I was not confused at all. I suspected it from the very beginning because they dropped several hints.. 1. When Catherine begged her husband to listen and said “ we didn’t have an affair “. But he basically pushed her out the door and she didn’t dare say more because her son was 30 feet away and The whole time all she wanted to do was protect him from the truth. 2. When they Went to retrieve thier sons body, the father. Steven, said he was really impressed he tried to save niks life because his son had always been selfish, and he couldn’t remember one single time that his son had put ANYONE before his own selfish needs. 3. When Sasha’s mom called them to say why her daughter abruptly left Italy, it was obvious that what ever she said to his mother made her angry and she hung up on her before she could even finish because she didn’t want to even here the rest of what she was saying because it was so bad ( rewatch that scene) 4. I feel she Catherine tried SEVERAL times to tell her husband the truth but he just flat out refused to answer her calls and texts and made sure when they were face to face The son was there. (That really irritated me) I felt like all the pieces were there. I really enjoyed it. And I’m so glad Catherine didn’t stay with her husband…she tried numerous times to talk to him but he refused to listen. She tried to talk to him, call him and text him.. and before he even let her explain he was already on a mission to bad mouth her to thier son and steven .He came across as a coward, and she deserved the right to give her side . After all she was his wife of several decades ..I would NEVER trust him again..
Agree completely. You mixed up about that phone call though: Nancy called Sasha's mother, not the other way around. There was the other hint about how Jonathan might've been a creep when we witnessed how Nancy's behaviour with Jonathan was waaaay over the top in its intimacy.
I’m sorry but you’re giving her way too much credit. It’s very understandable that the information he was given would lead him to believe she had an affair and cause emotional anger. She needed to tell her husband what happened. She didn’t tell him at the time it happened which she should have, but if you wanna say it’s bc it was too upsetting for her, fine, but when he throws the pictures down now you NEED to tell him. The very second he came home that night with the pictures she needed to tell him. She just sits there stuttering um nnno nno nno while she’s watching him understandably get more and more worked up. He r*ped me, that’s all she needed to say and the conversation would’ve immediately shifted. Yes he was angry and babbling bad stuff bc he was led to believe his wife cheated on him and never told him. And yes I understand it’s a difficult thing to talk about, but at this moment her family is on the line. She needed to act like an adult and take control of that conversation, raise her voice if she needed, but she needed to tell him. He r*aped me takes 1 second to say, she had the opportunity to tell him and she didn’t.
I’m not sure why she stayed at the same location as the assault knowing Jonathan could return or why she didn’t call the police on the way to the hospital as well as trying to contact her husband.
Yes. He either assaulted her or was violent towards her in some other way. Either way, she ran away back to her family in London and they were pretty mad.
Remember the exchange when Jonathan’s parents came back from Italy. The first thing the mother did was call Sasha’s parents and they literally hung up on her. That was a very small piece of evidence
@@WatchorPass And why Jonathon's mother portrayed Sasha as this crass, sexually brazen thing in the first episode's scenes in Italy. The mother portrayed both women who were known victims of her son - Sasha and Catherine, as these over the top seductress types gagging for sex constantly - the projection of a nasty woman who has raised a seriously nasty son.
They mentioned it when they showed the body to Stephen and Nancy. But they didn’t have an explanation. They showed where it came from in this episode but it felt a little odd. He cut himself to show Catherine how sharp the knife was.
I think the mommy line reminded Stephen of his son’s close personal relationship with Nancy . Causing him to remember that in Nancy’s eyes her son could do no wrong and that he himself was blind to the truth just as she was to her son’s horrific flaws. This belief was reinforced to the audience in that final exchange between Stephen and Mr ravenscroft. Which was about having a blind spot. This turned out to be an excellent series. Just wish the first episode was not so slow. I almost stopped watching because it seemed pretentious at first.
One of the most interesting moments is when Catherine telles Stephan that Jonathan whispered to her "it was nice". That shows to me how screwed up he really is, that he doesn't see himself as a rapist, but somehow thought that the sex was concentual. This, of course, doesn't make him less of a bad person, but does show a degree of pathology, which also explains better the problems he must have been having with his relationship with Sasha.
@@littleblackpistol I dunno about that, you have to realize that people who are able to do things like this often rationalize these things in their head this way. "Oh it was just a bit of role play" "She probably likes it rough" etc. And I think it helps explain why he would risk his life for a random child. He probably thought him and Catherine had some kind of connection. Ironically his obsession over Catherine is what ended up saving Nicholas' life.
Nick’s reflection may proof that Catherine was lying because she said that he was a sleep. Also why would a monster like Jonathan risk his life to save the boy
@@alexissercho could be future implications in his life that he witnessed either his mother in the throws of a passionate encounter that was not with his father ( a threat to his survival in either case) or that he witnessed his mother’s brutal rape ( remember him pushing Jonathon away from the raft saying ‘no, don’t - I just thought that was childlike jealousy), but he wasn’t a particularly loving son, he was flighty and in his own head. But it could be trauma that stunted his emotional growth & and maturity. Plus he can’t remember. So blocked it out?
I think the child was annoying and she was bored and lonely and longing for youthful free encounters and the truth lies in between. I thought the fight must’ve been because he was showing interest in others. Weird how the mother wrote of his sexual encounters but I did like the dad’s instagram page.
i think seeing the pictures unlocked repressed memories Nick had of seeing the rape …. i think Robert enabled Nick that led to the overdose and he saw that his mother was stricter with him of of love …in the book Stephen leaves Cathrine his estate in his will …. glad he did in the show …Cathrine seems pretty financially comfortable so why would she wants to be reminded of this ordeal when Stephen dies
That is an interesting thought. Just wish we would have had a greater hint about that since that would explain the overdose and the sudden change in Nicholas's character. And you'd think Stephen would leave the estate to Nicholas for all the harm he did to him and to kind of try to put some good back in his life. And what is his estate going to be? A condemned house and a broken fridge??
@@WatchorPass We see at the end that Nick is in the mirror and watched the whole thing Isn't that the explanation that he repressed all of this and the photos brought the rape of his mother back?
