Parenthood - Season 4 thread (1 Viewer)

[Derek Miner]

Wowsers... the crowd gets tougher and tougher. Can I just say that I don't hate that I'm defending this show? The middle of this season, yes, had some questionable moments, but these last two episodes have been extremely solid and I'm just as much on board as I have been in previous years. These are the kinds of episodes that make me forget the dreadful season finale from last year. Having just come from Hulu to watch this week's show, I am reminded by the comments there that the intimate family conflicts that are the bread and butter of this show elicit a wide variety of opinions. As I believe I said at some point in one of the "Parenthood" threads, the fact that we see the characters "warts and all" is something that I appreciate and think that the writers generally handle well. People on this show do stupid things, act petty, have problems, etc. For some people, these kinds of things elicit "I hate CHARACTER X!!" responses, but in real life, it's not so easy to write people off. And for me, the same goes for (mostly) well-written characters. For some of the others who regularly visit this thread, it feels like a romance has faded and things like clipping toenails in bed or leaving dishes in the sink have just become too irritating to overlook.

And then there is the storyline broached in the preview of next week's episode.  I won't talk about it here.  I will just give an eyeroll -- -- and say that this is a worn, old storyline that will yield predictable results.  I have come to expect nothing more from this series. 

Mike, I gotta know, how do you watch anything on television? I mean, I work for a network and I have a part time job dealing with surveys about TV episodes and – outside of shows like "Toddlers & Tiaras" that invite us to be entertained by people who probably need social intervention – I think the only show that got me this frustrated was "No Ordinary Family."

I have no idea what to make of it, but here's where this show is a mess on this point: If you favor birth control for teens, then this is basically says in a 1 for 1 case of the best possible controlled situation (birth control provided, instructed, etc.) the results are=it doesn't matter. If you are against birth control, the show doesn't solve your issue because as others point out, they slink off to the abortion clinic. Now, I get that this happens.. but like I said, I can listen to Ben Folds Five "Brick" and have a 100% idea of where this is going.. "on a very special episode' coming up, the girl is going to be depressed and conflicted because she has no one to talk to about this, because she locked everyone out. On the other hand, you're going to have a kid who blabs to his mother out of need. And then you're going to have the shocking and heartfelt reveal to her parents at which point they hate Drew. I would have been better with a ton of different results (parents take her to the clinic, girl doesn't get pregnant because birth control works, whatever). This all seemed way too cliche. The cliche answer is "kids get teen pregnant" This is the second one of these storylines on this show. I had hoped we were building toward something different in "responsible teens don't have issues".

I was writing something that disagreed with your premise more directly, but then I realized your "responsible teens don't have issues" comment referred back to how it appeared the show was being forward thinking because it appeared Drew and Amy would be allowed their tryst without judgement because they handled it responsibly. So I can see your disappointment in seeing that's not what they went for at all. Still, I think you're being a bit hard on the direction they went. I think the different results you mention all could fall into the "paint by numbers" trap. I've seen comments that praise the show for presenting the male point of view because it is often overlooked. That reading rings a bit true to me. As a huge Ben Folds fan, the comparison to the song "Brick" gets my attention, but it's not like Ben was the first guy to have that experience. The beauty of the song comes from the details of the story and the artful portrayal of the emotions that make us feel the situation even if we have never been in a similar one. While not quite as transcendent, I happen to think the writers of "Parenthood" accomplished something similar, using their own particular artistic gifts.

Oh, I have no problem with telling the story of not-so-great parents (thus I love Shameless).  But the thing with Julia this week struck me as just crazy.   This isn't a kid they've had for a few weeks now.  It's been part of the summer and deep into the school year, we're talking months at this point.  And over the last few weeks they had built this with her working on bribing him, getting his grades better in school.. during summer they worked with him through baseball and whatever.. having him unhappy is one thing, but Julia's reaction came across to me as maybe turning the character into one of those that I despise not because she's a character who serves a purpose as a bad guy, but because she's a character that just makes weird turns and at times is setup to frustrate the audience with moments like that.

