Six Feet Under Season 5 (1 Viewer)

[Ted Lee]

interesting bill. i didn't get that at all. he doesn't know a thing about maggie. why would he think she's more stable?

i definitely agree there is some sort of attraction between the two, but that's about it (for now...)

 

[todd stone]

I think Bill meant that Maggie has shown instantly her care and strong will to help her father, where Brenda has known to flake at the drop of a hat.

If I am wrong Bill, I am sorry

 

[GuruAskew]

There are many reasons. The biggest evidence of what I'm saying is when the corpse of the week in "Eat A Peach" told Nate that he wanted a mommy for Maya. As anyone who watches the show knows, the dead aren't speaking to the characters in a "Sixth Sense" way (although one could argue that the ghost of Gabe Dimas was really speaking to Clair when he told her he was dead, although there's been no other mention of him being dead) but they're merely "acting out" the thoughts of the living character in question. Compare Maggie's attitude about the loss of her child to when Brenda lost the baby she was carrying. She's been unpredictable and even manipulative in regards to her pregnancy whereas Maggie's mourning is more in line with what Nate has suffered with the loss he's experienced over the course of the show. As Todd points out, Maggie is also very nurturing and responsible in all matters regarding her father. Mark my words, Nate will end up with her.

 

[Robert Ringwald]

It's interesting to see so many people bash Claire.

She's 21. She's making mistakes. Remember David in season 1? Or Nate before the series began? They have all gone through this period of "finding" themselves. Claire's problem is that she's the only character we've seen consistantly fall back into old habits instead of always dealing with new ones.

I feel a little sorry for her. Looking at her development over the past 5 years the first season held a consistant theme that Claire needed to feel important. She felt like she didn't matter, so she falls for Gabe, someone she thinks needs her. When she starts to realize that there's more to life... and that she needs to be for herself too she dropped him. She tries again with Russell and we see her getting back on track... then he cheats on her.

The only time I really disliked her choices was when she treated Edie the way she did in season 4. Talk about using someone. Not to mention everyone else in the final episodes she used. I really thought the finale would send her in a different direction. Unfortunately, if anything, she's more selfish. She seems to think "The world fucked me over... I'm going to be a bitch."

We might not all like Claire, but I certainly enjoy seeing where her storylines go.

 

[John_Lee]

I've loved the understated storyline that the only thing of 'art' she's been connected with and received acclaim was actually created by her then boyfriend.
And thus far, her only 'inspiration' this season has been a half-formed riff on said boyfriend's idea.

 

[Robert Ringwald]

Exactly. I thought she was incredibly shallow in how she took that one idea (that wasn't necessarily hers...) and dragged it out to the extreme. Even in the premiere..."I still have more ideas for the collage series..." she really needs some actual creative insight. She seems to have gone from someone with a unique voice to someone who lets herself be shaped by whatever important person enters into her life.

 

[Steve Tannehill]

Did anyone notice that this week's episode featured a brief appearance by Cynthia Stevenson of Showtime's now defunct Dead Like Me? Gotta keep those Dead shows together.

- Steve

 

[Jason Walstrom]

I think it's funny that Claire repeatedly expresses her feelings of Lonliness, hopelessness, lack of inspiration and fear of joining the boring workforce and she doesn't see right there that is great stuff to express herself through art.

 

[ScottH]

Possibly, but he would eventually be miserable in that relationship as well, just like all of his other relationships.

 

[todd stone]

notice the date change at the opening death scene? went from 2003 to 2005

 

[Dax P]

Haven't they all been 2005 this year? I thought so...

I am bothered by a math discrepancy. Nate told Billy he met Fiona when he was 15, and she was 32. 17 year age difference. With me so far? Now, Nate just turned 40. Fiona was born in 1952 (title card, and placard outside her service), so she was 53 when she died... but shouldn't she have been 57, if she's 17 years older than Nate?

 

[todd stone]

daxL what I mean is, at the begginng of the episode it showed the persons death as 2003, then a small beep sound occured and the 3 switched to a 5

 

[Michael Reuben]

According to the obit at HBO's website, she was born in 1948. I'll have to rewatch the episode.

M.

 

[Patrick Sun]

They totally screwed up the timeline for Nate and Fiona's hook-up, or Fiona was lying about her age, though why would Fiona want to represent herself as being 4 years older at the time of Nate's deflowering (saying she was 32 when she was really 28), that's a mystery.

