Also, once Barnabas is released from his coffin in 1897, he retains his memories of 1967-68. This suggests he goes from 1796 to 1967, then from 1968/9 to 1897. Barnabas is simply jumping around in time rather than experiencing it in the traditional fashion the rest of us do. Thus, Barnabas was part of the events in 1897 all along, and what we're seeing now is the "original" 1897 time line.

Interesting theory Dr. Lang, and I pretty much buy it, but am confused about one aspect.  Wouldn't the 1897 timeline we see on the show be a parallel version of 1897?  I mean, if Barnabas was chained in his coffin in 1796, not released until 1967, then later travels back in time to 1897, wouldn't there have been an 'original' 1897 during which Barney was never released from the coffin and Quentin died?

The 'girlie run' gave me a case of the sillies too.  And Magda and Sandor get my vote for the least dysfunctional couple in the 1897 storyline - sure she wears the pants, and they give each other grief, but they genuinely seem to care about each other!  

Glad to see your column back in action, Luciaphil!  

Speaking to your fashion notes - I too was struck by the fact that the family didn't wear mourning for very long after the death of Grandmamamama.  What up with that?

Yeah, he is a really chilling character.  Almost reminds me of a priest character from a Canadian movie I saw 7 or 8 years back called "The Boys of St. Vincent's." It's a good, but not enjoyable film. Trask is just vile and so slimy, but he really works for me as a character and I do enjoy watching him, though I hate him and everything he stands for.

In retrospect, perhaps the late '60s were a more innocent time, and maybe the smarmy innuendo of Gregory Trask's less savory side passed over the heads of middle America.  Priests/ministers were no doubt seen as more trustworthy in general back then. But there is also a long history of individuals who abused the trust ascribed to these positions, going back hundreds of years.  I mean, Lucretia Borgia's father was the POPE, for Chrissakes! And he encouraged her brother to kill at least one of her husbands. In my own personal life, I remember that around the same time these episodes originally aired (late 60's), my parents quit going to the church they were then attending when the minister ran off with somebody else's wife and a whole lot of other people's money!

Don't get me wrong, I think that there are/were wonderful people in the ministry then and now. It just seems a larger than life story when someone (like Trask) who is supposed to be a paragon of virtue has feet of clay.  And the character seems all the worse because you can't laugh at him, it's someone you actually could run into in real life, unlike the vampire or the wolfman. Human monsters are both sad and scary.

For me the Trask characters function as a foil to the more conventional 'monsters.'  Barnabas and Quentin, though they start out as the heavies, eventually become (for some of us at least) the leading men, the anti-heros of the story if you will. Trask is an interesting counterpoint to this - illustrating that sometimes the real evil doesn't come from the supernatural. Sometimes it comes from a place much more banal and closer to what we consider 'reality.' Trask, though fully human, becomes the true villain. Current shows like 'Buffy the Vampire Slayer' and 'Angel' have shown us characters like this recently.  

I think a character like Trask might be even more apropos today, when we are forced (sometime unwillingly) to acknowledge that such archetypal paternalistic authority figures such as priests, ministers, rabbis, imams, etc. aren't always deserving of trust. A 2002 model Trask might even be seen as a cliche.

That's my two cents anyway!  

I think Grayson's TONGUE is the most amazing thing about this scene.

Okay Gothick, now you've piqued my curiousity! Exactly WHAT does Grayson Hall do with her tongue in this movie?

Have to admit that Rachel and PT Maggie aren't my favorite characters, either. But I think that KLS is a terrific actress hampered by characters that are written as victims.

It just occurred to me while watching yesterday's eps that KLS offers us a glimpse into some of Rachel Drummond's inner life.  Things that she said and her body language communicate that Rachel is insecure and has low self esteem.  When trouble approaches, her instinct is to run away from it.  She isn't strong and she's been hurt a lot by life.  Playing Rachel, KLS displays no confidence in herself and seems cowed - she doesn't hold her head high, and mostly avoids eye contact. She's quite a different woman to Lady Kitty Hampshire (who is one of KLS's more interesting characters).

As for her appeal to men, if you look like KLS and appear helpless, you've got them eating out of your hand (which Lady Kitty knew). The last thing most Victorian men wanted was too much of a challenge. I used to think that even men today were like that, until I met my husband.

So no, kyuanyin, you aren't the only one with such feelings, and I'm sure you ain't chopped liver, either!

Edith is definitely Joan Bennett's best role on the show - though Naomi comes in a close second, IMHO.  While she never becomes a villainess per se, she definitely does get to dish her share of dirt - though when it comes, have to say it's highly deserved.

During the character's absence from this storyline, I really miss her.  Edith's pretty damned fascinating - she had a ton of backbone, and was crazybright! You could always see those inner wheels turning 'round.