@@HypocritesExposd Yes and no. But the ending doesnt work (aka Nicholas ending up believing his mom) unless what Nicholas remembers what he saw was his mother being raped, not them having sex. Remember, Nicholas comes to the realization that his mother was wronged before she says anything to him. Which I believe kind of absolves the ending of being anything but Catherine being correct.
A message to me is that there can be a crowd mentality that ignores the facts. The book was a work of fiction but Steven sold it to many people as fact. However, the book had to be fiction since Jonathan was dead and did not tell his mother what had happened. No one really picked up on that until Episode 7 when Catherine starts telling what really happened. I recommend this series to anyone who has access to Apple TV, the hidden streaming gem channel! The amount of TH-cam videos discussing this series on a not widely watched streaming service, does suggest the miniseries is well done.
Oh yes! I loved the perspective shift there. I assumed that we were hearing what actually happened in the earlier episodes, and then when we found out Catherine's story differed significantly, it was an a ha moment for me!
I dunno, I get that this show doesn't expect the most media literacy from everyone who watches it, but if you werent picking up by Ep3 that there was more to this story then I'd really be surprised. People who get blindsided by episode 7 are the exact people this story is made for I guess.
Young Jonathan had Creep vibes from the git go of this series!….the rudeness and entitlement was so obvious when he was a tourist with his psycho girlfriend in Venice….rude, narcissistic brats! Jonathan also was a mama’s boy..to note the very disturbing co dependant/oedipal 🤮 relationship with his mother, paralled with the father (Kevin Kline) as a weak, snivling, spineless man…. Jonathan was a sociopath psychopath early on….
So that version of Jonathan (his own mother telling the story) is believable but at the same time Catherine’s is to be believed? None of the “flashbacks” are to be believed as fact because both mothers in this story are unreliable narrators.
1. El zolpidem es un hipnótico, con una duración de 3 horas. 2. Nick nunca amo a su papá, su papá era conveniente para él, por lo condescendiente que era con el. 3. Catjerine si intenta explicárselo cuando están en la sala de su casa, pero él está tan encabronado que no la deja hablar y la termina corriendo.
Yeah Nicolas suddenly loving his mom doesn't make sense either. The more I think, the more I'm annoyed with this series, haha. I very much enjoyed it but the ended is odd.
That ending was great! What stopped the old man from killing Nic was the fact that he kept saying Mum, I want to go! The old man later sees the pic and know it to be the truth! Nic watched his mom get raped and says the same thing Mum I want to go! Mum I want to go, this episode was disturbing on another level! After that kind of trauma and knowing your mom was raped and you witnessed it, why wouldn’t he have some sympathy for her?
That ending was great! What stopped the old man from killing Nic was the fact that he kept saying Mum, I want to go! The old man later sees the pic and know it to be the truth! Nic watched his mom get raped and says the same thing Mum I want to go! Mum I want to go, this episode was disturbing on another level! After that kind of trauma and knowing your mom was raped and you witnessed it, why wouldn’t he have some sympathy for her?
He never stopped loving her, but was unable to process his emotions, and turned them into anger. His seemingly good relationship with his father, who called him "mate", was possibly only to punish his mother, and was never real, as we see in earlier episodes.
I feel like a better ending would’ve been for him to kill the son then find out the truth … an have to live with what he did… and an extra episode where he finds out his wife kinda knew but covered for his rapey son .. I mean if she investigated I’m assuming she stumbled on to her son being a rapist or crazy especially with his ex .. good show but very anticlimactic
@salinas831100 I agree. But a mom like that is deluded from the start. She's the type of mother who helped shape her son into what he became, so she would never be able to face her own responsibility in his development into a monster. I see how the Kline character was such a milktoast of a guy that his wife wasn't actually able to really be intimate with him, and he just accepted it. Very sad the whole thing.
My take on why Jonathan tried to save the child: he did it to win over Catherine. If he could save her son, she'd owe him. This is a classic rapist mindset whereas the man needs to believe he is in control of the woman to the point where she would rather risk brutal violence like that and allow the rapist to feel rewarded by a faux emotional acceptance of his 'bad' behaviour. The rapist wants to suck out any confidence she might begin to develop of living without him. It's the hunter-catches- the-prey mentality.
That’s interesting. I don’t understand it though. Are there actually rapists that show up, after the rape has occurred, and try to do something heroic for their victim? What?! I don’t think that’s a thing. It may be true in cases of domestic violence, but stranger rape? That would make them very easy to catch 😂
@MFLimited he didn't show up out of the blue! He had already tracked her and she didn't see it coming to what happened next. He assaults her horribly for hours, then he kissed her and thanked her, but for him, THAT was his twisted intimacy. You'd have to be willing to read up on the subject of the psychology of r*pe to understand. It's all about power-over and fear and hatred of women. For the r*pist, locating a target, stalking and then the attack...this is just a familiar pattern. The fact she was alone and had a small child made her even more vulnerable. Sexual assault occurs under many guises. Most men who aren't prone to this behaviour need to understand it though.
It’s a power move. Jonathon very likely sees himself as a strong, powerful man. By saving Catherine’s son, he continues to allow himself to be the hero in his own story, escaping any accountability for his rape and abuse, and attempting to distort Catherine’s account of the rape. Further, he may have been worried about Catherine filing a police report. By rescuing her son, he knows police would doubt Catherine’s story about what happened the night before. If he’s ~risking his life to save a kid~ then how could that same person rape someone? Of course two things can be true at once, but we tend to miss that and assume they cannot.
@@MFLimited He's obsessed with her. And probably fantasizes some kind of connection between him and her now. And rationalizes everything else in his head.
In the 1st ep. she tries to tell him but finds it difficult then when he sees the pictures also...but he doesn't want to listen...She was raped in the 90's and women then ( still now but maybe better ) were scrutinised and like she said she drank the wine he bought her and she did smile. She did not want to put her family through it and being silent was all she could do knowing he was dead.Her husband' ego was hurt and all he could think was how much pleasure she was having and that was it, he would have not been able to hear anything else after that. Silly man :P
Little Nick dressed up because he wanted to go. Both writers, Nancy and Catherine, add fictional lines to their plot. You can’t trust any. Both has loops and nonsense arguments. No one is complete innocent.
