Home Theater Forum › Home Theater Forum › Entertainment › TV Programming › Six Feet Under Season 5
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Six Feet Under Season 5 - Page 8

post #211 of 339
8/9/05 at 5:41am
Quote:
Michael C. Hall should send this episode in for Emmy consideration.
Quote:
As should Frances Conroy. Her work this episode was equally impressive.
And while we're at it, how about James Cromwell and Rachel Griffiths.
Reply
post #212 of 339
8/9/05 at 6:50am
Quote:
If there was one thing that rubbed me the wrong way about the funeral scene it was George making that speech about Nate, acting almost as if he knew Nate his whole life.


Ah but that was the irony, George knew Nate the shortest time but he knew the real Nate more than those who have know him his whole life. He was able to see Nate clearly without the rose colored glasses. It was no act, he did know the real Nate.
Reply
post #213 of 339
8/9/05 at 7:00am
Quenten said:Ruth didn't leave the guy who was living in the bomb shelter. She left the guy who was ok some of the time, not ok some of the time because she didn't want the burden of caring for him.


First, let me say that I understand what you're getting at and I accept it. However, I feel the need to point out that in my view of human behavior, she very much did leave the guy in the bomb shelter, even though George was no longer in that state when she left him.

Look at it this way...

A child comes and asks his stay-at-home mom for something every 5 minutes beginning at 6:00 a.m. At 6:00 p.m., the father walks in the door and hears... "Mom, can I have some ice cream," to which the mom responds by yelling at the kid, "If you ask me for another thing, I'm going to beat your butt!" Putting aside what everyone will think of speaking to a kid that way, tell me... did she respond to the request for ice cream, or did she respond to the totality of what transpired over the course of the day?

That was Ruth's situation. It's difficult to unring a bell, and that whole Bomb Shelter experience was a big part of her perception of George at that point. It takes time to get past that stuff and not only see a person for who they have become, but trust it.
Reply
post #214 of 339
8/9/05 at 10:44am
Good point, Mikah. So, I guess she's had time to get over that part? Cuz it sure looks like she's taking him back in.
Reply
post #215 of 339
8/11/05 at 5:15pm
(Amending the Sopranos scheduling and season-length discussion from earlier in the thread... a search didn't bring up a Sopranos 6 topic, and I'm reluctant to start one...)

First, they were doing ten. Then I read back up to the 'normal' 13 (the normal run for HBO seasons are now 12 episodes apiece, but Sopranos is 'special', of course). Then we had hopes of a SEVENTH season... this morning the Washington Post, Hollywood Reporter, and TV Guide all spoke of a 20 episode season, split 10 and 10 (like SATC split its final season into two parts).

Official confirmation today (I read it on zap2it, but it'll soon be 'everywhere', I'm sure): twenty is right, but the split isn't an even one: we'll get 12 in March '06, and a final 8 to follow them up beginning in January '07.

85 total episodes to the six season masterpiece of television storytelling.

Wonder if (like SATC) there will be a two-part Season 6 dvd release...

The filming currently underway will run straight through to the end, but I think it's kinda 'odd' that negotiataions for this supposedly weren't final before now- wonder what kind of scheduling mishaps this might cause some of the cast and crew (of course, I doubt anyone has anything of a HIGHER priority than completing The Sopranos...).

Okay. Apologies for the topic highjacking, but I'm sure there are interested parties to this news in the 6FU thread...
Reply
post #216 of 339
8/11/05 at 5:33pm
Quote:
a search didn't bring up a Sopranos 6 topic
Like this one?

M.
Reply
post #217 of 339
8/11/05 at 6:15pm
I did see that one, but also took it to mean that the original poster may have been inquiring about the availability of Season 5 on dvd (he wasn't clear- people answered to both- I thought it safest to 'leave it alone' as a 'dead thread'...).

Apologies if that was the wrong thing to do. Thought this was an appropriate enough a spot to continue the discussion, but understand if it isn't (different show). Just excited about the news.
Reply
post #218 of 339
8/13/05 at 6:52am
I know I am way behind but I just watched "All Alone" last night. It was a great episode and lucky for me my family was out of the house because I cried during the whole show. I had to get up and lock the doors and turn out the lights so it looked like no one was home at all. I didn't want any of my friends to randomly stop by and see me because I would never hear the end of it. Also they would think I was crazy.

