|
|
Post by Hodge on Jan 28, 2015 4:23:32 GMT
I think PM was stunned at the reaction to LM, perhaps he thought because she was fighting for women's suffrage that we'd all flock to her but it seems our reaction isn't what he was expecting. PM doesn't understand women, explains a lot!  This is from a man who thinks a few suffragism mentions equals excellent female characterization, and that married people never have sex or can't be sexy.  He is divorced, I think.... |
|
|
|
Post by lizmc on Jan 28, 2015 4:32:15 GMT
If Lillian dies as a result of a protest hunger strike in prison or from forced feeding, she will have to leave Canada first and go to England, as that didn't happen here. Overall, the Canadian Suffragette movement was comparably peaceful, with the Temperance Movement very much involved. They believed they could only achieve temperance with women voting.........I can see her becoming the victim of foul play, though........(looking forward to that....I think she is a very unlikable character.......Emily could do better......I suspect Emily is seeing her own dark side in Lillian.......)
Yes, I believe it would happen in England. MM has a way of soft-selling dark themes like that. So instead of showing the force-feeding themselves, they might give Lillian the opportunity to go with some Women's delegation abroad where she'd get involved with like-minded radicals in England and get tossed in prison. Next thing you know Emily gets a very sad letter, and no one understands why she's taking it like she's lost the love of her life...  I agree about Emily seeing her dark side in Lillian. On the flip side, Lillian might see what she could have become had she been allowed to pursue her education and fulfill her dream of being a "modern professional woman" in Emily. It isn't a matter of MM soft selling anything.......the hunger strikes and force feedings of suffragettes simply didn't happen in Canada. That happened in England, and, as it happens, ended up helping the suffragette cause, as the public (and the King and Queen) found force feeding revolting.......
And, yes, I think Lillian sees what could have been in her own life in Emily, and I think in Julia, which could explain her hostility towards her...... (And if they show the Temperance movement's involvement, I can't wait to see Margaret chew out Lillian.....)
Cheers
|
|
|
|
Post by snacky on Jan 28, 2015 4:58:07 GMT
Lillian did seem 'somewhat' interested in the dead girl's injuries and I think she almost felt guilty at her death, at least as long as she thought she'd caused it. Unfortunately once it was determined it wasn't the brick I don't think she gave it another thought. This woman is so shallow to the point she skims the surface. I really don't care what the reason behind it is and I too hope she's gone soon. I think PM was stunned at the reaction to LM, perhaps he thought because she was fighting for women's suffrage that we'd all flock to her but it seems our reaction isn't what he was expecting. PM doesn't understand women, explains a lot! The women's suffrage plot was a good idea, but PM didn't account for a lot of things that would frak it up. Some of them I think could have been caught with more input from women, and also by standing back and looking at how the whole arc plays out. But most of the problem has to do with some unpredictable cultural polarization that -at the risk of over-inflating the importance of US culture/events - I suspect has its source in recent events in the US. 1) Julia's absence from mystery plots would be taken as marginalization - exacerbated by her hiatus while she worked on other shows and bicycle accident. The suffrage plot shouldn't have been allowed to "reduce" Julia to William's offscreen wife. 2) The debate over banning the word "Feminism" in the US, and several related debates over misogyny in video games and comic books and nasa t-shirts and whatnot, brought to the fore negative feelings about stereotypically strident feminists just as MM, which, because of its limited time frame deals out stories in stereotypes, brought on the strident feminists. (Me being the proud "give no fraks" outspoken FEMINIST, I'm with Team MM on this one and would like the viewers to check where their judgments are coming from...) 3) The depiction of the women's suffrage movement protesting against the "immovable object" of men's government took place parallel to a massive protest movement and debate about the nature of protest in the U.S. This gave MM writers a model and/or some insight into the earlier suffrage movement - but by depicting the issues this way, the viewers brought the same hardened reactions to that debate (very similar to the reactions to "Feminism"). So while MM is showing a fair mirror of several sides of the debate, each type of viewer is just bringing their own perspective and judgment and going "WTH! That's wrong!" or "Right on!" (Frankly I think this is good writing, and it will survive the test of time. It's the viewers who are are too close to it here.) 4) The Lesbian plot crossed wires with the Feminism/Generational plot which created the impression of the dreaded "Man-hating Lesbian". I really, truly hope that was an accident. Politically, I see the MM team made some "edgy" moves this year that were in the spirit of "multicultural Canada", and I applaud that. |
