California Dreamer wrote: » Turquoise Hexagon Sun wrote: » Anyway spoiler talk next: Was happy to see Ben get whacked. But that was an open ended question, Did we actually see Ben get killed? NO. We just saw a body going into the crematorium. I think there was a side deal done there hence why we actually see Helen geting killed I don't think it's that at all. I could be wrong.I'm pretty sure I read that we don't see Ben getting whacked because it's not really about him. What was more important to the writers was Wendy's reaction. They felt seeing him die would take away focus from the emotional gravity of what Wendy is experiencing. Makes sense to me. I didn't necessarily have to see him die. I felt bad for him knowing that Wendy just left him there. Even though I was beginning to hate Ben, I felt awful, knowing what was about to happen him. Knowing that at some stage he must have known that his own sister abandoned him there. And all his stuff would have been in the car and he didn't have it with him. Wendy also asked him that question about where Ben see's himself in 5 years. It was her clinging on to a fantasy. Ben is so deluded that it was going to be something hopeful. Inspiring. She knew what was going down so she wanted to share some hypothetical fantasy-future with him.@Basq: That's not necessarily true. It's not really a rule of thumb. Maybe in a soap opera. But I can think there more reasons why someone else would get killed off screen. We didn't see the therapist killed either. Just the body wrapped up. And I agree with this point that Evan Romaro makes.. For narrative purposes, it just serves the story so much more for him to no longer be among the living—for Wendy to make the ultimate sacrifice of losing her brother for her criminal enterprise hits hard. If it turned out that Ben was alive, on the run, hiding away somewhere, all of the power behind that gut punch of a plot twist would be lost. EDIT: can't find the source where I read about the writers. Can probably discount it now. Again, I could be wrong.
Turquoise Hexagon Sun wrote: » Anyway spoiler talk next: Was happy to see Ben get whacked. But that was an open ended question, Did we actually see Ben get killed? NO. We just saw a body going into the crematorium. I think there was a side deal done there hence why we actually see Helen geting killed
For narrative purposes, it just serves the story so much more for him to no longer be among the living—for Wendy to make the ultimate sacrifice of losing her brother for her criminal enterprise hits hard. If it turned out that Ben was alive, on the run, hiding away somewhere, all of the power behind that gut punch of a plot twist would be lost. EDIT: can't find the source where I read about the writers. Can probably discount it now.
Turquoise Hexagon Sun wrote: » Batemen is great all right. I love Marty and Wendy as characters. Both brilliant in their problem solving skills. Both really good at what they do. Sometimes I root for Wendy, and some times I root for Marty. Both have been wrong. But both have been "right" when the other was "wrong."
walshb wrote: » Performance of the season was without doubt the character of Ben, Wendy’s brother..his portrayal of a man suffering with bipolar was very very moving. Powerful stuff! I like Tuth, but find that sometimes they push her character a bit too much..kind of need to tone it down a little..
Statutory Ape wrote: » I have not felt a pain in my soul watching any performance since Stephen Graham in The Virutes last year. That changed last night, probably the most gut punching portrayal of mental illness I've ever seen. The only one I can think of that came close was Peter Greene in the movie Clean,Shaven. Tom Pelphrey had me going from annoyance at him to being virtually in tears, a monumental turn from him. My favourite season so far, fcuking loving it and dying for more.
JP Liz V1 wrote: » Tom Pelphrey as Ben was amazing, Emmy winning
De Bhál wrote: » 4 episodes into S3...top show
cloudatlas wrote: » I've just finished season 1. The acting is great. The one thing that has bothered me is how fast they've become accustomed to their new life and trials. In that respect I feel that Breaking Bad was more realistic, you could see the slow shift over the series of the characters into moral depravity or dubiousness. Last night episode the first of season 2 was the first time that Wendy questioned any of it. I suppose the plot is so fast paced that they are subject to the plot and there is little time to rock back and forth in a corner crying so to speak.
cloudatlas wrote: » I especially love how it has several strong female leads who just consistently knock it out of the park,sorry but the men are just accessory characters at this stage.
khaldrogo wrote: » Does Julia Garner have any sort of scoliosis???
Deleted User wrote: » In terms of time devoted, actions, and pushing story forward? Completely agree. Marty is an automaton and, on his own, would be boring AF. He would also not have been able to make enough money. But The glue holding all the pieces together is, still, Marty. He is, just about, curbing Wendy's excesses. She's ambitious but very very reckless and, without stabilising of Marty, she would be dead. Ruth is still green but she will be much closer to Marty than Wendy (IMHO). She flies off the top but is as savvy, as Marty, and you can see that he is working her to control her temper.
pixelburp wrote: » Wendy is arrogant: the play for legitimate businesses is under the mistaken belief Navarro can be tamed, that he can be steered or managed under some promise of an easy life or legal wealth for his family. Heck, she just rings him up like it's nothing, even Helen isn't that full of hubris. Navarro is a monster at war, someone steeped in the blood of his choices. She thinks she can outmanoeuvre a beast like that, whereas Marty understood the stakes from Day 1. He's not blameless and has himself gone off the rails at points, but if we chart overall trends he has taken the safer path in general compared with his wife.