The scene that really just smashed me was when David reached over and just started shoveling dirt onto the body. It was the first time we really saw him truly break down in front of everyone. I liked how this cause everyone else to get involved in there own way. Hands down the best show of the season for me.
Reply
post #219 of 339
8/14/05 at 7:14pm
Another great episode. Warning: Spoiler! (Click to show)
I wonder if that was the last we'll hear of the Brenda/Billy incest plotline, or if it'll be developed further in the finale. I've always believed that there was no sexual history between them, Brenda's reaction when Billy first made a move on her pretty much ruled it out, but there's always been a wierd sexual tension between them. In any case, based on the line "Nate urges Brenda to embrace a taboo" in the episode summary I predicted the scene would unfold like this: "Perhaps there's a scene in next week's episode where he tells her she's just as *beep* up as her brother and that they belong together." and sure enough, I was right on the money, a prediction that went largely unnoticed and unsupported on the IMDB boards.


Similarly, I predicted the Maggie and Nate relationship in this very thread and most people either doubted it or just didn't pick up on the hints. I have one last prediction, based on known casting for the finale, if I get it right I'm three for three:

Warning: Spoiler! (Click to show)
A Brinks armored car robber is known to appear in the finale. If the rumor of the episode portraying the eventual death of every major character is true, I would imagine that Keith Charles, with his security background, is the most likely character to meet his end in a armored car robbery. You heard it here first! (unless you read the IMDB boards and you saw my post there!)


Edit:

One more thing, how long until someone comes up with an Warning: Spoiler! (Click to show)
everything since Claire's car crash is a dream
theory?
Reply
post #220 of 339
8/14/05 at 8:13pm
Great episode.

For what it's worth Bill, I never doubted Nate and Maggie would get together.
Reply
post #221 of 339
8/14/05 at 9:34pm
Quote:
For what it's worth Bill, I never doubted Nate and Maggie would get together.
I never doubted it either...I just doubted it would last...and I guess I was right on on that one, since it technically lasted less than a day...
Reply
post #222 of 339
8/14/05 at 9:51pm
I'm not sure I follow you Bill...do you think that Brenda actually WANTS to get together with Billy? Or did you think that scene was real? It was a dream...pretty typical for a pregnant woman to have sexual, twisted dreams. I speak from experience. And, she asked him to move out the next day because of how uncomfortable she felt!

Anyhow...I don't think anyone thought Nate and Maggie wouldn't get together...they just hoped the show wouldn't go there.
Reply
post #223 of 339
8/14/05 at 10:10pm
Trivia note: The soldier's sister was played by Amy Spanger, a/k/a Mrs. Michael C. Hall ("David Fisher").

M.
Reply
post #224 of 339
8/15/05 at 1:01pm
Quote:
I'm not sure I follow you Bill...do you think that Brenda actually WANTS to get together with Billy?

She clearly wants to on one level. Her vision of Nate was urging her to accept it, and you have to understand that all the things Nate said were her thoughts, and even though the scene of her and Billy was a dream, she still seemed to be enjoying herself. If she wasn't attracted to Billy she wouldn't have made him move out of her house.
Reply
post #225 of 339
8/15/05 at 7:27pm
She clearly wants to on one level. Her vision of Nate was urging her to accept it, and you have to understand that all the things Nate said were her thoughts, and even though the scene of her and Billy was a dream, she still seemed to be enjoying herself. If she wasn't attracted to Billy she wouldn't have made him move out of her house.


I'll agree to disagree.

I doubt it will resolve itself in the last episode either.
Reply
post #226 of 339
8/15/05 at 9:48pm
Dreams are sometimes our way of dealing with things we're not ready to deal with consciously. If you were a 19-year-old guy and you saw your 17-year-old sister jump out of the shower totally nude, and got arounsed, how would you handle it? I think most would try to forget it as soon as possible and not do anything that would repeat the experience. You might hug your sister a bit differently next time (a little more distant). You might do things to "force" the boundaries you feel should already exist.

