DARK SHADOWS FORUMS

General Discussions => Current Talk Archive => Current Talk '26 I => Current Talk '07 II => Topic started by: Watching Project on November 22, 2007, 05:30:48 PM

Title: Discuss - Ep #0434
Post by: Watching Project on November 22, 2007, 05:30:48 PM
Robservations #434
Title: Re: Discuss - Ep #0434
Post by: Lydia on November 23, 2007, 08:07:50 AM
Nathan Forbes is an admirable liar.  Most of the time on Dark Shadows, when somebody lies, he or she makes it obvious.  But during his conversation with Peter Bradford, Nathan stuck to his colors as if they were the true ones.

The scuffle between Nathan and Peter wasn't very well-executed.  Nathan seemed to be winning, even when he was on the floor.  I think we were supposed to leave the scene with the impression that Peter was a better man than Nathan because he beat Nathan in a fight, which somehow relates to Joshua's belief that Nathan couldn't have killed Suki because he didn't have the guts. It just doesn't come across that way to me.  Joel Crothers's Nathan seems to me to be capable of doing whatever he has to do to save his skin and get ahead in the world.

When Nathan was thinking to himself in the beginning, he said that now was the time to be thinking of himself.  I wondered: is it ever the time to be thinking solely of oneself?  Of course, when Vicky thought of others and told them to beware lest they come to the deaths foretold for them in the Collins Family History, she seemed like an absolute idiot.  But I still think there had to be a way for her to try to help people without practically begging to be executed as a witch.  Even if there wasn't, I would rather be a fool than a knave, so I would rather be Vicky than Nathan.
Title: Re: Discuss - Ep #0434
Post by: MagnusTrask on November 23, 2007, 03:29:54 PM
Quote
I think we were supposed to leave the scene with the impression that Peter was a better man than Nathan because he beat Nathan in a fight, which somehow relates to Joshua's belief that Nathan couldn't have killed Suki because he didn't have the guts.

That's a realistic way to portray people's beliefs then, maybe, since I think that attitude was still prevalent when I was a kid.    As for PB v. NF, the writers were showing their own prejudice, there.    You're reminding me now of my father by bringing this up, and now I'll have to shake that out of my head.    I'm sure a lot of damage throughout history has been caused by people assuming that whoever "wins" becomes "right", no matter what the means.     That's not really the same thing as what you brought up, but they overlap.

Quote
When Nathan was thinking to himself in the beginning, he said that now was the time to be thinking of himself.  I wondered: is it ever the time to be thinking solely of oneself?

Interesting.  Maybe not.    In crises, sometimes, though, there's only so much you may know how to deal with, possibly.
Title: Re: Discuss - Ep #0434
Post by: EmeraldRose on December 03, 2007, 08:42:00 AM
Blooper alert! [santa_wink] I noticed Naomi talk to Joshua about Peter Brandon instead of Bradford! [santa_shocked]

I also loved it when Naomi stormed out at the end of the episode and announced to Joshua that she would testify for Vicki, against his wishes! I was cheering for her! [cheer]

It's a bit confusing how Trask said he didn't know physical love, but he obviously had at least one child. [santa_cheesy] I think his son was alive during the 1795 storyline, too, and old enough to remember how he died.  [santa_rolleyes]

----- Sally -----
[santa_cool] [hippy2]

Title: Re: Discuss - Ep #0434
Post by: Lydia on December 03, 2007, 09:18:11 AM
It's a bit confusing how Trask said he didn't know physical love, but he obviously had at least one child. [santa_cheesy] I think his son was alive during the 1795 storyline, too, and old enough to remember how he died.  [santa_rolleyes]

It's a difficult problem.  It may be that Trask never exactly connected the dots, and that if somebody ever sat down and explained to him about physical love, he would say, "Oh, is that what you mean by physical love?  My father told me that it was a re-enactment of putting the devil in Hell!"  Or else Lamar was (little though he knew it) in fact the son of Reverend Trask's identical twin brother Shmeverend, whom Reverend adopted when Shmeverend heroically died fighting the forces of evil in the Whiskey Rebellion.  Or else Trask was just lying.
Title: Re: Discuss - Ep #0434
Post by: Sunny_Collins on December 14, 2007, 04:06:43 PM
Naomi says it isn't like Joshua to stay home so long from the yards, and he says something to the effect that, anything I do is like me. Excellent line!

Later in the episode, Joshua comes home and announces he doesn't want to be interrupted, and Naomi says she'll see to it he isn't. Then uncertainly she says that she isn't sure if she is considered to be an interruption. That made me so sad for her. He could really make her miserable.  [santa_sad]
Title: Re: Discuss - Ep #0434
Post by: MagnusTrask on January 04, 2008, 10:27:34 PM
Josh: "Everything I do is like me!"   Funny, though Joshua probably didn't know it.

I think Lamar said something about not having known his father.   
Title: Re: Discuss - Ep #0434
Post by: Roland on March 01, 2008, 04:28:05 AM
Great, beautifully executed scene between Trask and Joshua and then Joshua and Nathan.  Tremendous acting from all concerned!