This comment made me think about some of the disagreements people have had about the way storylines have played out on the show. Some of the things that I read as character flaws being explored are read by others to be flawed writing. Julia's storyline with Victor certainly is dense and complicated as well as mostly an internal struggle for the character. I recall people wondering how Julia could devote so much time to Victor and maintain her career. But eventually, the show revealed that she couldn't. I think the amount of dissonance (for lack of a better word) between everyone in that household turns people off to the storyline. But even when Julia is being a control freak, Sydney is acting spoiled and Victor is acting out intensely, I appreciate the show for presenting this dynamic. I don't find Julia has taken any "weird" turns for no reason. It seems to me a very strong crisis in her life where she has lost the motivation to carry through with something she at one time wanted due to some extreme circumstances. As a post script, let me point out that the original movie "Parenthood" was on cable earlier in the week and I watched a chunk of it for the first time in probably 15 years. Despite having some great performances and a handful of really solid, realistic moments, the movie is consistently undercut by the obvious set-ups for jokes or broad moments inserted into scenes that shift the tone greatly. Take a look sometime and tell me that even the weaker moments of this series don't improve upon the source material.

 

[Adam Lenhardt]

I realize that how you come to the issue of abortion, and how you feel about it, dramatically affects how you react to a dramatic portrayal of it. That being said, I'm a little surprised that people are dumping the show over its portrayal in this episode, since I thought the Drew/Amy storyline was as well done as ANYTHING this show has done so far, from the pilot onward. Every detail felt exactly right, given what we know about these two teenagers.

Actually, I liked Julia's character in this episode. I think her thoughts of giving up are common among this type of adoption - especially if you are the 'hated' parent.

I agree completely. While her response to the social worker seemed cruel on the surface, her honesty at that moment is definitely the best thing for Victor in the long run. If she can't make this work, it's better that that comes out now than after Victor's formally adopted. The longer he lives with Julia/Joel, the more traumatizing it's going to be if he leaves. There's nothing to be gained by putting a happy face on things if things aren't okay.

Where the storyline went wrong, for me, wasn't in the last two episodes, but in earlier episodes when it seemed like Julia and Victor were bonding. Having the writers change the relationship out of the blue (a very common occurrence on this show) is what seems off.

To be fair, it wasn't out of the blue. It was Julia's reaction to Victor throwing the bat that caused him to turn on her. In that moment, Victor saw that Julia looked at Sydney as her real child, and him as the interloper that was going to hurt her. It burned the bridge. She could have probably smoothed it over, but for the fact that a not insignificant part of her looks at Victor as he thinks she does. My problem with the storyline is that I never bought that Julia and Joel would agree to this kind of adoption in the first place. Since the storyline never had credibility in the first place, I haven't been able to get on board mid-stream.

But to have all the options on the table in that particular situation and to resolve it--without parental involvement, without Drew expressing his wishes, without thought as to the potential of a child...is greatly disappointing to me, personally.  As Matt points out about the way the show led us to that moment with the continued discussion of the responsible use of contraception...what about living up to the responsibilities of one's mistakes?  Will the show now have these two children realize the even greater mistake that they just made?  And that doesn't need to mean opting for an abortion...but to make that pivotal choice in their life...without daring to involve those people around them who love them.

But the point wasn't to show how such a situation SHOULD be handled. Obviously, nothing about how Drew and Amy went about it was anything close to optimal. But condoms do break, especially if they're not used correctly. It would not be the first time a pregnancy has resulted from "safe" sex. I think Drew did express his wishes, as forcefully as that character is able -- which is to say, not very forcefully at all. He clearly wanted Amy to keep the baby. I don't think there's any doubt that Amy knew he wanted her to keep the baby. But her mind was made up. And recognizing that, he selflessly was the person she needed him to be when she had no one else. It wasn't the right decision, I would argue it was a very wrong decision, but it came from a selfless and noble place and was perfectly in-character with what we've been shown of Drew so far.

I would be so devastated as a parent to know that my own child had gotten into such a situation and decided not to come to me for some guidance.  Sure, not all parent/child relationships are open to such closeness and support...but I don't think either of these families have exhibited enough dysfunction to allow such a decision as that made by Drew and Amy.

I would imagine that Sarah WILL be devastated, and Amy's parents too if she ever decides to tell them. But Drew's always kept things bottled up inside, the bigger the issue the more tightly he keeps a grip on it. He went to Amber, because he couldn't face his mother and his own shame and guilt and embarrassment. And Amber gave him support, but she just doesn't have the same perspective as a parent would. While Amy said it herself: Her parents see her as their perfect little angel, and she wasn't willing to shatter their perception of her, even though they would have almost certainly been a huge source of comfort, support and advice if she had. It was a knee-jerk emotional decision, but it was one I completely believed she would make.

