|
|
Post by Lucy on Mar 1, 2012 13:30:26 GMT
I know that but I wasn't sure whether she was just saying that. It always comes across like she's scared that she might not be able to have children. It's hard for me to explain. I've never got the feeling that it's a certain fact that she can't. If that makes any sense at all?
I know that's why she doesn't want to be with William because he would want a family. Which in itself is frustrating because he said he would adopt!
|
|
|
|
Post by akarana on Mar 1, 2012 19:47:40 GMT
I think back then it would have been hard to detemine how much damage there actually was, without ultrasound I mean. Of course if she had a hysterectomy, then of course it's impossible. But if it's just scar tissue, then there is still a very slight chance she might get pregnant.
However she wasn't so forthcoming on what exactly happened.
We only know she had an abortion, nearly died and that Tash saved her life with an operation.
|
|
|
|
Post by CosmicCavalcade on Mar 1, 2012 21:24:13 GMT
yeah, i too have always had the impression that maybe she can still have children but either doesn't want them or doesn't think she'd be able to have them. Other than the previous reasons stated in other posts, the only way she'd know for sure is if she tries to get pregnant for years and still can't. but of course she wouldn't do this if she doesn't want children (and especially not with Darcy). I could almost see her unexpectedly getting pregnant this season. but if that happens, i can't really see her ever leaving Darcy and Murdoch would just think that she lied to him and be so hurt by this that he'd want nothing to do with her ever again. I wouldn't want them to go down this road but it is a possibility IMO.
|
|
|
|
Post by hannikan on Mar 1, 2012 22:15:14 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!" Yes, I did like how the Murdoch music came on as he walked up. Da-da-da-da-da-da-da. ;D |
|
|
|
Post by shangas on Mar 1, 2012 22:25:51 GMT
Procedures like abortions would've been pretty risky (to say nothing of illegal) in Victorian times. The fact that she nearly died is testament to that. And she says the procedure left her infertile. So I'm likely thinking it was botched in some way (not uncommon in Victorian times. Abortions could often be fatal).
|
|
|
|
Post by hannikan on Mar 1, 2012 22:39:10 GMT
I think back then it would have been hard to detemine how much damage there actually was, without ultrasound I mean. Of course if she had a hysterectomy, then of course it's impossible. But if it's just scar tissue, then there is still a very slight chance she might get pregnant. However she wasn't so forthcoming on what exactly happened. We only know she had an abortion, nearly died and that Tash saved her life with an operation. Yeah, this has been my thinking, too. I think it may turn out that she can have children after all. But for now she thinks she can't and that is why she made the sacrifice to leave William so that he could have children. I do think she wants children now, unlike earlier on (S1-2) when she still didn't seem to want them. The reason I say that she wants them now is her desire to work with children and her softness for children in S4 was quite different than her attitude earlier on. It seemed like a subtle signal that she has been thinking of wanting children. No-fault divorce was not legal in Canada or the U.S. until the late 1960's-70's. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No-fault_divorce#Canadian_history The only way you could get a divorce as a woman in the Victorian Era was to prove (not just accuse) that your husband had been unfaithful or was beating you severely (cruelty). Neither thing is easy to prove when divorce was so looked down on. Basically you had to have a reliable witness to either one. So like shangas was saying if you were wealthy, you would have far more luck getting that accomplished. You could pay someone to be a witness for you and attest that they had seen infidelity or cruelty. For a woman to testify in court was very intimidating since women were relegated to the private domain, not the public one. Women were not allowed to testify in court until the late 1800's, so it was a new phenomenon. And men did not take the testimony of any women as seriously as that of any man. Women were not allowed to sit on juries, so everyone hearing your testimony was a man. So it was a lop-sided, he said-she said contest. A man would have an easier time convincing a court that a woman had been unfaithful and therefore could get a divorce. But since the social ramifications were so dire for men and women, it was very uncommon to get a divorce. |
|
|
|
Post by shangas on Mar 1, 2012 23:24:32 GMT
No-fault divorce not being legal in Canada, then the offended party would have to hire the services of a detective to sleuth out the forbidden lover (if adultery was suspected).
But yeah, as I said - Divorce DID happen. But it certainly wasn't common. At least, nowhere NEAR as common as it is today. The social rammifications were HUGE, anyway. Don't forget that the vows were to be faithful and loving etc, to each other until death did they part.
In the religious age of the 1800s, you were expected to follow those vows to the LETTER. Breaking them by having a divorce (especially in high society) was mightily scandalous, to say nothing of being socially unacceptable.
Applying this to MM, Julia would only be able to get a divorce if:
1. Dr. Garland was seeing another woman.
2. She was seeing another man (Murdoch?)
3. He beat her senseless.
4. He dies (and she becomes a widow).
|
|
|
|
Post by hannikan on Mar 2, 2012 0:13:12 GMT
Yep and she would have to prove that Darcy was being unfaithful or beating her senseless. Since Julia is from a prominent, wealthy family and she is a confident, educated women with knowledge of the law and experience working in a man's world, she would have an easier time convincing a judge and jury of this than the vast majority of women. But it would still be difficult. And then there would be lots of societal fall out. She could be stripped of her medical license, fired from the police department, shunned by her family, etc... Of course, if Darcy dies divorce is not necessary. It will be interesting to see what they do!