I see nothing wrong with Brenda having the subconscious journey she had (Nate talking to her is reflective of Brenda's subconscious as expressed by how Brenda sees Nate), and it also seems perfectly normal to me that she'd want Billy gone given that she thinks incest is taboo.
Reply
post #227 of 339
8/15/05 at 11:45pm
Quote:
I see nothing wrong with Brenda having the subconscious journey she had (Nate talking to her is reflective of Brenda's subconscious as expressed by how Brenda sees Nate),

The scenes with "ghosts" have always occured when the characters were fully conscious, as far as I can remember, at least. Brenda wasn't sleeping when Nate urged her to hook up with her brother, she was fully conscious and aware in a public (albeit unoccupied) place. The dream itself could have indicated that it was something in her subconscious but the "encounter" with Nate proves otherwise. The wierd relationship and tension with Billy is something that's definitely on her mind on a completely conscious level.
Reply
post #228 of 339
8/16/05 at 6:13am
I think Brenda's thoughts have more to do with her doubt that she'll ever be in a normal relationship, and the closest person she has in her life is Billy.
She thinks her situation is so absurd that she may as well go one step further and just settle with having a relationship with her brother (not that she's actually wanting that to happen).

She's had this thought (of not deserving a normal relationship) since the season opener and Nate's "ghost" keeps bringing that up.
Also remember, in the past Nate actually asked Brenda if she slept with Billy - so she must wonder what Nate thinks of her to ask that type of question.

Kicking Billy out is just a reaction to her dream as she would feel really akward.
Reply
post #229 of 339
8/16/05 at 11:30am
Exactly, Marc.

Every conversation she has had with Nate has been her own guilt and self-doubt coming to the surface.

She's never been the one that appeared to want that kind of relationship with Billy. He's the one who hit on her and she was shocked and repulsed.

Not only does she feel she doesn't deserve a normal relationship, I imagine she feels guilt over Billy's feelings and what he did...almost wondering if she is to blame for creating them.
Reply
post #230 of 339
8/16/05 at 4:06pm
I don't want to delve into politics, but I think this aspect can safely be broached.
What are people's takes on what Ball is doing from a character standpoint juxtaposing their political stances with their situations?
George reads leftist tomes and opines on a number of conspiracy theories. Next thing you know, he's wallowing in his own filth in the bomb shelter.
Nate espouses a green funeral, and it turns out to be the most embarassing, debasing display ever, what with the family members huffing and grunting slipping and falling, to heft his unembalmed carcass into a shallow grave.
Claire gives an empassioned pacifist rant, but does so while stinky drunk and going off on a grieving mother who lost her son in combat [while telling her she's 'given nothing']. Then she turns around and dumps the uber-sympathetic Ted, because it's 'a joke' that she ever got involved with a 'fascist Republican' with a name as dumb as 'Ted.'
I think Ball's bona fides are well established, but I'm simulatneously intrigued and aghast with how deplorable he makes those who are ostensibly speaking in his voice appear.
Any thoughts on what he's doing here?

There, if we can avoid bickering over the merits of the specific stances and focus on the character/position juxtapostion, I THINK we'll be fine.
Reply
post #231 of 339
8/16/05 at 4:14pm
And may I say, at the end of it all, I surprise myself by deciding that Billy is the best acted character on the show?
George is George, Ruth is Ruth, Nate is Nate, and so on and so on.
But Billy is one of the most subtle Jeckyl and Hyder characters I can remember. Just a subtle shift in his smile, or the furrow of his brow, is all the difference between the demented sicko who begs Claire to 'eff me!! Pleaaaaassseeee!' or tries forced boxcutter plastic surgery on Brenda's back, or the 'solid as a rock' easygoing charasmatic 'sane' Billy. And you never know which one is there, until he lets you know. Kudos to Sisto for some fine acting.
Reply
post #232 of 339
8/16/05 at 4:17pm
I only found the Claire rants to be overtly political.

George is almost too weird/fringe to take anything he says or does to heart. The green funeral thing was, to me, pretty accurate - that WOULD be clumsy and difficult.