cloudatlas wrote: » There's shades of the Skylar hate here. The wife is anti the business (Skylar).... she's a b*tch or if she is complicit (Wendy) and goes along with it then she is a b*tch. I know you didn't use the word b*tch but insert (weak, arrogant, irrational) but it's interesting how it seems the 'wife' characters can never win no matter what. Marty isn't cool, he hasn't been there to protect people when needed Buddy had to do that, Wendy had to deal with her brother, he promised to protect Ruth, Mason's wife... he finally got Rachel on a plane it would seem but he is quite a weak character beneath it all who has no real control either.
pixelburp wrote: » :rolleyes: Sigh. Come one. Don't try and spin my thoughts as some tacit prejudice. This is not a particularly subtle show in terms of its characters' actions or motivations. It's part of its charm. The series doesn't go in for subtext and its main cast are mostly architects of their own downfall. Nobody's "winning". The core is a parental unit of two terrible people, whose respective terribleness comes from two totally opposing strategies in trying to deal with their involvement in the Drug Trade. Marty's based on keeping a low profile, working the stats; latterday Wendy instead trying to assert control of the scenario. In your comparison, she's Walter White here, not Skylar. Season 3 was the wall where she discovered just how vicious Navarro truly was. Wendy was a reluctant partner at the start of Ozarks plan, very much a "wing and a prayer" born from desperation prior to imminent death. The horse-trading around the casino acquisition seemed to awaken something in her, dormant perhaps since her political career was sidelined. And yes, there's an element of hubris in thinking she could manage Navarro's whims using her savvy, like he was an ordinary figure of civilian power. That's not about weakness, nor irrationality, but presuming her skillset worked in this situation. Helen understood Navarro is a beast, working with the tides, not trying to steer them. But let's park any snide reduction that this is about a hated "the wife" character; Wendy's flaw was thinking she was ever in control of the situation.
cloudatlas wrote: » Yes.... there was a role reversal, Marty was the 'Walter White' character then he killed someone and there was switch. Wendy had to take over, there was no choice, Marty was out. I don't remember him getting the same level of criticism. My point is Marty isn't in control either and just because he is like an 'automaton' after the death doesn't mean he isn't being weak. He can't protect anyone, he sits on his hands and does next to nothing in a lot of situations he isn't a primary actor in the momentum of the plot, he doesn't get away from Navarro in the end somebody else causes something to happen. A lot of the other female characters have equal billing is all I have to say.
pixelburp wrote: » Lordy. This isn't a gender thing so how about doing me the courtesy of assuming we're all adults here and don't need to keep score of criticism relative to the character's nominated gender (in a TV show)? The side of the mouth sneering is OTT
cloudatlas wrote: » The sneering is all in your head. I'm afraid you have to look at it as 'a gender thing' as it is the only show in a long long time that has had that many key female protagonists that are great actors on the plot so it's inevitable that it would be examined in that way as being a unique show that dispenses with a lot of tired stereotypes and passes the Bechdel test. Just an opinion, no need to get angsty.
There's shades of the Skylar hate here. The wife is anti the business (Skylar).... she's a b*tch or if she is complicit (Wendy) and goes along with it then she is a b*tch. I know you didn't use the word b*tch but insert (weak, arrogant, irrational) but it's interesting how it seems the 'wife' characters can never win no matter what.
pixelburp wrote: » Ehhhhhh now No angst, this entire exchange literally started with you opining how it was "interesting" that I reckoned Wendy a "bitch" (oh sorry, irrational or weak) because of her involvement. You made the leap, that Wendy's arrogance was somehow seen as a weakness pertaining to her gender, that she can't win. Yes it's interesting that the show's cast is predominantly female, but dissecting or criticising its prime character is not automatically biased based on their gender. If anything it's arguably a fluke of scriptwriting given a lot of its male characters have simply died. Wendy's the main character now, she's getting main character criticism.
cloudatlas wrote: » You seem to be attaching a lot of emotion to this conversation that doesn't exist 'sneering' etc., I didn't read the comment saying that Marty was arrogant or criticising him. There are a lot of stereotypes being upended of women within the show seductive sirens, damsels in distress, dead bodies, oblivious romantic partners, and nagging wives or the 'bitch' wife a la skyler who doesn't let the main character do what he wants, if anything it's very deliberate. And the females have killed a lot of the male characters. I've enjoyed watching it because it has challenged clichéd, problematic characterizations and yes that has been very deliberate and gender specific. Anyway I've enjoyed watching it, glad you have too
AaronMic95 wrote: » My wife and I started watching Ozark around April and finished the 3 seasons pretty quickly. We didn't know we would like it but Jason Bateman acting and direction are good. I hope they could have a good ending. Nothing would beat Breaking Bad though. lol
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://w5.vanillicon.com/v2/5dc0c82bb5d5c9e7a358d7971a18240f.svg)