I really wish that would have been the case. I wanted there to be some hint that maybe Catherine's story was changed as well, but they didn't add that. I would have very much liked some hint that perhaps her recollection was softened or changed, but they didn't give us anything like that. I think we are supposed to come away from this with the idea that Catherine's version is the true version and Nancy's version was a completely fictional account based on a few facts.
@@WatchorPass Catherine did not report anything to anyone for 20 years. She said she has evidence but either destroyed it or does not present it. She went to the same beach where she first saw Jonathan the day before. She fell asleep on that same beach leaving her son alone. She woke up, Jonathan is right there in the same spot, her son is missing, and she doesn’t think Jonathan is to blame at all. Lastly, Jonathan saves his supposed victim’s son, whom he supposedly just threatened to harm a few hours earlier. The ending is open ended. Nancy and Catherine were unreliable narrators and Stephen and Robert believed everything they were told by everyone. Both Nancy and Catherine had ample time to fit their stories to match their own narratives. Jonathan could not defend himself of these accusations because he died.
A better ending would have been for them to wrap it up with the actual truth and not her side of the story bc i don't trust this woman ... i also want to know what really happened to jonathan's girlfriend ... but for her to have the audacity to flip the script on her clearly insecure husband ... chance after chance to come forward with this ... i know its traumatic, but to be assaulted in front of your child? this isn't some random woman - a RICH WHITE ENGLISH woman ... couldn't tell her own husband after 20 years? after jonathan's mother tried to throw his death in your face? after a book comes out to cancel your whole life? then finally to be confronted by your husband? no woman or person is that weak when everyone and every force of nature have given you ample opportunity to come forward ... it's just too unbelievable
Her “side of the story” is the truth here. Complex trauma does not have a timeline for healing or revealing itself. A huge, if not the entire, point of the series is to reveal our own biases against women and have us questioning why we assumed she cheated on her husband just based off of a male narrator’s words and some photos. Catherine’s discussion with her husband at the end of the finale spells that out. Jonathan was an abuser who beat/raped/assaulted his girlfriend-that’s why she went home. That wasn’t spelled out directly in conversation to allow viewers to put those pieces together on their own. People only see what they want to see, which is what gave Stephen plausible deniability from viewing his son for who he really was.
@@adubs11 saying her side of the story is true is just as bad as saying Jonathan's mother's side of the story was true ... I would like to believe the directors aren't that dumb ... If they're not that dumb then her story has a lot of holes ... If you see a strange man taking pictures of you and your child on the beach you would either talk to the police, confront him and tell him to stop, or confront him and start a conversation ... Then there's the part about leaving her keys in door ... Suspicious at best ... And how would he know which room to go to? I guess he could have followed her, but that's not the way it was filmed ... She also says she thought they would have a "gentle" encounter ... My theory, she thought she was going to have a fling, but when he got there he changed ... She freaked out but went along with it thinking things would be cool and he'd just leave, maybe even went along with intercourse at first after denying his advances a few times ... But after that first time he raped her for three hours ... And in Jonathan's twisted mind he thought they could be together ... Also from her account how would he even have known that was her son in the ocean? Also what are the chances of being full on sexually assaulted by another British person while you're on vacation in Italy? In your hotel room? They had to have interacted beforehand .. I don't know the statistics, but if you were assaulted in another country it would be by someone from that country, probably not in your hotel room and you would not hesitate to call your husband immediately at the very least... Bottomline: we still don't know the real story
Agree, they did not give us enough signs that Jonathan was some kind of sexual pervert, not even clear about his girlfriend's situation, so it is hard to believe Catherine's story at the end.
@@CocoaLuv22no, the huge difference here is that the mother-a woman not at all involved in what occurred-literally made up an entire narrative based off some photos that made her feel like her son was used and a hero. Catherine was directly involved in the experience. We are supposed to put these dots together… The director even has us see that conversation Jonathan’s mom has with his girlfriend’s mom, and has Stephen explain that “she changed some things in the book, of course,” to help people get it. She is the definition of what we call “an unreliable narrator.” Please look up fight, flight and fawn responses. Also, please research the responses women (and men) have to sexual assault/rape. Catherine talks about the shame she feels for being violated-this is a gigantic reason victims do not report. And part of the reason she feels shame is because cultural misogynistic views tell women this happens to that it was their fault in some way…which is now happening in the above analysis. She also talks about protecting her son and husband from the trauma of having them also “deal with it” because it’s already something horrible that happened to her-she doesn’t want to carry that into her relationships with them. This is something victims, especially women, do all the time. Also, like she says in telling her sleeping mother everything that happened, verbalizing it makes it even more real-it solidifies it as an event in her life she is forced to accept happened. Something like this is incredibly difficult to accept. Even if it doesn’t seem plausible to you, specifically, I can tell you-this happens really, really often. It is very common. The question here again is ultimately, why are some people so quick to believe the account of someone who was not even present over the account of someone who was actually there? Thinking we do not have “the whole story here” is completely missing the point or the series, blaming the victim and unfortunately proving its premise true.
From Ep I at 34:43, on the back of a postcard with an image of the Pisa: “Dear Mum, Venice and Florence really were as magical as you say. But I’m bored of ruins now, so I’m heading to the beach. Thanks for that Nikon you gave me. I’ve been taking tons of pictures. Love, Jonathan PS, I’m alone now. Sasha had to go back to London.” with voiceover From Ep VI in the scene starting at 24:41, Nancy and Stephen return home with Jonathan’s affects. Nancy says they should start making calls to let people know what happened. Nancy feels Sasha should be the first person called. As she’s dialing, Stephen sees the postcard with the Pisa on the floor with the rest of the post. It reads: “Hello Mum and Dad, I love it here in Italy. The food is well nice. We arrived in Pisa yesterday. Walked all the way to the tower and then found out it was CLOSED!! for refurbishment, what a waste of time! Miss you. Jonathan XX” Nancy is only able to speak to Emma, Sasha’s mother. Nancy becomes upset as she is forcing the news on Emma. The call ends, Nancy heads upstairs with Jonathan’s belongings, and a tennis ball falls down the stairs, rolling over the post and the Pisa postcard at the top of the pile, image up. That scene is definitely worth a rewatch.