|
|
|
Post by snacky on Jan 28, 2015 5:02:36 GMT
Anyone else amusing themselves at the thought of the conversation where Julia clues in William to the Emily/Lillian relationship...?  I don't think William is as behind the door as you think. He hasn't seen enough to make the connection but I'm not sure Julia has yet either. I don't think Julia has seen it yet. I'm not sure Emily has even fully seen it yet, though she's let Lillian unlace her corset. Does her imagination even "go there"? Or is it something she - and possibly Lillian as well - are grappling with? William is the more clueless one when it comes to human relationships. I suspect Julia will "get it" first and then astound William with the information during a walk in the park or something. Oooh - or during some love-making session to see if it turns him on, hahaha. |
|
|
|
Post by snacky on Jan 28, 2015 5:12:12 GMT
It isn't a matter of MM soft selling anything.......the hunger strikes and force feedings of suffragettes simply didn't happen in Canada. That happened in England, and, as it happens, ended up helping the suffragette cause, as the public (and the King and Queen) found force feeding revolting.......
And, yes, I think Lillian sees what could have been in her own life in Emily, and I think in Julia, which could explain her hostility towards her...... (And if they show the Temperance movement's involvement, I can't wait to see Margaret chew out Lillian.....)
Even if they had happened in Canada, I believe MM would soft sell it. It's just the style of the show. They will hit some pretty deep themes, but they don't do torture porn. Oooh, Margaret chewing out Lillian! That could happen! But it would just make Lillian more extreme. Believe me, I've been watching this play out in real life (and participating - that's why I've been MIA more than usual) for months now. I know exactly how this dynamic works! Margaret Brackenreid is the Conservative Voice of Property who says "You will turn everyone against you if you inconvenience people and damage property!" Julia is the Understanding Voice of Property who says "Consider doing things differently, but I understand where you're coming from..." Lillian is the voice of the Radical Activist who says "No one ever pays attention or does anything unless we get their attention and/or compel them by threat of violence!" Emily is the young student of good will: "I want social change, but I don't want to get in trouble - what do I do?" I'm told this is practically a rerun of the 60s. |
|
|
|
Post by snacky on Jan 28, 2015 5:18:22 GMT
I think PM was stunned at the reaction to LM, perhaps he thought because she was fighting for women's suffrage that we'd all flock to her but it seems our reaction isn't what he was expecting. PM doesn't understand women, explains a lot! This is from a man who thinks a few suffragism mentions equals excellent female characterization, and that married people never have sex or can't be sexy. This isn't fair. There is only so much MM can do in an hour, and the mystery plots are already being diluted by too much character development interludes. The suffrage plot is being stretched over the course of the whole season and needs to be seen in the perspective. I'll give you that some mistake was made with Lillian if the first thing that popped into people's minds was "Man-hating Lesbian", though. What is this "married people never have sex" thing? I've been assuming William and Julia have been at it like bunnies after years of rigorous self-denial. I've seen nothing to disprove that theory. |
|
|
|
Post by Hodge on Jan 28, 2015 6:05:48 GMT
This is from a man who thinks a few suffragism mentions equals excellent female characterization, and that married people never have sex or can't be sexy. This isn't fair. There is only so much MM can do in an hour, and the mystery plots are already being diluted by too much character development interludes. The suffrage plot is being stretched over the course of the whole season and needs to be seen in the perspective. Yes, there is only so much you can do in an hour so let's get rid of the time stealing Lillian Moss and get back to our original four heros!! |
|
|
|
Post by Hodge on Jan 28, 2015 6:27:09 GMT
