Discuss - Ep #0733

Robservations #733

When Judith entered the room,I thought she looks really as always quite beautiful.  Then not much later Laura remarks about poor plain Judith.  And that she was envious of her brother's pretty wives. Then we get the contrast of poor plain Minerva in her dark wig.  Now she can find a husband, but Judith couldn't.  That is one part of this story that I find hard to get past.
 I'm really noticing at this time that characters one should see are missing (such as the children who should be in this episode) and  the length of time between some of the characters appearances.   

Then we get the contrast of poor plain Minerva in her dark wig.

Yes!  After seeing the 1897 women mostly in pretty blues, greens and pinks in soft fabrics (save for Magda in her jewel tones-- and how appropriate is that?!), Minerva shows up in textured blacks and a hat that looks alarmingly like road kill.  The look suits her severe and cruel personality.

Speaking of personality, I'm still not getting innocent or sympathetic vibes from Rachel.  She's merely dense and annoying.

And as Rachel frets about Nora's and Jamison's future in the hands of the Trasks, we get hints (Laura:  "If I decide to go away suddenly;" and after she's asked about her dreams of seeing Nora grown and married: "No, Mrs. Trask, my dreams for my daughter are somewhat different") that their mother's plans for them are even more horrifying.

(Laura:  "If I decide to go away suddenly;" and after she's asked about her dreams of seeing Nora grown and married: "No, Mrs. Trask, my dreams for my daughter are somewhat different") that their mother's plans for them are even more horrifying.

I wonder if there is pain involved for a Phoenix when they go out in flames? Also, I wonder if the children would become Phoenixes once they take their first burning exit? Are they already Phoenixes? And if they do become Phoenixes I wonder if they would return always as children? I guess the only answer available in the context of DS is whether it is a painful exit/death or not. I don't remember if Laura screamed in pain on her way out. I guess we don't know how Laura became one in the first place either.

I'm really noticing at this time that characters one should see are missing (such as the children who should be in this episode) and  the length of time between some of the characters appearances.

remember that "five actors per episode" standard.

also,if i'm recalling this correctly,that of all the storylines 1897 seemed to have the most regular characters in rotation.
some actors played more than one character.all of the regular "present time" actors were given roles.plus david selby,terry crawford,donna mckechnie and michael stroka were given major parts.diana millay,marie wallace,jerry lacy,roger davis and humberto allen astredo were all brought back from the abyss in major parts.plus there were several supporting players like kay frye and diana davilla that were around.

other storylines were tighter with less players.1897 was a pretty vast canvas.

Laura did scream when the flames took her.  In a memorable scene with Quentin in 1897, she expressed with crystalline clarity just how painful her initial "death by fire" had been in Alexandria.

But who knows--perhaps her screams in 1967 were orgasmic.  There was this lady who used to live upstairs from me, and--

sorry, I was about to go WAY off-topic there.

cheers, G.

Laura did scream when the flames took her.  In a memorable scene with Quentin in 1897, she expressed with crystalline clarity just how painful her initial "death by fire" had been in Alexandria.

Poor dear.

Thanx!

MB grabbed these caps of Quentin and Laura in her room after she caught him searching it:

Was the set dresser asleep?! 

1897 was a pretty vast canvas.

I sat down one day a when I was first watching this season and made a list of all the characters that visually appear on screen in this storyline alone. There was something like 50 people! Then I categorized them by living or dead at the end of the story and it came out to exactly half.

Great catch by you and MB, Midnight. 

But which is funnier -- the portrait of Edward in her room or the 9,430957489574859847549 <insert the value of pi> photos of Amanda Harris in her hotel room?

<G,D,R>

Jeannie

I sat down one day a when I was first watching this season and made a list of all the characters that visually appear on screen in this storyline alone. There was something like 50 people! Then I categorized them by living or dead at the end of the story and it came out to exactly half.

Very astute observations, Arashi. Wow! I didn't realize there were so many characters in 1897! Pretty neat that 50% of the characters died by the end of the storyline. I wonder if the writers did that on purpose? 

This was the first appearance of Minerva Trask. She certainly was a pompous bitch! 

Laura's remarks to Judith, calling her a "plain handmaiden", were uncalled for. Judith was a very beautiful woman. Beauty has nothing to do with finding a husband. Minerva found a husband, and she was the dowdy one.

Quentin looked quite handsome in this episode (as usual), and I always enjoy watching him spar with the womenfolk. He's so good at that!

----- Sally -----

I'm really noticing at this time that characters one should see are missing (such as the children who should be in this episode) and the length of time between some of the characters appearances.