No one is questioning anything in this serie , jonathan’s mom and father took the story as it is , and then the nick’s father and nick took what in the book as it is and guess what ? Jonathan’s father just took what nick’s mother told him and he said it to nick’s father as it is like wtf hhhhhh
This show could be good. But instead of showing grey morality and complex moral dilemmas they stuck to 'it was all a lie, Jonathan is rapist, Catherine is absolutely innocent'. It's not as subversive as authors think it is. This is expected from contemporary media
To me..... both versions of the Catherine/Jonathan relationship still remain valid at the end. Catherine could have still been lying, and there are evidence of that doubt throughout the series. That's why they left Sasha's story open ended. That's why it didn't make sense Jonathan the angry rapist would show empathy and save Nicholas out on the water. That's why Nicholas couldn't support Catherine's version of the story because he doesn't remember anything, conveniently. That's why the husband constantly described Catherine as a very good liar. A manipulator. At the end of the series both versions of the story between Catherine and Jonathan could have happened. Evidence supports both versions of the story. That's what gives me this layer of chill at the end of the series. You just don't know which is the real story.... you believe Catherine's version....because she's a good manipulator. We the audience become like the husband....someone who could have been duped by Catherine. Cate herself has said in an interview for this movie is that all humans are despicable they're just good at hiding it. So that supports my theory that the 1st version of the Catherine/Jonathan incident could still be true. The only redeeming thing that happened is Nicholas mended his relationship with his mom and hopefully got off the drugs. There's a reason why the scene ended with Nicholas saying he doesn't remember anything.... carefully placed there to keep us wondering if Catherine was telling the truth. 🤯 The viewers are essentially the husband immasculated manipulated, a reactive and passive role. He was aroused reading the book just like we were watching it happen. It's also interesting the husband found out about the rape from Stephen, the same Stephen who told him the story of his cheating wife and he believed that too. The audience plays the role of the gullible husband. We beleive what we are told. Stephen and Catherine are essentially very similar in that they can both convince anyone of a story. But I think Catherine may have bested Stephen at the end. Mistress of manipulation.😂 😂😂😂 Brilliantly crafted show!
I knew there was going to be a twist obviously but didn't expect that wow. That's why the kids ex gf was so ride on the phone he was probably ab asshole to here too grrat review
Disappointing ending. Sorry I don't agree with you regarding Apple TV plus as being one of the best. It's not. Great acting but story line.....no. I don't buy the ending that the father all of a sudden accepts the rape story. After his elaborate plan of revenge and all of a sudden after she tells her side he's believing her? NOPE....
I think she did try. When she went back to the house, he was very drunk and looking at the pictures. She begged him to listen, but he bombed out of the house, not letting her speak. he then ignored all of her calls and texts. Yes, she could have run after him and screamed “I was raped”. But she have been lying to herself all of that time, and he should have asked her what happened, given her two minutes. The fact that he didn’t, means that he was very willing to think the worst of her. You have to give people you love the benefit of the doubt. You have to give them an opportunity to explain. You cannot believe what you hear from a stranger before you hear them out. If you don’t understand that then you won’t have successful relationships. You have to treat your loved ones the way you would want them to treat you.
She did try. But he refused to listen and she was terrified to push it because her son was there.. . She tried several times , rewatch that episode, or atleast those scenes, she even told him it wasn’t an affair. Her biggest fear was to spare her son and he was right there 30 feet away from them so sue didn’t dare push it any further at that moment, but then she tried several times after he threw her out but he refused to speak to her ! R answer phone or answer texts!
Little Nick dressed up because he wanted to go. Both writers, Nancy and Catherine, add fictional lines to their plot. You can’t trust any. Both has loops and nonsense arguments. No one is complete innocent.
I was not confused at all. I suspected it from the very beginning because they dropped several hints..
1. When Catherine begged her husband to listen and said “ we didn’t have an affair “. But he basically pushed her out the door and she didn’t dare say more because her son was 30 feet away and The whole time all she wanted to do was protect him from the truth.
2. When they Went to retrieve thier sons body, the father. Steven, said he was really impressed he tried to save niks life because his son had always been selfish, and he couldn’t remember one single time that his son had put ANYONE before his own selfish needs.
3. When Sasha’s mom called them to say why her daughter abruptly left Italy, it was obvious that what ever she said to his mother made her angry and she hung up on her before she could even finish because she didn’t want to even here the rest of what she was saying because it was so bad ( rewatch that scene)
4. I feel she Catherine tried SEVERAL times to tell her husband the truth but he just flat out refused to answer her calls and texts and made sure when they were face to face The son was there. (That really irritated me)
I felt like all the pieces were there.
I really enjoyed it. And I’m so glad Catherine didn’t stay with her husband…she tried numerous times to talk to him but he refused to listen. She tried to talk to him, call him and text him.. and before he even let her explain he was already on a mission to bad mouth her to thier son and steven .He came across as a coward, and she deserved the right to give her side . After all she was his wife of several decades ..I would NEVER trust him again..
Agree completely. You mixed up about that phone call though: Nancy called Sasha's mother, not the other way around. There was the other hint about how Jonathan might've been a creep when we witnessed how Nancy's behaviour with Jonathan was waaaay over the top in its intimacy.