And for Parenthood to play this decision as one that is so clean and neat is not only a disservice to the fans of the show who are looking for some interesting drama...but a disservice to those who might be led to think that such decisions can be so cleanly and easily made and carried out.  All wrapped up neat and pretty in just a few minutes time.  This has bothered me a lot.

I didn't see anything clean and neat about how "Parenthood" presented it. Yes, the deed is done. But Drew's obviously a mess, and Amy's just completely shut down emotionally. She's refusing to grapple with it whatsoever. I thought the ending made it clear that this is going to haunt both of them for the rest of their lives.

Sure, to have Drew show up at his mother's door in tears leads us to believe that Drew would spill the beans to his mother--unless she continues to be so clueless (honestly, is she the world's worst mother?) about what's going on in her son's life.  But what now would come of that?

She will be heartbroken, but she will hug her son tight and tell him that everything's going to be alright even though it won't be for a long while to come. Sometimes, it's not a parent's responsibility to fix their children's problems. Sometimes it's enough to help them cope with the consequences, and point them in the right direction moving forward.

And yes...abortion can be that cut and dried...and lonely. I saw no problem in way the storyline unfolded.

Beautifully put.

When Sarah said "we have to stop making excuses to see eachother" I was half expecting (hoping) Marc to say, "I wasn't making an excuse to see you...I saw that you're son was having major issues at school...apparently you're too blind to notice..."

That would have been too perfect! That Hank/Mark revolving door is beyond played out at this point.

I thought this episode was extremely compelling. As an almost senior citizen myself, I loved the scene in the kitchen with Max asking about ejaculation, and especially Zeke's response.

I thought that beat was great myself. The contrast between Adam and Kristina's embarrassment and Zeek and Camille's complete lack of embarrassment was hilarious.

Friday Night Lights did it, by the same showrunner. Might have been "brave" in the past. Now, it's expected.

I wouldn't said it's "expected". Having the teenager actually go through with the abortion is still the glaring exception. Teen pregnancies and convenient miscarriages are still far more common solutions. I don't give the show brownie points for showcasing abortion, since I think showing a teen pregnancy and allowing it to play out is at least as brave of an outcome, but I definitely don't think it's a cliche.

 The writers for this show have not been acquitting themselves well this year.  But even I doubt they would stoop so low as to purposefully mislead the audience.  All indications from the conversation between Drew & Amy after the car ride home and Drew showing up at his mother's door point to her ending the pregnancy.

I do think Amy went through with it. Certainly Drew believes that she went through with it. But neither Drew nor the audience saw what happened behind that door, so it wouldn't be a cheat really if it turns out that she didn't go through with it. Perhaps the most painful moment in the whole episode is that beat in the waiting room at Planned Parenthood when one of the other girls decides she can't go through with it and walks out. You can see Drew hoping so bad that Amy will follow suit. And it clearly unnerves her, but apparently doesn't sway her.

As I believe I said at some point in one of the "Parenthood" threads, the fact that we see the characters "warts and all" is something that I appreciate and think that the writers generally handle well. People on this show do stupid things, act petty, have problems, etc. For some people, these kinds of things elicit "I hate CHARACTER X!!" responses, but in real life, it's not so easy to write people off. And for me, the same goes for (mostly) well-written characters.

I agree completely. I never have a problem with a character making the wrong decision if I believe it's in keeping with their character. But there's a difference between a character falling short of what the right thing to do is, and being twisted in service of the plot. There isn't a bright, stark line between the two, except that in the former scenario what transpires feels natural and in the latter scenario you feel the writer's hand moving the chess pieces.

For some of the others who regularly visit this thread, it feels like a romance has faded and things like clipping toenails in bed or leaving dishes in the sink have just become too irritating to overlook.