But the children had already been carted off to the Worthington Hall.  If Trask had picked them up, he would no doubt have nabbed Rachel at the same time, but it was Tim who collected them, so Mrs. Trask had to make the extra trip out to Collinwood for Rachel.

Yes!  After seeing the 1897 women mostly in pretty blues, greens and pinks in soft fabrics (save for Magda in her jewel tones-- and how appropriate is that?!), Minerva shows up in textured blacks and a hat that looks alarmingly like road kill.  The look suits her severe and cruel personality.

I sort of liked the textured black on the cape that Minerva was wearing.  And I thought Judith's dress was strange.  Those ruffles on the back of her sleeve look like fins.  Is it a Victorian bathing suit?

The Trask family, taken as a group, is a fine creation.  We've got the Reverend, scrounging for rich students and then abusing them when he gets them.  I suppose he figures he's covered under the good old Victorian maxim "Spare the rod and spoil the child," or maybe he saves the best quality abuse for orphans like Rachel.  Then we've got Mrs. Trask, coming to fetch Rachel so that Trask can, if he should choose to do so, resume sexually abusing her.  There's something very weird in that.  Minerva abuses Rachel herself - emotionally, anyway, not sexually, so far as we know, but golly, who can say for sure? - so maybe she figures the fun (of whatever sort) that she gets out of Rachel is worth the fun (of whatever sort) that the Reverend gets out of Rachel.  Minerva says that Simon Brier was the best man in the world - or something of the sort.  So Simon was better than the good, custard-loving Reverend?  A side question: among the actors who have left the show by now - Mitchell Ryan, Joel Crothers, and all the rest - whom would you choose to play Simon Brier?  And then (returning to the nuclear Trask family) we've got Charity, engaged to be married to Tim Shaw.  For heaven's sake, couldn't the Trasks find her a more eligible suitor among the families of their richer students?  Or is it more important to keep Charity at the school for fun (of whatever sort)?

And I thought Judith's dress was strange.  Those ruffles on the back of her sleeve look like fins.  Is it a Victorian bathing suit?

LMAO!  Sounds like typical Victorian overdecorated oogly to me.

The Trask family, taken as a group, is a fine creation.  We've got the Reverend, scrounging for rich students and then abusing them when he gets them.  I suppose he figures he's covered under the good old Victorian maxim "Spare the rod and spoil the child," or maybe he saves the best quality abuse for orphans like Rachel. 

Probably a little of both.  He has the excuse you mentioned with the wealthier kids, and with the others, they might well be sent there in the good old Bronte/Dickens tradition of unloading them in a school but not caring what actually happened to them there.  I'm thinking in terms of the ubiquitous Jane Eyre and any number of Dickens boarding schools. The self righteous well off relations sending the poor child to a school, congratulating themselves all the while on their christian charity, meanwhile not caring enough to check out the schools to see what conditions really were.  Something just went sproing in my head, and I'm thinking I remember that the school in Jane Eyre and the death of Jane's schoolmate, were based on something that really happened to one of the Bronte girls when sent away to school  -- or maybe it was a connection to a real life scandal with schools of the time (1840s).

And then (returning to the nuclear Trask family) we've got Charity, engaged to be married to Tim Shaw.  For heaven's sake, couldn't the Trasks find her a more eligible suitor among the families of their richer students?  Or is it more important to keep Charity at the school for fun (of whatever sort)?

You would certainly think they'd have set their sights higher for their only daughter, wouldn't you?  I'd say especially because of the way Charity looks over Collinwood like she's pricing the furnishings.  It would seem that she's been groomed to aspire to money.  And later, there's [spoiler]the way her father throws her at Quentin's head, as if to consolidate his hold on the Collins money.[/spoiler]


Jeannie

Poor Rachel. First Trask, now Minerva, is threatening her to come back to the school or face the consequences. I really wish Rachel had some backbone and stand up for herself, but she's too scared, and I guess one can't really fault her for that or for wanting to run.

Minerva WAS a bitch to poor Rachel, even so far as threatening to have her hanged if she didn't come back! That was just plain nasty! Even her hubby hadn't gone that far when he was trying to coerce Rachel into coming back. I almost feel that [spoiler] Minerva got what she deserved when Trask and Evan Hanley arranged to have her murdered...except that they used an innocent man, Tim Shaw to achieve it. [/spoiler]

Tim Shaw does seem like an odd choice for them to choose for a husband for Charity. Maybe both Trasks just wanted to keep their tighthold on him even further.