Wholeheartedly agree. They were pushing the one side so hard that I was almost preparing for her story to indeed be a lie at the very very end (something Shyamalan might’ve done)
So many questions...Why didn't she give Robert more detail about what Steven was going to do to their son in her message? Why didn't she make that call the second she came to? Or call the hospital when Robert didn't answer. Even stranger, why did Johnathan of all people rush in to save baby Nick? Surely the moment they all returned safely to shore she would have him arrested, right? What was the character's motivation because it's made clear he's not a good person, even according to his own father. Also, why did Johnathan's parents keep saying "she" let him drown as if they somehow knew she was watching him struggle with all of the commotion on the beach? And so It turns out baby Nick was in one of the photos but he doesn't remember anything, so why did he hate his mom?
I was anxiously awaiting your review on this episode! As I was watching the episode, I thought about some of your complaints and how some of them were addressed.
A lot of this was ridiculous. In the first episode you could see something was off as in her POV Nancy was going out of her way to paint Sasha as a “slut”. That was basically Jonathan’s nickname for her and she was presented as sexually experienced and even promiscuous and Jonathan as inexperienced but going along for the ride. You did see hints of his selfishness with the scene in the train (his yanking the blanket away) and the gondola ride (his arguing with the gondolier and rocking the boat) which suggests Nancy knew her son had issues but was minimizing them. Clearly something happened between Jonathan and Sasha that caused her to flee Italy but they never explain it. Also, the way Stephen is able to flawlessly manipulate this wealthy family based on nothing but a few photographs strains credulity. The whole thing is very implausible.
I think you completely missed out the point of the show. Years ago, I saw the film Billy Eliot about the boy dancing ballet. All through out the film we see him interested in taking ballet classes with the girls and we suspect he might be gay. But towards the end his childhood friend plucks up the courage and kisses Billy on the lips. But Billy says he's not really gay and he doesn't share these feelings. Of course as audience we are left with the notion that Billy is not actually gay because of that specific scene. Later on we see Billy growing up and becoming a famous grown up ballet dancer after he had moved from his small village to the big city (possibly to London). Now years later after I've seen the film, being gay myself, I felt a little bit disappointed that Billy was not gay. I kinda wanted him to be gay because that would have given a "stamp of authenticity" to his interest in ballet and dancing. Years passed after watching the film and I was speaking to another good gay friend of mine about Billy Eliot. I mentioned that I liked the film but that I felt disappointed Billy turns out not to be gay in the end. At which my friend responded: "Well, I think he IS". Which brings me to my point. The fact that Billy didn't return feelings for his childhood friend and practically rejected him doesn't make his necessarily not gay. That scene only showed that Billy is not tuned on by this specific friend and the he didn't share those feelings for him. That was a moment of realisation for me about how to watch films and TV in general. What we see on the screen happening between the characters is merely what we see externally. But that doesn't make it necessarily the truth. And the same goes for Disclaimer. Yes in the end we are told in that last episode that Catherine was raped by Jonathan and that there's another side to the story. Steven, being Jonathan's father, confirms in the end this is what indeed happened because we assumes he knows his son and what he's capable of. But if we zoom out from the show for moment. As a viewer, do we actually know which of the two narratives happened? No. Did Catherine tempt Jonathan into her room and indulge in a romantic and sexual affair? Could be yes and could be no. Was she brutally raped by Jonathan? Could be yes and could be no. The point is we don't really know what happened. Even after the last episode. It's left for our interpretation. Hollywood franchises like Breaking Bad, Game of Thrones and Harry Potter have made us all used to the idea that everything needs to be explained in the end. Everything needs to have a reason. Everything needs to be resolved. The idea of "resolution" in plot is problematic because Art is fascinating because of the 'unknown' the 'unexplained'. Reveal who's the killer in the beginning of a whodunnit and you haven't got a plot anymore. Disclaimer rejects this Hollywood approach. Yes it seemingly shows us the other narrative in the end, of what actually happened. But are we absolutely certain this second narrative is the correct one? We don't know. Has Catherine been raped? We don't know. Even after that last episode. And that's why I think Cate Blanchette's portrayal was spot on. She said she was raped but I also felt it through her acting that she might be lying to us. That she was acting that she's acting it. Ultimately each viewer will decide which version happened and maybe it's something else completely that actually happened but the fact of the matter is only 3 people were present in that hotel scene in Italy - Jonathan, Nicholas and Catherine. Jonathan is dead, Nicholas as 4 year old doesn't remember anything and Catherine. So she's the only who knows inside out. So we, the audience, can't really know what is the truth.
The development of the story wanted you to feel exactly like her husband did. Almost finding it easier to feel being raped was better than her being a couger. I mean think about it, as you watch the show you're like "what the hell". I think people are expecting way too much to button up issues that did not make sense to them.
Wholeheartedly agree. They were pushing the one side so hard that I was almost preparing for her story to indeed be a lie at the very very end (something Shyamalan might’ve done)
Show creators gotta stop valuing the "twist at the end" so much.
Robert was an idiot.