But, Claire's stuff took me out of the moment. I'm really not interested in political stances during the last couple hours EVER of a show I've watched since the beginning. Luckily, Claire has always annoyed me, so her taking me out of the experience is nothing too major.
Reply
post #233 of 339
8/16/05 at 4:25pm
Quote:
George is almost too weird/fringe to take anything he says or does to heart. The green funeral thing was, to me, pretty accurate - that WOULD be clumsy and difficult.
I'm not talking about taking them seriously, but Ball purposely has George reading a Paul Krugman book one week and going crazy in the bomb shelter the next. He is purposely hacing Nate speak to the beauty [kharmically] of a green funeral, then showing it as a craptastic way to be disposed of the next.
And I'm wondering what people think that purpose is.
Reply
post #234 of 339
8/16/05 at 4:33pm
And just what is the gas mileage of that tank that Claire used to drive?
Reply
post #235 of 339
8/16/05 at 7:08pm
I've got ya.

Ever since 'American Beauty' I think Ball is someone who, artistically, likes to show both sides of the coin. If he ever catches himself going one way (say, a political POV of his seeps into dialogue or actions) he likes to show the other side just as extremely, and close enough to make the immediate juxtaposition. It's part of his style.

He's very into kharma, yin/yang, universal balance. And, I think he likes that to come through in his writing. Even the episodes (like the ones we're talking about) that he doesn't write - I sense his hand involved. I always find it refreshing, and it is part of what makes you always wondering what will/could happen next.

Even the discussion here about Billy and Brenda is part of that. He explores all sides, so it is difficult to draw conclusions...until he springs it on you.

Though, I think he is better when he is dealing with things on a philosophical level. When Claire and Ted were having dinner and each espoused their politics, I thought it was too on the nose. And, while her passionate "left" opinion was clearly voiced, his point was poorly and improperly expressed. It made him look "wrong", and Ball's true politics showed through.
Reply
post #236 of 339
8/17/05 at 7:57am
Quote:
And, while her passionate "left" opinion was clearly voiced, his point was poorly and improperly expressed. It made him look "wrong", and Ball's true politics showed through.
Even that was balanced, though, because shortly thereafter Ted showed himself to be decent, humane and supportive when Claire got the news about Nate. Claire may not agree with his politics, but so far he's treated her better than anyone we've seen her with (Billy being a special case).

Even Ted's apparently poor job of defending his position at dinner arose from the situation. It seemed to me that he was holding back from engaging Claire's rant at full force, because he had a different sense of what was appropriate when you're getting to know someone on a first date. Claire, of course, always spills out whatever pops into her head, no matter what the occasion.

M.
Reply
post #237 of 339
8/17/05 at 9:19am
Please tell me the actor playing the soldier isn't a real... soldier/amputee.
Reply
post #238 of 339
8/17/05 at 3:38pm
DeeF said: Please tell me the actor playing the soldier isn't a real... soldier/amputee.


I had the exact opposite reaction. I hoped he was.

But then, I like it when the blind play the blind, the deaf play the deaf, and so on. One of the things I always liked about Children of a Lesser God is it is basically authentic.

It is more harrowing to me to see the struggles of a real amputee rather than a CGI rendition where the actor gets up and walks home afterwards.

That doesn't mean I can't accept things like Gary Sinese as Lt. Dan Taylor in Forrest Gump, but those are special situations (major character, heavy acting, progression from healthy to injured). I say if an authentic person can do the job, let them.
Reply
post #239 of 339
8/17/05 at 11:06pm
David seeing Nate in the red hooded sweatshirt was pretty unnerving.

Brenda's dream about Billy was going down that road of no return, thankfully it was a dream sequence.
Reply
post #240 of 339
8/21/05 at 7:19pm
Wow. That was an excellent episode overall but those final minutes were nothing short of amazing. That could be the best series finale of all time.

Warning: Spoiler! (Click to show)
I was right about Keith dying in an armored car robbery and all the "dream" theories were wrong.
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: TV Programming
Home Theater Forum › Home Theater Forum › Entertainment › TV Programming › Six Feet Under Season 5