I was also thinking that Julia looked much blonder. More golden blond. I think it looks nice on her. I agree that putting a little weight on would be good for her. She has been so, so thin.
|
|
|
|
Post by shangas on Mar 2, 2012 2:14:19 GMT
Well exactly my point. Divorce carried HUGE rammifications in Victorian times, especially for women. Even women of accomplishment such as Julia. It wasn't just "sign on the dotted line and you're done". That said, as advanced as medical science was at the turn of the century (surgery was now a lot safer and survival rates were going up. Diseases were now understood and being treated with effective drugs and innoculations etc), there was still a lot that could kill you. Stuff like cancer, yellow fever (unlikely in Canada), pneumonia, Plague (yes, it's still around today) and a particularly common disease - Consumption ('tuberculosis' today). Dr. Garland is a hospital physician while his wife is a coroner's pathologist. Dr. Garland's ability to pick up a potentially lethal disease from a patient at the children's hospital would be much higher. And yes, the Victoria Hospital for Sick Children is a real place. It was opened in Toronto in 1892. Here's a photo of it:  It's still around today. |
|
|
|
Post by hannikan on Mar 2, 2012 3:08:47 GMT
Yep, we we definitely saying the say thing, shangas. It's much more likely that Darcy could pick up a potentially fatal disease at the Victoria Hospital for Sick Children. That's a good point. And if he was injured in an accident or serving in war, he would also be far less likely to survive than today. The Buffalo Children's Hospital was also built in the time that MM set it. I have wondered if since VHfSC had been around since before the show started (about three years before) Julia had ever applied for a job there.
|
|
|
|
Post by shangas on Mar 2, 2012 4:00:39 GMT
I doubt that very much. The current hospital building (opened in 1892) was built because the hospital's previous premises proved too small.
...It was previously bsaed in a two storey rented house!
There is the Toronto General Hospital (est. 1812). She might have worked there and then eventually become a police pathologist.
But a lot of this technology was pretty new at the time. The VHfSC was one of the first hospitals in North America to use the new x-ray technology (in 1896). x-rays were extremely dangerous in the Victorian/Edwardian era - Knowledge of radiation-poisoning was unknown at the time, and a lot of radiologists who operated these early machines died slowly and painfully, often getting horrible radiation-burns which required amputations.
If, for example, Dr. Garland was to become a radiologist, his life would've been pretty short. Over the course of years, his hands (which operated the machine) would get blisters and sores and burns from the powerful radiation, which would then affect the rest of his body. He wouldn't die at once, but he'd die a lot sooner than other doctors.
Other incurable diseases of the time included plague, scarlet fever and consumption. Pneumonia, like I said, was another huge killer. Smallpox was a killer as well, but by the Victorian era, they'd developed a vaccine for that, so it wasn't as common as it used to be, back in the 1700s.
Cancer was curable...provided you could get to it without killing the patient...and removing the cancer didn't leave the patient unable to lead a productive life. The prevalence of smoking in Victorian times must've caused high rates of throat and lung cancer.
|
|
|
|
Post by hannikan on Mar 2, 2012 4:39:02 GMT
I didn't say she might have worked there, I know that obviously didn't happen. I'm just thinking she may have applied to work there when she was starting out. Obviously, she didn't get hired there. Presumably she applied everywhere in the city and only got the job at the morgue. It doesn't sound like it was originally her first choice since she complained that she was the only one from her medical school cohort still cutting up cadavers. Cancer is often more tricky than just cutting out the tumor though, too. It's still not curable now in many cases. There are some types of cancer that haven't progressed much past the treatments at this time. Pancreatic cancer, for example, is just as deadly now as it was in the early 1900's. But if they caught it early enough to remove the tumor and that surgical procedure was successful, a cancer patient could live for awhile. Yeah, a lot of people died from things like typhoid fever, scarlet fever, influenza, pneumonia. Most people in the era had several family members and friends who had died from some disease. A lot of things that we don't consider deadly today were today. Usually, when the illness went into the lungs, they didn't have anyway to treat it.
|
|
|
|
Post by petunia on Mar 2, 2012 5:47:12 GMT
One thing I enjoyed in this episode was the return of the hilarious camera angle. Did anybody notice that seconds after the new young doctor (I forget her name) joins Julia and George in the alley there is a short camera shot from above where both sides are framed by two scandily dressed hookers?
Season 1 had a few of those... Remember the camera angle from between the cow's legs in the Mars episode? There was also another funny one during a grave digging shot in the Shakespear episode.
I too prefer Julia's hair this way. It looks more like season 2 and 3. Season's 4 hair was way too much!!!
|
|
|
|
Post by shangas on Mar 2, 2012 7:42:41 GMT
The camerawork in this entire show is wonderful. They come up with some really interesting angles and perspectives. I like it a lot.
I know the shot you're talking about. It's from above, looking down on the crime-scene.
|
|
|
|
Post by hannikan on Mar 2, 2012 7:59:10 GMT
Yeah, we definitely got some boob shots! It was supposed to be at a brothel and probably a street with several brothels. I agree that Julia's hair in S4 looked silly. It really looked like a wig to me. And she looked silly having her hair in a long braid at her age. It didn't even seem right in S1 because as soon as a woman was of marriageable age (generally 16-18) they were to wear their hair up all the time as a signal of that. But Julia is a ruler breaker.
|
|