I’m sorry but you’re giving her way too much credit. It’s very understandable that the information he was given would lead him to believe she had an affair and cause emotional anger. She needed to tell her husband what happened. She didn’t tell him at the time it happened which she should have, but if you wanna say it’s bc it was too upsetting for her, fine, but when he throws the pictures down now you NEED to tell him. The very second he came home that night with the pictures she needed to tell him. She just sits there stuttering um nnno nno nno while she’s watching him understandably get more and more worked up. He r*ped me, that’s all she needed to say and the conversation would’ve immediately shifted. Yes he was angry and babbling bad stuff bc he was led to believe his wife cheated on him and never told him. And yes I understand it’s a difficult thing to talk about, but at this moment her family is on the line. She needed to act like an adult and take control of that conversation, raise her voice if she needed, but she needed to tell him. He r*aped me takes 1 second to say, she had the opportunity to tell him and she didn’t.
@@patguido5810 some people find it hard to b honest as in say how they feel … i know some people like that
5. Trigger warning before each episode.
I’m not sure why she stayed at the same location as the assault knowing Jonathan could return or why she didn’t call the police on the way to the hospital as well as trying to contact her husband.
So I guess Jonathan must have assaulted Sasha that’s why she went home and never spoke with his family again.
Yes. I think that's the implication, though we don't get any definitive proof. That also might be why Stephen was able to believe Catherine's story.
Yes. He either assaulted her or was violent towards her in some other way. Either way, she ran away back to her family in London and they were pretty mad.
Remember the exchange when Jonathan’s parents came back from Italy. The first thing the mother did was call Sasha’s parents and they literally hung up on her. That was a very small piece of evidence
I'm glad it wasn't spelled out, but left to us to understand.
@@WatchorPass And why Jonathon's mother portrayed Sasha as this crass, sexually brazen thing in the first episode's scenes in Italy. The mother portrayed both women who were known victims of her son - Sasha and Catherine, as these over the top seductress types gagging for sex constantly - the projection of a nasty woman who has raised a seriously nasty son.
Why no one speaks about the knife cut cross on Johnathan’s hand when we first see his dead body.
They mentioned it when they showed the body to Stephen and Nancy. But they didn’t have an explanation. They showed where it came from in this episode but it felt a little odd. He cut himself to show Catherine how sharp the knife was.
Truly an academy award winning series ….superior acting across the board….
In my opinion this last episode/finale was flawless- stellar!
Maybe an Emmy.
Disclaimer is both haunting and excellent. Really enjoyed watching it.
I think the mommy line reminded Stephen of his son’s close personal relationship with Nancy . Causing him to remember that in Nancy’s eyes her son could do no wrong and that he himself was blind to the truth just as she was to her son’s horrific flaws. This belief was reinforced to the audience in that final exchange between Stephen and Mr ravenscroft. Which was about having a blind spot. This turned out to be an excellent series. Just wish the first episode was not so slow. I almost stopped watching because it seemed pretentious at first.
One of the most interesting moments is when Catherine telles Stephan that Jonathan whispered to her "it was nice". That shows to me how screwed up he really is, that he doesn't see himself as a rapist, but somehow thought that the sex was concentual. This, of course, doesn't make him less of a bad person, but does show a degree of pathology, which also explains better the problems he must have been having with his relationship with Sasha.
He definitely knows he raped her. The knife and punching her etc. The nice nonsense was just post coital gaslighting.
@@littleblackpistol I dunno about that, you have to realize that people who are able to do things like this often rationalize these things in their head this way. "Oh it was just a bit of role play" "She probably likes it rough" etc. And I think it helps explain why he would risk his life for a random child. He probably thought him and Catherine had some kind of connection. Ironically his obsession over Catherine is what ended up saving Nicholas' life.
Nick’s reflection may proof that Catherine was lying because she said that he was a sleep. Also why would a monster like Jonathan risk his life to save the boy
jonathan might have attempted to save nick to get closer again with cath.
One question: Why did her rapist risk/give his life to save her son🤔⁉
Good point
Exactly!!!!! so since the kid is dead, it’s her word against his so if he’s done, nothing wrong, she essentially killed him twice ☹️
Right! also, can someone explain to me what is the meaning that the boy is the photo at the end?
@@alexissercho could be future implications in his life that he witnessed either his mother in the throws of a passionate encounter that was not with his father ( a threat to his survival in either case) or that he witnessed his mother’s brutal rape ( remember him pushing Jonathon away from the raft saying ‘no, don’t - I just thought that was childlike jealousy), but he wasn’t a particularly loving son, he was flighty and in his own head. But it could be trauma that stunted his emotional growth & and maturity. Plus he can’t remember. So blocked it out?
I think the child was annoying and she was bored and lonely and longing for youthful free encounters and the truth lies in between. I thought the fight must’ve been because he was showing interest in others. Weird how the mother wrote of his sexual encounters but I did like the dad’s instagram page.
i think seeing the pictures unlocked repressed memories Nick had of seeing the rape …. i think Robert enabled Nick that led to the overdose and he saw that his mother was stricter with him of of love …in the book Stephen leaves Cathrine his estate in his will …. glad he did in the show …Cathrine seems pretty financially comfortable so why would she wants to be reminded of this ordeal when Stephen dies
That is an interesting thought. Just wish we would have had a greater hint about that since that would explain the overdose and the sudden change in Nicholas's character. And you'd think Stephen would leave the estate to Nicholas for all the harm he did to him and to kind of try to put some good back in his life. And what is his estate going to be? A condemned house and a broken fridge??
@@WatchorPass We see at the end that Nick is in the mirror and watched the whole thing Isn't that the explanation that he repressed all of this and the photos brought the rape of his mother back?
@@lockekappa500 Nicholas witnessing that all would have been traumatic if it was consensual or not
@@HypocritesExposd Yes and no. But the ending doesnt work (aka Nicholas ending up believing his mom) unless what Nicholas remembers what he saw was his mother being raped, not them having sex.
Remember, Nicholas comes to the realization that his mother was wronged before she says anything to him. Which I believe kind of absolves the ending of being anything but Catherine being correct.
@@lockekappa500 Nicolas says he doesn’t remember. How did you come to the conclusion that Nicolas realized his mom was wronged?