Too bad "Dead Like Me" was on Showtime, because I was so hoping Claire wound up working at Happy Time. Loved her "You ride up my thighs" performance.

I finally caught up to episode 6, haven't gotten to this week's episode yet. Brenda seems slightly off being in such a normal working environment nowadays. Billy's kind of pathetic (having his mother set up a last-ditch effort to get back with Claire). Ruth and George's arc got better. Nate is so playing with fire with Maggie. Keith and David's child-rearing skills will test their own relationship, the older foster kid was crushed by what Keith said in front of the social worker. Rico has been all over the map, how will Vanessa try to gain the upper hand as Rico moves back in?

 

[Dax P]

>> showed the persons death as 2003, then a small beep sound occured and the 3 switched to a 5

Oh. I didn't notice. Weird. Wonder why. Did that quick scene where Nate gave us the exposition that Maggie knew them mention that the guy had a close call a couple years ago, maybe...

>> According to the obit at HBO's website, she was born in 1948. I'll have to rewatch the episode.

That would make things work out right. Episode twice showed 1952, but that doesn't work...

 

[Robert Ringwald]

I always took this as Claire's way of getting closure. She figured he was so hopeless in his life that death was probably the only way he'd have some kind of peace. I always thought it was a smart move to keep this ambiguous to the viewer. To have Gabe show up in the future kind of spoils it. As far as she knows... he probably is dead.

Nate was 35 according to the pilot (my friend and I just started season 1 a week ago and are already up through the season 2 finale). It's funny them messing up Fiona's age, considering how eerily good they are with consistancy (All season they've been referencing past episodes on a pretty good basis, accurately)

For those who don't expect the series to wrap up, remember that with a show like this a lot can change in just one episode. Look at movies for a reference. You can have a set up and a great middle, and a satisfying conclusion in as short as 80 minutes sometimes.

 

[Patrick_S]

I Tivo the East Coast showing of SFU and that did not happen on that showing.

About the episode, how pathetic is Ruth? She wanted to leave George and once he moved on she can't deal with it so she sets out to riun the relationship.

 

[Michael Reuben]

I didn't see it that way at all. Ruth feels that she was swindled by George's whirlwind courtship. He swept her off her feet, and before she could stand up, she found herself lumbered with someone who not only wasn't much of a husband but needed constant care.

When she discovers that George is about to do the same thing to some other woman, she can't stand by and let history repeat itself. She's realized now that she should have learned a lot more about him before marrying. All those previous wives were a big red flag.

Do you think George's latest mark would be better off marrying him without knowing his history? George sure as hell wasn't going to tell her, just like he didn't tell Ruth.

M.

 

[ScottH]

Michael, I agree with your assessment...I will say, however, that I always felt Ruth was overreacting towards George's condition. While he did need to be watched over a lot of the time, I always felt Ruth overplayed that card either for sympathy or perhaps she just wanted the drama. I seem to remember a scene with Maggie where Ruth was complaining to her and Maggie was thinking it wasn't as bad as she made it out to be. And whenever George would have a blowup, Ruth was always quick to point out, "See what I have to deal with!"

 

[Michael Reuben]

I certainly agree that her reacton was extreme and often unpleasant. Whether it was too much depends on one's point of view. If you trace Ruth's path since the beginning of the series, it makes perfect sense. When we met her, she was a woman who had subjugated her life to her family and found little happiness in the experience. That's why she looked for solace in the long-running affair with Hiram, over which she felt such guilt when Nate Sr. died. It was the only part of her life where she wasn't self-sacrificing.

Over the course of the series, Ruth has tried numerous paths to find something that's just for her (self-help programs, work outside the Fisher family, various affairs). In fact, I think the reason she and Clair fight so often is that, despite the age difference, they're at roughly the same stage of self-exploration, Ruth's having been put on hold when she first married.

The marriage to George was supposed to be the start of a different kind of life, but suddenly Ruth was thrust back into the role she had occupied for thirty-odd years: selfless caregiver who no one else takes care of. It must have felt like being clapped back in prison, just after being released. The fury of Ruth's reaction may not have been nice or admirable, but it's understandable.

Of course, it helps to have a great actress like Frances Conroy, who can play the character with such raw immediacy (not to mention an utter lack of vanity).

M.