The women's suffrage plot was a good idea, but PM didn't account for a lot of things that would frak it up. Some of them I think could have been caught with more input from women, and also by standing back and looking at how the whole arc plays out. But most of the problem has to do with some unpredictable cultural polarization that -at the risk of over-inflating the importance of US culture/events - I suspect has its source in recent events in the US. 1) Julia's absence from mystery plots would be taken as marginalization - exacerbated by her hiatus while she worked on other shows and bicycle accident. The suffrage plot shouldn't have been allowed to "reduce" Julia to William's offscreen wife. 2) The debate over banning the word "Feminism" in the US, and several related debates over misogyny in video games and comic books and nasa t-shirts and whatnot, brought to the fore negative feelings about stereotypically strident feminists just as MM, which, because of its limited time frame deals out stories in stereotypes, brought on the strident feminists. (Me being the proud "give no fraks" outspoken FEMINIST, I'm with Team MM on this one and would like the viewers to check where their judgments are coming from...) 3) The depiction of the women's suffrage movement protesting against the "immovable object" of men's government took place parallel to a massive protest movement and debate about the nature of protest in the U.S. This gave MM writers a model and/or some insight into the earlier suffrage movement - but by depicting the issues this way, the viewers brought the same hardened reactions to that debate (very similar to the reactions to "Feminism"). So while MM is showing a fair mirror of several sides of the debate, each type of viewer is just bringing their own perspective and judgment and going "WTH! That's wrong!" or "Right on!" (Frankly I think this is good writing, and it will survive the test of time. It's the viewers who are are too close to it here.) 4) The Lesbian plot crossed wires with the Feminism/Generational plot which created the impression of the dreaded "Man-hating Lesbian". I really, truly hope that was an accident. Politically, I see the MM team made some "edgy" moves this year that were in the spirit of "multicultural Canada", and I applaud that. I'm not sure I agree with your thoughts on this. Admittedly I no longer watch much news, used to be a news junkie but too many protests and middle eastern crap turned me off. I won't even go into what I actually think about it and our government's response. I didn't even realize there were still protests in the US. What are they about now? I do watch some news and I haven't seen anything, I even watched the national news the other night and didn't see anything on there. I think you're overestimating how much events in the US affect our TV shows. They're thinking of banning the word Feminism, how do they intend to go about doing that?? I will admit perhaps with more female involvement maybe someone would have been able to point out that the way the suffrage movement was playing out may not work as they thought. It was a good idea with poor execution. I also don't necessarily see the man hating lesbian, I now see more of a frustrated woman that doesn't seem to be getting her way. People aren't behaving the way she wants them to. I don't agree with multiculturalism btw. It puts immigrants above the people that were born here and says they're more important than Canadians ... and I'm an immigrant. One of the things Pierre Trudeau didn't get right, unfortunately it may be too late to fix. I haven't seen anything that would suggest multicultural Canada in the show, unless you're thinking of a different kind of mulitculturalism than me. |
|
|
|
Post by snacky on Jan 28, 2015 6:44:39 GMT
This isn't fair. There is only so much MM can do in an hour, and the mystery plots are already being diluted by too much character development interludes. The suffrage plot is being stretched over the course of the whole season and needs to be seen in the perspective. Yes, there is only so much you can do in an hour so let's get rid of the time stealing Lillian Moss and get back to our original four heros!! I have to admit that, for me, the more time spent on William, the better. Politically, though, I feel I have to support a Sapphism storyline. #CrumpetThat  |
|
|
|
Post by Fallenbelle on Jan 28, 2015 6:49:54 GMT
I'm not sure I agree with your thoughts on this. Admittedly I no longer watch much news, used to be a news junkie but too many protests and middle eastern crap turned me off. I won't even go into what I actually think about it and our government's response. I didn't even realize there were still protests in the US. What are they about now? I do watch some news and I haven't seen anything, I even watched the national news the other night and didn't see anything on there. I think you're overestimating how much events in the US affect our TV shows. They're thinking of banning the word Feminism, how do they intend to go about doing that?? I will admit perhaps with more female involvement maybe someone would have been able to point out that the way the suffrage movement was playing out may not work as they thought. It was a good idea with poor execution. I also don't necessarily see the man hating lesbian, I now see more of a frustrated woman that doesn't seem to be getting her way. People aren't behaving the way she wants them to. I don't agree with multiculturalism btw. It puts immigrants above the people that were born here and says they're more important than Canadians ... and I'm an immigrant. One of the things Pierre Trudeau didn't get right, unfortunately it may be too late to fix. I haven't seen anything that would suggest multicultural Canada in the show, unless you're thinking of a different kind of mulitculturalism