So many questions...Why didn't she give Robert more detail about what Steven was going to do to their son in her message? Why didn't she make that call the second she came to? Or call the hospital when Robert didn't answer. Even stranger, why did Johnathan of all people rush in to save baby Nick? Surely the moment they all returned safely to shore she would have him arrested, right? What was the character's motivation because it's made clear he's not a good person, even according to his own father. Also, why did Johnathan's parents keep saying "she" let him drown as if they somehow knew she was watching him struggle with all of the commotion on the beach? And so It turns out baby Nick was in one of the photos but he doesn't remember anything, so why did he hate his mom?
Show has plenty of flaws, some storytelling issues.
But filmmaking, premise, atmosphere, and acting were top notch so kept me hooked.
I was anxiously awaiting your review on this episode! As I was watching the episode, I thought about some of your complaints and how some of them were addressed.
Yup, and as you saw, I definitely admit that they addressed a lot of my issues.
Mother of the year.
A lot of this was ridiculous. In the first episode you could see something was off as in her POV Nancy was going out of her way to paint Sasha as a “slut”. That was basically Jonathan’s nickname for her and she was presented as sexually experienced and even promiscuous and Jonathan as inexperienced but going along for the ride. You did see hints of his selfishness with the scene in the train (his yanking the blanket away) and the gondola ride (his arguing with the gondolier and rocking the boat) which suggests Nancy knew her son had issues but was minimizing them. Clearly something happened between Jonathan and Sasha that caused her to flee Italy but they never explain it. Also, the way Stephen is able to flawlessly manipulate this wealthy family based on nothing but a few photographs strains credulity. The whole thing is very implausible.
I think you completely missed out the point of the show.
Years ago, I saw the film Billy Eliot about the boy dancing ballet. All through out the film we see him interested in taking ballet classes with the girls and we suspect he might be gay. But towards the end his childhood friend plucks up the courage and kisses Billy on the lips. But Billy says he's not really gay and he doesn't share these feelings. Of course as audience we are left with the notion that Billy is not actually gay because of that specific scene. Later on we see Billy growing up and becoming a famous grown up ballet dancer after he had moved from his small village to the big city (possibly to London).
Now years later after I've seen the film, being gay myself, I felt a little bit disappointed that Billy was not gay. I kinda wanted him to be gay because that would have given a "stamp of authenticity" to his interest in ballet and dancing.
Years passed after watching the film and I was speaking to another good gay friend of mine about Billy Eliot. I mentioned that I liked the film but that I felt disappointed Billy turns out not to be gay in the end. At which my friend responded: "Well, I think he IS".
Which brings me to my point. The fact that Billy didn't return feelings for his childhood friend and practically rejected him doesn't make his necessarily not gay. That scene only showed that Billy is not tuned on by this specific friend and the he didn't share those feelings for him. That was a moment of realisation for me about how to watch films and TV in general. What we see on the screen happening between the characters is merely what we see externally. But that doesn't make it necessarily the truth.
And the same goes for Disclaimer. Yes in the end we are told in that last episode that Catherine was raped by Jonathan and that there's another side to the story. Steven, being Jonathan's father, confirms in the end this is what indeed happened because we assumes he knows his son and what he's capable of.
But if we zoom out from the show for moment. As a viewer, do we actually know which of the two narratives happened? No. Did Catherine tempt Jonathan into her room and indulge in a romantic and sexual affair? Could be yes and could be no. Was she brutally raped by Jonathan? Could be yes and could be no. The point is we don't really know what happened. Even after the last episode. It's left for our interpretation.
Hollywood franchises like Breaking Bad, Game of Thrones and Harry Potter have made us all used to the idea that everything needs to be explained in the end. Everything needs to have a reason. Everything needs to be resolved. The idea of "resolution" in plot is problematic because Art is fascinating because of the 'unknown' the 'unexplained'. Reveal who's the killer in the beginning of a whodunnit and you haven't got a plot anymore.
Disclaimer rejects this Hollywood approach. Yes it seemingly shows us the other narrative in the end, of what actually happened. But are we absolutely certain this second narrative is the correct one? We don't know. Has Catherine been raped? We don't know. Even after that last episode. And that's why I think Cate Blanchette's portrayal was spot on. She said she was raped but I also felt it through her acting that she might be lying to us. That she was acting that she's acting it. Ultimately each viewer will decide which version happened and maybe it's something else completely that actually happened but the fact of the matter is only 3 people were present in that hotel scene in Italy - Jonathan, Nicholas and Catherine. Jonathan is dead, Nicholas as 4 year old doesn't remember anything and Catherine. So she's the only who knows inside out.
So we, the audience, can't really know what is the truth.
The reason Nancy wrote the book because she blames Cathrine for her son dying. She couldn’t believe her son was a bad person.
The development of the story wanted you to feel exactly like her husband did. Almost finding it easier to feel being raped was better than her being a couger. I mean think about it, as you watch the show you're like "what the hell". I think people are expecting way too much to button up issues that did not make sense to them.
It was not believable after everything..
It was good tho. Mess, narration and all
Yeah. Solid. Won't make my Top 10, but solid.
All the hospital stuff was just so corny…. Really seemed ridiculous…
Definitely not a great show had to mute the narration
On to bad sisters!!