, county or city, then you had to depend on the services of a private detective, to dig up dirt on your husband/wife, to find proof of activities (or inactivities) that would constitute grounds for divorce.
If no such grounds were found, then divorce, generally, wasn't permissable.
And you obviously had to have both parties consent to divorce. Some people wouldn't allow their husbands/wives to divorce them. So they would legally still be man and wife, even if they no longer lived together. If either party wished to remarry, then they would be committing the crime of Bigamy.
This was often a strong motivator for spousal murder.
|
|
|
|
Post by Lucy on Mar 1, 2012 12:13:25 GMT
Wow, so going by that they either have to mutually agree, one be unfaithful or divorce because of Julia believing she can't have any children?
Do we actually know that she can't have children though?
|
|
|
|
Post by Missouille on Mar 1, 2012 12:37:07 GMT
Julia can't have children because of her abortion !! She confided in William at the end of the third season, there is a reminder (I'm not sure of the word) in the first episode of season four.
|
|
|
|
Post by shangas on Mar 1, 2012 13:19:26 GMT
Hi Lucy,
Yes, Julia is actually unable to have kids. She had a botched abortion when she was younger and it left her infertile as a result. She uses this as an excuse to turn down William (she says this to her sister, Ruby). She says that if she married William, he would certainly want a family, which is the one thing she literally cannot give him. William knows this and he's willing to adopt a child, but still...they never got that far.
|
|