I do think that once a show has turned you off and lost its luster, you nitpick at things that wouldn't have bothered you when you were still enjoying the show generally. In other words, once the show loses somebody, they're going to be a harsher judge on everything about the show going forward. That being said, I wouldn't put Matt's or Mike's or Greg's opinions on this episode into that category. They weren't sniping about the minutia or the banal things. They had a genuine, gut-level aversion to what was presented. It was a problem with the substance, not the surface. Just because a lot of us were on board with what and how the show presented this issue doesn't make their reactions wrong or somehow illegitimate (not that I'm saying you think that). As viewers, they needed something different than what the show provided. Not only did they not get what they were seeking as audience members, what they did get actively turned them off. I explained above why I reacted the way I did, why my opinion was so contrary to their's, as you have eloquently done below. That's all part of the wonderful discussion we have here. But I don't expect I'll have changed their minds or altered their feelings. And I'm 100 percent alright with that.

I think the different results you mention all could fall into the "paint by numbers" trap. I've seen comments that praise the show for presenting the male point of view because it is often overlooked. That reading rings a bit true to me. As a huge Ben Folds fan, the comparison to the song "Brick" gets my attention, but it's not like Ben was the first guy to have that experience. The beauty of the song comes from the details of the story and the artful portrayal of the emotions that make us feel the situation even if we have never been in a similar one. While not quite as transcendent, I happen to think the writers of "Parenthood" accomplished something similar, using their own particular artistic gifts.

Well put. One of the things that made the episode stand out for me is that the whole story line was told from Drew's point of view. Usually, we see things from the pregnant girl's perspective. For a lot of the episode, we don't have a handle on what's going on in Amy's mind at all. It gets to the heart of the conflict that these situations create: the fetus is his child, too, so on one hand he should have a 50 percent say in what happens to it. On other other hand, it's her uterus and her body, and she would be the one that had to carry this baby around for nine months. She'd be the one getting the stares and the comments in the hallway. While keeping the baby would have dramatically changed both of their lives, before the baby was born Amy would have been burdened with the bulk of the consequences and responsibilities. It's something I struggle with, and I liked that "Parenthood" didn't make anything about it easy.

 

[Derek Miner]

It gets to the heart of the conflict that these situations create: the fetus is his child, too, so on one hand he should have a 50 percent say in what happens to it. On other other hand, it's her uterus and her body, and she would be the one that had to carry this baby around for nine months. She'd be the one getting the stares and the comments in the hallway. While keeping the baby would have dramatically changed both of their lives, before the baby was born Amy would have been burdened with the bulk of the consequences and responsibilities. It's something I struggle with, and I liked that "Parenthood" didn't make anything about it easy.

That's one of the surprising things I find about my reaction to this show. I actually like when it makes me feel a struggle, to really question what is right. Which is why clear-cut wins (like Victor at the baseball game) and shallow "bad" guys (the Luncheonette's neighbor) make us feel cheated. But keeping that level up constantly is hard. I've seen a lot of shows never come back from it (the last season of "Buffy the Vampire Slayer"' comes to mind), but seeing how "Parenthood" and "The Office" can rebound gives me a lot of warm, fuzzy feelings about the relationship between TV shows and the audience. I think more than ever, the people behind-the-scenes understand and respect that relationship.

 

[Citizen87645]

I finally watched last week's episode. I'm not sure I understand the concerns some people have had about the message being sent about birth control. If there's proper instruction about birth control, there's also the information that it's not foolproof. Is the concern that seeing two teens get pregnant despite using birth control sends the message that you might as well not use it? That'd be like saying we shouldn't wear seat belts because people still die in car accidents despite wearing one. I'm sure some people follow that line of thinking, but I think the majority don't make that kind of leap if they have been properly educated and informed. So overall the show did not turn me off as I did some others. Even regarding Julia's misgivings about Victor. He's being a real s***, so I don't blame her for having second thoughts. I would too if I had to deal with that kind of behavior. And regardless of how the show got to that place, I think it's good they're being honest about the difficulty of the adoption / fostering scenario.

 

[David Weicker]

Well, I know I've been critical about a lot of the things that have gone on this season, but tonight … The scene with Crosby and Julia outside the restaurant - this is why I keep watching. It was a terrific scene. Best scene (for me) in many many episodes (since a few of the early cancer scenes). Yeah, there were still some clunker scenes in the episode, but every once in a while, they get it right. David

 

[mattCR]

I thought this week was fairly well done. Even though it was "hit a home run" I liked the storyline of getting back the vending machines by making them healthier foods. It solved both issues and wasn't an out-of-the-blue "homerun" that it could have been (close, but not quite). Zeke's storyline was better than I expected for one I've been mediocre on. And you're right, Julia and Crosby's moment at the restaurant, as well as the moment in the car where the debate happened seemed far more realistic and believable than the reactions last week. Frankly, if they had flipped flopped some elements from this episode into that one, I would find the narrative flow a lot more rewarding.