A message to me is that there can be a crowd mentality that ignores the facts. The book was a work of fiction but Steven sold it to many people as fact. However, the book had to be fiction since Jonathan was dead and did not tell his mother what had happened. No one really picked up on that until Episode 7 when Catherine starts telling what really happened. I recommend this series to anyone who has access to Apple TV, the hidden streaming gem channel! The amount of TH-cam videos discussing this series on a not widely watched streaming service, does suggest the miniseries is well done.
Oh yes! I loved the perspective shift there. I assumed that we were hearing what actually happened in the earlier episodes, and then when we found out Catherine's story differed significantly, it was an a ha moment for me!
I dunno, I get that this show doesn't expect the most media literacy from everyone who watches it, but if you werent picking up by Ep3 that there was more to this story then I'd really be surprised. People who get blindsided by episode 7 are the exact people this story is made for I guess.
@@lockekappa500count me in on that! It was a fun watch! I have not seen Kevin Kline in anything for a long time. Who knew Cohen could act!
@@Howard2006 Yup, all of the leads were incredible! Glad you enjoyed it.
You assume Catherine’s story as fact as well
Young Jonathan had Creep vibes from the git go of this series!….the rudeness and entitlement was so obvious when he was a tourist with his psycho girlfriend in Venice….rude, narcissistic brats!
Jonathan also was a mama’s boy..to note the very disturbing co dependant/oedipal 🤮 relationship with his mother, paralled with the father (Kevin Kline) as a weak, snivling, spineless man…. Jonathan was a sociopath psychopath early on….
So that version of Jonathan (his own mother telling the story) is believable but at the same time Catherine’s is to be believed? None of the “flashbacks” are to be believed as fact because both mothers in this story are unreliable narrators.
1. El zolpidem es un hipnótico, con una duración de 3 horas.
2. Nick nunca amo a su papá, su papá era conveniente para él, por lo condescendiente que era con el.
3. Catjerine si intenta explicárselo cuando están en la sala de su casa, pero él está tan encabronado que no la deja hablar y la termina corriendo.
Yeah Nicolas suddenly loving his mom doesn't make sense either. The more I think, the more I'm annoyed with this series, haha. I very much enjoyed it but the ended is odd.
Maybe because when he sees the photograph he remembered what happened that night
That ending was great! What stopped the old man from killing Nic was the fact that he kept saying Mum, I want to go! The old man later sees the pic and know it to be the truth! Nic watched his mom get raped and says the same thing Mum I want to go! Mum I want to go, this episode was disturbing on another level! After that kind of trauma and knowing your mom was raped and you witnessed it, why wouldn’t he have some sympathy for her?
That ending was great! What stopped the old man from killing Nic was the fact that he kept saying Mum, I want to go! The old man later sees the pic and know it to be the truth! Nic watched his mom get raped and says the same thing Mum I want to go! Mum I want to go, this episode was disturbing on another level! After that kind of trauma and knowing your mom was raped and you witnessed it, why wouldn’t he have some sympathy for her?
He never stopped loving her, but was unable to process his emotions, and turned them into anger. His seemingly good relationship with his father, who called him "mate", was possibly only to punish his mother, and was never real, as we see in earlier episodes.
They did do a fast forward in time. And people can behave differently when they have a close brush with death.
I feel like a better ending would’ve been for him to kill the son then find out the truth … an have to live with what he did… and an extra episode where he finds out his wife kinda knew but covered for his rapey son .. I mean if she investigated I’m assuming she stumbled on to her son being a rapist or crazy especially with his ex .. good show but very anticlimactic
@salinas831100 I agree. But a mom like that is deluded from the start. She's the type of mother who helped shape her son into what he became, so she would never be able to face her own responsibility in his development into a monster. I see how the Kline character was such a milktoast of a guy that his wife wasn't actually able to really be intimate with him, and he just accepted it. Very sad the whole thing.
That’s ridiculous
YES. EXACTLY.
My take on why Jonathan tried to save the child: he did it to win over Catherine. If he could save her son, she'd owe him. This is a classic rapist mindset whereas the man needs to believe he is in control of the woman to the point where she would rather risk brutal violence like that and allow the rapist to feel rewarded by a faux emotional acceptance of his 'bad' behaviour. The rapist wants to suck out any confidence she might begin to develop of living without him. It's the hunter-catches- the-prey mentality.
That’s interesting. I don’t understand it though. Are there actually rapists that show up, after the rape has occurred, and try to do something heroic for their victim? What?! I don’t think that’s a thing. It may be true in cases of domestic violence, but stranger rape? That would make them very easy to catch 😂
@MFLimited he didn't show up out of the blue! He had already tracked her and she didn't see it coming to what happened next. He assaults her horribly for hours, then he kissed her and thanked her, but for him, THAT was his twisted intimacy. You'd have to be willing to read up on the subject of the psychology of r*pe to understand. It's all about power-over and fear and hatred of women. For the r*pist, locating a target, stalking and then the attack...this is just a familiar pattern. The fact she was alone and had a small child made her even more vulnerable. Sexual assault occurs under many guises. Most men who aren't prone to this behaviour need to understand it though.
Yes
It’s a power move. Jonathon very likely sees himself as a strong, powerful man. By saving Catherine’s son, he continues to allow himself to be the hero in his own story, escaping any accountability for his rape and abuse, and attempting to distort Catherine’s account of the rape. Further, he may have been worried about Catherine filing a police report. By rescuing her son, he knows police would doubt Catherine’s story about what happened the night before. If he’s ~risking his life to save a kid~ then how could that same person rape someone? Of course two things can be true at once, but we tend to miss that and assume they cannot.
@@MFLimited He's obsessed with her. And probably fantasizes some kind of connection between him and her now. And rationalizes everything else in his head.
In the 1st ep. she tries to tell him but finds it difficult then when he sees the pictures also...but he doesn't want to listen...She was raped in the 90's and women then ( still now but maybe better ) were scrutinised and like she said she drank the wine he bought her and she did smile. She did not want to put her family through it and being silent was all she could do knowing he was dead.Her husband' ego was hurt and all he could think was how much pleasure she was having and that was it, he would have not been able to hear anything else after that. Silly man :P
Little Nick dressed up because he wanted to go.