than me. Agreed again about Lillian Moss-whether she's the victim of bad writing (wouldn't be a surprise) or bad acting or even a combo of both, her character isn't working. It's time for her to go-Julia and Emily have shown you can be strong without being a selfish bitch. This is not me hating on another woman just because she's a woman-I don't like her character because she's whiny, entitled, and self-centered. Again, maybe this is because the writers this season seem to have problems with writing women, or maybe it's because she's just not solid enough of an actress to convey the depths needed to make Lillian relatable-I don't know. It may be both. She's also obtuse and doesn't know nearly as much about the world as she thinks. Instead of fighting Julia, she could ask Julia why she believes what she does and Julia could tell her that she's found far more success at changing society from within than standing outside of it while attacking it. But no, Julia's an idiot who threw her freedom and sisters under the bus carriage for a stupid man. As for multiculturalism, I'm an immigrant of sorts as well, and I think I can maintain my cultural preferences at home while being respectful of my Japanese hosts when I'm in public. Although they are often quite considerate and do try to adapt to me, I certainly don't expect them to, and am touched and am genuinely appreciative when they do. My experiences here in Japan are quite positive and I think that's because I'm not trying to live my otherwise normal American life and expecting them to adapt to me...I'm the outsider here. I think this is why some immigrant groups face a lot of conflict-they aren't trying to be a part of their new country or even respecting their ways or customs-they expect the host to adapt to and accommodate them. |
|
lilac
New Member
Posts: 24 
|
Post by lilac on Jan 28, 2015 7:31:21 GMT
Lillian seems to be talking sh$& right to their face as well as when they are gone - I don't see her as two-faced at all, except for when she was worried about a murder being pinned on her. She has a lot of bottled up anger that's hard to express in the persona of "proper womanhood". I see her original coldness as being hard to read - like William. I need to read more about Pankhurst - was she the one who encouraged breaking the windows of parliament in England which led to the controversy over whether it was "natural" for women to resort to "violence"? She now openly disrespects Julia because she just sees her as a rich woman who will help her cause. She said in her first episode that she takes her friends where she can get them-"friends" being a rather subjective word. She's certainly no friend to Julia and I suspect she uses others as well-in fact, once she tires of Emily or the election is over, she'll probably toss her aside as well. With William, she acts nice and polite and talks sh$& behind his back-I'm sure she's done it in other instances as well. I'm sure we'll see it again with others. We've talked about this before, but I don't think William was ever cold-he was repressed. That is a huge difference. He may have sounded unfeeling but his eyes/facial expressions gave him away every single time. He never disregarded others-buying a gravesite for Eddie, being concerned for the "tennis" club's safety, being concerned about Phillip, or the boxer's widow, and so on. That's just the first season. It goes on. Lilian would never do any of these things, because she's selfish. Or, as I've said, the actress portraying her can't convey that kind of depth. Either way, I hope she's gone soon. I agree with most of what you wrote but I have found in some episodes that there was a bit of coldness within him. It was often commingled with his self-righteousness where he was dismissive to someone's face or briefly in the case of his half-brother, behind their back. He was only concerned about the tennis club's safety because he'd unknowingly gotten one of their members beaten up by Brackenreid. I've just noticed in a few episodes throughout the seasons that his determination and quest for the truth made him cold and tactless at times. I think it's because Lillian adds to Emily's story that I don't mind her attitude as much as others seem to. I like that they haven't written Emily as some poor spinster who's pining after the one who got away and that she's getting more screen time. I'd actually like an Emily centric episode although I doubt it will actually happen, at least in this season. I'd just like to know more about her, I mean we know about her ex-fiance and her background's been alluded to but the only really Emily centric episode we've had so far is the one in Staircase to Heaven. It would be great if Emily found a relationship with a radical female because it would greatly add to the story in a dramatic sense and its something that's never really been explored in MM before; Murdochophobia had one of the victims in a lesbian affair where the victim had a 'beard' marriage to a gay man and obviously Til Death Do Us Part gave a glimpse but having a homosexual relationship as a consistent storyline between a lead character would be fantastic in my opinion. |