 

[Derek Miner]

Completely in agreement with David and Matt, the scene with Crosby and Julia outside the restaurant was phenomenal and moved me a great deal. On a side note, regarding my multi-quote post from a few days back, I wanted to apologize to Mike. In the course of the past few days, I thought my comments might have come across like I was being a TV bully. That's not what I want to be, so to Mike, or any of those who felt I was calling them out for disliking this show, I am honestly sorry if I took it too far.

 

[ScottH]

Originally Posted by mattCR
I thought this week was fairly well done. Even though it was "hit a home run" I liked the storyline of getting back the vending machines by making them healthier foods. It solved both issues and wasn't an out-of-the-blue "homerun" that it could have been (close, but not quite).

This episode was okay, but that vending machine story line was beyond ridiculous. Seeing that vending machine filled with fruit might have been the funniest moment in this show's history. And what the hell were the kids throwing? I get that it may have been a moral victory for Max (and Kristina), but did it really solve anything? Won't the kids still go to the convenience store to get their "junk food" if the vending machine doesn't offer it?
Was anyone else really distracted by Kristina's bald cap in this episode? I don't know what it was, because it didn't bother me before, but in this episode it just seemed to take over the frame...all shiny and huge. It reminded me of the old SNL Coneheads bit.

 

[Citizen87645]

I think they were throwing Skittles, Max's favorite. "Taste the rainbow" indeed. The concept of putting in healthy food in vending machines is nothing new for schools to do, so it's a little surprising that didn't occur to the PTA in the first place. Good thing they have K. Braverman!

 

[Mike Frezon]

Originally Posted by Derek Miner
Completely in agreement with David and Matt, the scene with Crosby and Julia outside the restaurant was phenomenal and moved me a great deal.
On a side note, regarding my multi-quote post from a few days back, I wanted to apologize to Mike. In the course of the past few days, I thought my comments might have come across like I was being a TV bully. That's not what I want to be, so to Mike, or any of those who felt I was calling them out for disliking this show, I am honestly sorry if I took it too far.

Derek:
Totally unnecessary...but a very nice thing to say/do.
I am highly critical of the show. But the show set a very high standard for itself in its early seasons..which it has not been meeting the last two seasons. I truly believe the reason that the gang of us in the threads about Parenthood are so passionate about the show is because of how the writers and actors got us to care deeply about the Bravermans early on. Then, when plots started becoming predictable and trite--or, sometimes off-the-rails--the show really let us down.
For example, I am surprised anyone could have enjoyed that (prolonged) surreal moment when Max was jumping up and down in slow motion with music swelling and Skittles (or Froot Loops) flying during the great "reveal" of the return of the vending machine. Even if Max were to react with such unrestrained joy at their sight (I didn't think Asperger's would allow for such a reaction)...even if the other children really did decide to shower him with multi-colored candy in a seemingly impromptu display of spirit: it was a lame use of post-production hackneyed techniques to try and achieve another of those "home run moments" this season which really cheapens the honest dramatics that made the show compelling. That scene would have been a better fit in an episode of a sitcom like Boy Meets World where realism is not as integral an ingredient in the flow of the program. IIRC, Victor ran those bases in slow motion, too.
OTOH, when Crosby went outside to check on Julia, I actually said outloud, "uh oh...that should be Joel going out to talk to her." But Crosby proved me wrong quickly by being "just what the doctor ordered" for his sister. Great classic Braverman moment and an outcome which the writers figured out could only come from someone other than Joel. It seems we are all in agreement about how the show can still get it right sometimes...

 

[Patrick Sun]

Plus, why would Skittles be considered "healthy" food? Sheesh!

 

[ScottH]

I was half expecting Kristina to pull her hat off if she didn't get her way on the vending machines and play the cancer card.

 

[ScottH]

Originally Posted by Patrick Sun
Plus, why would Skittles be considered "healthy" food? Sheesh!