Both writers, Nancy and Catherine, add fictional lines to their plot.
You can’t trust any. Both has loops and nonsense arguments. No one is complete innocent.
I really wish that would have been the case. I wanted there to be some hint that maybe Catherine's story was changed as well, but they didn't add that. I would have very much liked some hint that perhaps her recollection was softened or changed, but they didn't give us anything like that. I think we are supposed to come away from this with the idea that Catherine's version is the true version and Nancy's version was a completely fictional account based on a few facts.
@@WatchorPass Catherine did not report anything to anyone for 20 years. She said she has evidence but either destroyed it or does not present it. She went to the same beach where she first saw Jonathan the day before. She fell asleep on that same beach leaving her son alone. She woke up, Jonathan is right there in the same spot, her son is missing, and she doesn’t think Jonathan is to blame at all. Lastly, Jonathan saves his supposed victim’s son, whom he supposedly just threatened to harm a few hours earlier.
The ending is open ended. Nancy and Catherine were unreliable narrators and Stephen and Robert believed everything they were told by everyone. Both Nancy and Catherine had ample time to fit their stories to match their own narratives. Jonathan could not defend himself of these accusations because he died.
What was in the photo ? It didn’t stop clearly enough to see ?
Nicholas had seen the rape.
The information is in the video, but it is embargoed until 3 AM est on Nov 8!
What happens at 3 AM tomorrow? How do we find out what was in that photo?
@@tilklem513 That's when this review goes live. Unless you're talking about a photo that was in earlier episodes.
Ahh I watched this from the future in NZ
It was so good but I think the last episode was poorly written. Idk, felt rushed. Maybe if it had an extra episode…
I liked the series but the friggin content warning 100% spoiled the ending.
Weird, I didn’t get a content warning in the UK
@@MFLimited interesting! I’m in Canada.
@@MFLimited Very interesting. In the US it has a long content warning.
A better ending would have been for them to wrap it up with the actual truth and not her side of the story bc i don't trust this woman ... i also want to know what really happened to jonathan's girlfriend ... but for her to have the audacity to flip the script on her clearly insecure husband ... chance after chance to come forward with this ... i know its traumatic, but to be assaulted in front of your child? this isn't some random woman - a RICH WHITE ENGLISH woman ... couldn't tell her own husband after 20 years? after jonathan's mother tried to throw his death in your face? after a book comes out to cancel your whole life? then finally to be confronted by your husband? no woman or person is that weak when everyone and every force of nature have given you ample opportunity to come forward ... it's just too unbelievable
Yeah the girlfriend storyline (her leaving and never returning their calls) seemed to hint that there was something wrong about Jonathan
Her “side of the story” is the truth here. Complex trauma does not have a timeline for healing or revealing itself. A huge, if not the entire, point of the series is to reveal our own biases against women and have us questioning why we assumed she cheated on her husband just based off of a male narrator’s words and some photos. Catherine’s discussion with her husband at the end of the finale spells that out.
Jonathan was an abuser who beat/raped/assaulted his girlfriend-that’s why she went home. That wasn’t spelled out directly in conversation to allow viewers to put those pieces together on their own. People only see what they want to see, which is what gave Stephen plausible deniability from viewing his son for who he really was.
@@adubs11 saying her side of the story is true is just as bad as saying Jonathan's mother's side of the story was true ... I would like to believe the directors aren't that dumb ... If they're not that dumb then her story has a lot of holes ... If you see a strange man taking pictures of you and your child on the beach you would either talk to the police, confront him and tell him to stop, or confront him and start a conversation ... Then there's the part about leaving her keys in door ... Suspicious at best ... And how would he know which room to go to? I guess he could have followed her, but that's not the way it was filmed ... She also says she thought they would have a "gentle" encounter ... My theory, she thought she was going to have a fling, but when he got there he changed ... She freaked out but went along with it thinking things would be cool and he'd just leave, maybe even went along with intercourse at first after denying his advances a few times ... But after that first time he raped her for three hours ... And in Jonathan's twisted mind he thought they could be together ... Also from her account how would he even have known that was her son in the ocean? Also what are the chances of being full on sexually assaulted by another British person while you're on vacation in Italy? In your hotel room? They had to have interacted beforehand .. I don't know the statistics, but if you were assaulted in another country it would be by someone from that country, probably not in your hotel room and you would not hesitate to call your husband immediately at the very least... Bottomline: we still don't know the real story
Agree, they did not give us enough signs that Jonathan was some kind of sexual pervert, not even clear about his girlfriend's situation, so it is hard to believe Catherine's story at the end.
@@CocoaLuv22no, the huge difference here is that the mother-a woman not at all involved in what occurred-literally made up an entire narrative based off some photos that made her feel like her son was used and a hero. Catherine was directly involved in the experience. We are supposed to put these dots together… The director even has us see that conversation Jonathan’s mom has with his girlfriend’s mom, and has Stephen explain that “she changed some things in the book, of course,” to help people get it. She is the definition of what we call “an unreliable narrator.” Please look up fight, flight and fawn responses. Also, please research the responses women (and men) have to sexual assault/rape. Catherine talks about the shame she feels for being violated-this is a gigantic reason victims do not report. And part of the reason she feels shame is because cultural misogynistic views tell women this happens to that it was their fault in some way…which is now happening in the above analysis. She also talks about protecting her son and husband from the trauma of having them also “deal with it” because it’s already something horrible that happened to her-she doesn’t want to carry that into her relationships with them. This is something victims, especially women, do all the time. Also, like she says in telling her sleeping mother everything that happened, verbalizing it makes it even more real-it solidifies it as an event in her life she is forced to accept happened. Something like this is incredibly difficult to accept. Even if it doesn’t seem plausible to you, specifically, I can tell you-this happens really, really often. It is very common.
The question here again is ultimately, why are some people so quick to believe the account of someone who was not even present over the account of someone who was actually there? Thinking we do not have “the whole story here” is completely missing the point or the series, blaming the victim and unfortunately proving its premise true.