|
|
|
Post by Hodge on Jan 28, 2015 7:38:45 GMT
As for multiculturalism, I'm an immigrant of sorts as well, and I think I can maintain my cultural preferences at home while being respectful of my Japanese hosts when I'm in public. Although they are often quite considerate and do try to adapt to me, I certainly don't expect them to, and am touched and am genuinely appreciative when they do. My experiences here in Japan are quite positive and I think that's because I'm not trying to live my otherwise normal American life and expecting them to adapt to me...I'm the outsider here. I think this is why some immigrant groups face a lot of conflict-they aren't trying to be a part of their new country or even respecting their ways or customs-they expect the host to adapt to and accommodate them. Exactly! When you go to another country, whether visiting or emigrating you shouldn't expect that country to adapt to you. Unfortunately multiculturalism tells immigrants that they don't have to adapt, the country will adapt to them. Whilst people in the large Canadian cities mainly lost their culture years ago the small towns and villages (I live in a 'town' of 500 people) do still have a Canadian culture and they'd like to keep it thank you very much Mr. Politician. They don't want to be told how they should treat 'outsiders' whether countrymen or immigrants. They'll assess them as they see them and treat them accordingly. Part of the problem is Canadians don't know what Canadian culture is any more. We (hubby and I) see it because it's different from what we grew up with but it's still hard to put your finger on what it is exactly other than it's not American culture! Britain is now experiencing problems with it's 'immigrants' as it didn't make it clear that when they came to Britain they were expected to assimilate. The rest of the world needs to learn from their mistakes. What's the point of emigrating to another country if you're just going to try and live like you did 'at home'? If that's how you want to live you may as well stay where you are. I also object to the people that bring their country's problems with them, once again if you wish to live with the problems stay where you are. I'm not xenophobic, I lived in Toronto and loved it because of the diversity but when people use the racism card and anti immigrant card all the time, especially in a country that goes out of it's way to make them welcome, it makes you think twice. I will now step off my soapbox and return you to our regularly scheduled programme. |
|
|
|
Post by snacky on Jan 28, 2015 7:40:01 GMT
What are they about now? I do watch some news and I haven't seen anything, I even watched the national news the other night and didn't see anything on there. They're thinking of banning the word Feminism, how do they intend to go about doing that?? I will admit perhaps with more female involvement maybe someone would have been able to point out that the way the suffrage movement was playing out may not work as they thought. It was a good idea with poor execution. I also don't necessarily see the man hating lesbian, I now see more of a frustrated woman that doesn't seem to be getting her way. People aren't behaving the way she wants them to. I don't agree with multiculturalism btw. It puts immigrants above the people that were born here and says they're more important than Canadians ... and I'm an immigrant. One of the things Pierre Trudeau didn't get right, unfortunately it may be too late to fix. I haven't seen anything that would suggest multicultural Canada in the show, unless you're thinking of a different kind of mulitculturalism than me. The US has been rocked with political strife and civil rights protests since last Fall ever since a (corrupt) Grand Jury failed to indict a white police officer for shooting an unarmed black man in Ferguson, Missouri - this was followed by scrutiny of other police incidents, including the shooting of a child holding toy gun in Ohio, and particularly the failure of a Grand Jury to indict police for killing a black man who was just illegally selling cigarettes in New York. This has brought the issue of racial profiling, police brutality, and the militarization of the police in the US to the forefront like never before - there has been wave after wave of protests, riots, creative civic "actions" of every sort you can imagine. My area has been especially susceptible to trying to elevate this into a new Civil Rights Movement both because the city has a history of exceptional police brutality/corruption (that's why the Black Panthers were born there) and this is also the birth place of the 1960s Free Speech Movement as well as a hot spot for all the other "movements" and "protests" of the 60s - so we have a historic legacy/identity that sort of came roaring back. And it's still roaring. I joined the blockade of the Federal Building during the weekend of "reclaiming" Martin Luther King Day. It was extremely well organized with a lot of symbolic (some flying) signage and much International singing and dancing. Property owners do say "all your inconveniences