Obviously, they bought the skittles at the convenience store down the road. And for much cheaper.

 

[mattCR]

This weeks episode had several moments that were wrong, but they were to me "nit-picky" wrong (like skittles). Whereas previous weeks episodes for me have had things that were -structurally- wrong, in that either the direction of the character, key steps or actors were played in a way that defeated the character they are defined as. I have been a huge advocate of this show, especially in it's first season and through most of the 2nd. But it went kind of sideways in there and since then it throws out a lot of things that too often come across like grasping at straws in storylines. I think the reason why I'm so critical of this show is because the original premise and first set was so strong.

 

[Patrick Sun]

The love triangle storyline is so awkward. It feels like it's being played out by 3rd graders.

 

[Mike Frezon]

Originally Posted by mattCR
Whereas previous weeks episodes for me have had things that were -structurally- wrong, in that either the direction of the character, key steps or actors were played in a way that defeated the character they are defined as.

Matt: I'm kinda curious as to what you thought of Max's reaction to the return of the vending machines.

 

[mattCR]

Originally Posted by Mike Frezon
Matt: I'm kinda curious as to what you thought of Max's reaction to the return of the vending machines.

Well.. about the middle of last season, when they mainstreamed him and dropped him having a para that he NEEDED in the first two seasons, I have given a pass to a lot of Max's storylines. Frankly, they aren't great. He has too many of the major issues (mood swings, potential for violent outbursts) that they have shown but they rotate back to frequently with scenes like this one that it doesn't work for me.
Do you remember Max with the Bug man? Completely focused on him to the point where he zoned out everyone else, or Max, the one who couldn't grasp social norms? Having Max cheered in this way by his peers runs counter to the way most autistic children would react. Then again, him running for class president would as well. I had thought for a while they would make it a statement about bullying, but they didn't. Max would be very excited about the return of vending machines as a win. But a good para professional would tell you it's really the wrong move. Think back to when Minka Kelly had the 'sticker' system and would tell Max he had to learn you can't get your way/etc. By throwing the vending machines back in the mix, they did one of those things that most paras will tell you to never, ever do with an autistic child. They took something that he couldn't do on his own, and they enabled him with a victory he can assess for himself. The problem with that strategy is that Max would be unlikely to stop at 'vending machines'. This is where normal kids sometimes get it and autistic children don't. Autistic children for the most part would not read the play behind the scenes of 'my mother did this for me'. Instead, it would be interpreted as: I was right, and they have capitulated to my viewpoint because I was right all along. (hell, a lot of regular kids would take that too).
Max would have little appreciation of her work on the issue and wouldn't care. The high-high he was experiencing at the candy machine would very, very quickly bottom out. You'd start to get either increasing demands or a real rise in tantrums. Because you just showed him that a serious tantrum that could have become a violent outburst will be rewarded.
His para in earlier seasons pointed out the dangers of that strategy. They just decided to forget it. But then again, they've forgotten most of the key elements of Max's storyline. Still, as an act of drama, I assume they have just decided to keep the autism moniker to trot out now and again for show to justify weird commentary or moments and use it for that, as opposed to the fairly accurate portrayal in the first season and kind of first two seasons.

 

[Mike Frezon]

It's too bad because the show was doing something really great with a more accurate portrayal of a family of a kid with Asperger's.

 

[mattCR]

Originally Posted by Mike Frezon
It's too bad because the show was doing something really great with a more accurate portrayal of a family of a kid with Asperger's.

The first season and a half was fantastic. Best I've ever seen on TV. The moment tehy lost the para professional and Max was mainstreamed, I worried about how they would handle it. And basically, they haven't. I have to say, that's where I'm most dissappointed in this but keep watching. The first season and a half of this .. fantastic. But a lot of characters have had their arcs messed with just randomly and I can't figure out any real reason why or what it means. They just do things for no real purpose. No idea on that.

 

[Mikah Cerucco]

"It's too bad because the show was doing something really great with a more accurate portrayal of a family of a kid with Asperger's." Agreed. On another note, I don't know what the vending machines looked like as I didn't pause and I don't have the episode anymore, but in the PTA meeting, the goal was *adding* healthy food to the vending machine in addition to sugary snack food like skittles. So max supposedly got his skittle machine back.