Was someone able to capture what was written on the postal card?
From Ep I at 34:43, on the back of a postcard with an image of the Pisa: “Dear Mum, Venice and Florence really were as magical as you say. But I’m bored of ruins now, so I’m heading to the beach. Thanks for that Nikon you gave me. I’ve been taking tons of pictures. Love, Jonathan
PS, I’m alone now. Sasha had to go back to London.” with voiceover
From Ep VI in the scene starting at 24:41, Nancy and Stephen return home with Jonathan’s affects. Nancy says they should start making calls to let people know what happened. Nancy feels Sasha should be the first person called. As she’s dialing, Stephen sees the postcard with the Pisa on the floor with the rest of the post. It reads: “Hello Mum and Dad, I love it here in Italy. The food is well nice. We arrived in Pisa yesterday. Walked all the way to the tower and then found out it was CLOSED!! for refurbishment, what a waste of time!
Miss you.
Jonathan XX”
Nancy is only able to speak to Emma, Sasha’s mother. Nancy becomes upset as she is forcing the news on Emma. The call ends, Nancy heads upstairs with Jonathan’s belongings, and a tennis ball falls down the stairs, rolling over the post and the Pisa postcard at the top of the pile, image up.
That scene is definitely worth a rewatch.
No one is questioning anything in this serie , jonathan’s mom and father took the story as it is , and then the nick’s father and nick took what in the book as it is and guess what ? Jonathan’s father just took what nick’s mother told him and he said it to nick’s father as it is like wtf hhhhhh
The father’s (Stephen and Robert) in this story are pushovers and believe whatever they are told.
I think she lied.the picture he pulled from fire shows the boy watching his mother having the affair. my opinion.
Really really loved this show! Not sure about everyone else, but I wasn’t a fan of the voiceovers as much
This show could be good. But instead of showing grey morality and complex moral dilemmas they stuck to 'it was all a lie, Jonathan is rapist, Catherine is absolutely innocent'. It's not as subversive as authors think it is. This is expected from contemporary media
To me..... both versions of the Catherine/Jonathan relationship still remain valid at the end. Catherine could have still been lying, and there are evidence of that doubt throughout the series. That's why they left Sasha's story open ended. That's why it didn't make sense Jonathan the angry rapist would show empathy and save Nicholas out on the water. That's why Nicholas couldn't support Catherine's version of the story because he doesn't remember anything, conveniently. That's why the husband constantly described Catherine as a very good liar. A manipulator. At the end of the series both versions of the story between Catherine and Jonathan could have happened. Evidence supports both versions of the story. That's what gives me this layer of chill at the end of the series. You just don't know which is the real story.... you believe Catherine's version....because she's a good manipulator. We the audience become like the husband....someone who could have been duped by Catherine.
Cate herself has said in an interview for this movie is that all humans are despicable they're just good at hiding it. So that supports my theory that the 1st version of the Catherine/Jonathan incident could still be true.
The only redeeming thing that happened is Nicholas mended his relationship with his mom and hopefully got off the drugs. There's a reason why the scene ended with Nicholas saying he doesn't remember anything.... carefully placed there to keep us wondering if Catherine was telling the truth. 🤯
The viewers are essentially the husband immasculated manipulated, a reactive and passive role. He was aroused reading the book just like we were watching it happen. It's also interesting the husband found out about the rape from Stephen, the same Stephen who told him the story of his cheating wife and he believed that too. The audience plays the role of the gullible husband. We beleive what we are told. Stephen and Catherine are essentially very similar in that they can both convince anyone of a story. But I think Catherine may have bested Stephen at the end. Mistress of manipulation.😂 😂😂😂
Brilliantly crafted show!
So How after a rape of 5 hrs go to the beach with the rapist?
She didn’t go with him. She went to the beach with her son and Jonathan happened to be there too. Maybe he was watching her there.
She didn't. He showed up there hours after she went there and fell asleep. She went nowehere with him.
I knew there was going to be a twist obviously but didn't expect that wow. That's why the kids ex gf was so ride on the phone he was probably ab asshole to here too grrat review
Disappointing ending. Sorry I don't agree with you regarding Apple TV plus as being one of the best. It's not. Great acting but story line.....no. I don't buy the ending that the father all of a sudden accepts the rape story. After his elaborate plan of revenge and all of a sudden after she tells her side he's believing her? NOPE....
You are kidding, right?! Excellent finale, couldn’t be better! Superior production and acting skills across the board!
I agree. Big letdown after a big buildup! A lot of loopholes!
Also why wouldn't the husband throw her out? She barely tried to explain. That part annoyed me too.
Yup. When she says that she did try to explain, I was wracking my brain trying to remember her trying!
@@WatchorPass same, I’m gonna go back to confirm I think
I think she did try. When she went back to the house, he was very drunk and looking at the pictures. She begged him to listen, but he bombed out of the house, not letting her speak. he then ignored all of her calls and texts. Yes, she could have run after him and screamed “I was raped”. But she have been lying to herself all of that time, and he should have asked her what happened, given her two minutes. The fact that he didn’t, means that he was very willing to think the worst of her.
You have to give people you love the benefit of the doubt. You have to give them an opportunity to explain. You cannot believe what you hear from a stranger before you hear them out.
If you don’t understand that then you won’t have successful relationships. You have to treat your loved ones the way you would want them to treat you.
She did try. But he refused to listen and she was terrified to push it because her son was there.. . She tried several times , rewatch that episode, or atleast those scenes, she even told him it wasn’t an affair. Her biggest fear was to spare her son and he was right there 30 feet away from them so sue didn’t dare push it any further at that moment, but then she tried several times after he threw her out but he refused to speak to her ! R answer phone or answer texts!
She also could of explained when she first told her husband she thinks the book was about her.
Soo good
The picture of the person in the end wasn’t Nick. It looked like a picture of an older kid. Not a 4 year old Nick
Little Nick dressed up because he wanted to go.
Both writers, Nancy and Catherine, add fictional lines to their plot.
You can’t trust any. Both has loops and nonsense arguments. No one is complete innocent.