just make us dislike your message", but at the same time protests get action. There has been scads of political meetings and visits from political representatives no one has ever seen before informing us of the legislation that is being brought at every level of government covering the issues at hand. Even the White House has gotten into it with a few Presidential moves toward national tracking of racial profiling, etc. It seems like protesting can get stuff done sometimes. I'm going into detail because I think even if you haven't been watching this, MM writers have, and it's informed the way they've thought about writing the women's movement. The conflicts are certainly the same. Regarding Feminism: I think it was Time magazine proposed to ban the word Feminism on an annual list of annoying words. This pretty much pissed off feminists who had been dealing with a year that had been particularly over-loaded with misogyny. But it also brought out people who genuinely dislike the word Feminist and have their reasons. I'm not going to make a judgment because people on this forum take varying positions on this. As a Feminist, I can say it takes me by surprise that women take varying positions on this, but they do. And I think this is what happened with MM. These previous debates, which occurred largely via social media, had polarized peoples positions about what Feminists were and whether they were one. Then MM, in the course of their Suffrage story, dealt out a Feminist. They probably thought this was a "politically correct" no brainer, but instead they got varied reactions that had already been primed by a year of furious of debate over whether feminists just want privileges and hate men. In this case the writing team should have recognized that "historical parallels" work both ways, and they should stay attuned to how the *modern* debate is playing out. It might not be playing out in a way that fits their storyline, and that will create cognitive dissonance for their audience. Multiculturalism in Canada: I thought that included Native Americans in Canada and also embraced all sorts of diversity (gender, religion, sexuality, etc.). MM doesn't do as much as it should with multiculturalism, but they do try to add it into a few storylines each year. They did a Native one just last week. The Natives were there "before" the European-origin Canadians, so I think that at least should be marked. Were the Chinese in Chinatown there as long as the Europeans? Canada seems multicultural to me. But perhaps I misunderstand how the politicians are using the term there - is it code for bringing in cheap labor to displace people from jobs, etc.? |
|
|
|
Post by Hodge on Jan 28, 2015 7:56:16 GMT
He was only concerned about the tennis club's safety because he'd unknowingly gotten one of their members beaten up by Brackenreid. I've just noticed in a few episodes throughout the seasons that his determination and quest for the truth made him cold and tactless at times. I think it was more than the guy was beaten up and it wasn't William's fault. He'd come to realize over the course of the investigation that these men were decent human beings that just had a predilection and they were trying to make a life for themselves. At the end he told the priest they were, by all standards, good men. This is why he warned Jeffrey to move their meetings. William's quest for the truth does make him seem cold and tactless at times but when he realizes the harm he's done he's never indifferent to it. |
|
|
|
Post by snacky on Jan 28, 2015 8:01:40 GMT
But no, Julia's an idiot who threw her freedom and sisters under the bus carriage for a stupid man. I think this is why some immigrant groups face a lot of conflict-they aren't trying to be a part of their new country or even respecting their ways or customs-they expect the host to adapt to and accommodate them. This may be an irritating attitude from Lillian, but it's historically on the mark! I keep chiming in that this is from Gilman's extremely wildly-read-among-young-radical-ladies "Women and Economics". Wikipedia has a page just on this book: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Women_and_EconomicsHere's a cliffnotes-like paragraph on it that gives the gist: www.enotes.com/topics/women-economicsRegarding immigrants - I don't think they can all be lumped together. Some come as political refugees, some come to make money, come come because of family, some are mail order brides and victims of the International traffic in women and children, etc. They are also from many different countries and cultures. However immigrants tends to coalesce into groups and politically organize when they are attacked under the rubric of "immigrants", so I think it becomes a vicious cycle. IMHO the US continually digs its own grave on the matter because our political leaders are trying to pander to anti-immigrant sentiment and people who want to secretly exploit cheap labor. Of course heavily exploited peoples feel even more righteous about seeking justice. And so it goes... *not a fan of my own country for soooo many reasons* |
|
Jan 30, 2013 21:44:55 GMT