|
|
This topic has been archived - replies are not allowed.
An attractive young anesthesiologist who?s been Paul?s patient for a year, Laura is in the midst of a relationship crisis and faces an ultimatum ? either break up with her boyfriend, Andrew, or marry him. But that dilemma seems simple in comparison to the revelations she unleashes on Paul during their sessions.
|
Posts:
384
Registered:
7/21/03
|
|
(906 of 906)
Re: A NEW HBO DOCUMENTARY SERIES
Apr 30, 2008 6:34 PM
|
> Hey Nightwind,
Hey jonnie - man - I've missed you! Sorry I didn't see this message until now!
>
> I've always been curious about your name. Is that a
> reference to something?
Nightwind is one of those writerly names I made up for one of my video game characters. Her name was Varian Nightwind, and she was a Nightblade - an assassin. Scary huh? An old broad like me likes to think of things other than knitting and stuff like that. LOL (j/k) I hate knitting - much prefer crocheting. Anyway, I have many interests - video games is just one of them. I'd like to try my hand at archery next. I'm looking into it.
>
> Yes, Entourage is not exactly a chick flick. What I
> love about it is that many of the characters are
> similar to the fellas I grew up with. Unfortunately,
> we've all been scattered to the 4 winds.
>
That's kinda sad, but having moved every 3-4 years as a kid, I've gone through the same thing. I hope you all try to keep in touch with one another. I enjoyed the shows that I saw of Entourage, I just didn't stick with it. Not for any particular reason, - glad you liked it so much!
> You're the only chick I know who plays video games.
> Even I don't watch video games. Nightwind is
> s kicking ass, taking names.
LOL You betcha!
>
> Did they green light a season 2 for IT? And how did
> it do in the ratings? I'm not aware if it was a
> success in terms of marketability and ratings. Of
> course, in terms of quality it was a home run in my
> book. This is the only show that has really
> compelled me to write about.
>
I think it's safe to say there's going to be a season 2 of IT. Not sure how it's done in the Neilsons, but I've read some positive reviews and negative ones. For me too, this is the only show I felt compelled to participate in and I'm glad you did - I've really enjoyed your posts! You remind me of when I was 20 something - when I really was kicking ass and taking names. 
> I think that even if HBO green lights another season
> I'm not sure if they'll be able to repeat the same
> quality. All the talent, money, and expertise in the
> world can't make a good show without that certain
> elusive movie magic. A-Rod doesn't hit a home run
> every time he steps to the plate and I think it may
> be unrealistic to expect the same from HBO,
> notwithstanding their superlative track record and
> talent. Even so, I'd definitely love to see them try
> even if they don't closely approximate the quality of
> last year.
>
Don't you find that's true with a lot of series though? Was Entourage like that or were they able to raise the bar with Entourage - I'm reminded too that particular show has had a lot of success, so I imagine the bar has been raised. I'm hopeful that HBO will be able to breathe fresh life into Paul Weston - poor guy's headed for a crisis, I'd like to see him through that only b/c I think GB does an excellent job at portraying him. I think he actually became Paul Weston in a couple of sessions. (If you know what I mean).
> When I first learned of the unique show concept I
> viewed it with a jaundiced eye. For this reason, it
> took a few weeks or so to really take to it.
You know - I'm curious - when I don't like a show or if it doesn't 'wow' me right off, I don't usually come back to it - but what made you stick with it? You obviously have varied interests too b/c this show is a far cry from Entourage. Both are great - but very different. I enjoy'd ITs format and I'm a tough viewer b/c I don't commit myself very often to series. I have the attention span of a gnat so whatever takes my interest has to really wow me or I'm outta the game! I also enjoyed the actors cast in IT - there was quite a range, as well as a range in storytelling - that's what really drew my attention was the writing.
>
> I was also curious about your thoughts on whether
> Michele Forbes will return next season (if there is
> one) as a wife or an ex-wife. My money's on the
> latter. The over/under is 2 episodes.
>
Interesting question - I think Michelle Forbes will probably return, but I think that marriage has run its course. She's been an adulterer in the physical sense, Paul's been emotionally detached and has been an emotional adulterer (if there is such a thing - then I'm guilty of that as well). But I don't see her character really growing without breaking away from Paul. That's what I'm hoping for in a 2nd season. When you divorce - unless the end of your marriage was absolutely obnoxious - you still see the other person for a while at the tail end. Especially if there are kids involved. So, even if they are done as a couple, we'll still see Michelle on occasion.
> --
> LET'S HUG IT OUT BITCH!
Gawd how I've missed your signature line! Glad you popped back in to say "hi" - hope you return if there's a 2nd season! Don't be a stranger! 
--
Nightwind
"You know, I'm just taking it one day at a time. And the good Lord willing, I will continue to live up to the uncompromising standards which Johnnie Drama has set for me. Yes, it's true, I'm a slave to excellence." jonniedrama
|
|
|
Posts:
221
Registered:
3/3/08
|
|
(905 of 906)
Apr 30, 2008 4:35 PM
|
Deleted
--
Edited by sciwriter at 04/30/2008 2:42 PM PDT
|
|
|
Posts:
221
Registered:
3/3/08
|
|
(904 of 906)
Apr 30, 2008 4:35 PM
|
Deleted duplicate post
\
--
Edited by sciwriter at 04/30/2008 1:37 PM PDT
|
|
|
Posts:
85
Registered:
3/2/08
|
|
(903 of 906)
Re: A NEW HBO DOCUMENTARY SERIES
Apr 19, 2008 4:12 PM
|
Hey Nightwind,
I've always been curious about your name. Is that a reference to something?
Yes, Entourage is not exactly a chick flick. What I love about it is that many of the characters are similar to the fellas I grew up with. Unfortunately, we've all been scattered to the 4 winds.
You're the only chick I know who plays video games. Even I don't watch video games. Nightwind is kicking ass, taking names.
Did they green light a season 2 for IT? And how did it do in the ratings? I'm not aware if it was a success in terms of marketability and ratings. Of course, in terms of quality it was a home run in my book. This is the only show that has really compelled me to write about.
I think that even if HBO green lights another season I'm not sure if they'll be able to repeat the same quality. All the talent, money, and expertise in the world can't make a good show without that certain elusive movie magic. A-Rod doesn't hit a home run every time he steps to the plate and I think it may be unrealistic to expect the same from HBO, notwithstanding their superlative track record and talent. Even so, I'd definitely love to see them try even if they don't closely approximate the quality of last year.
When I first learned of the unique show concept I viewed it with a jaundiced eye. For this reason, it took a few weeks or so to really take to it.
I was also curious about your thoughts on whether Michele Forbes will return next season (if there is one) as a wife or an ex-wife. My money's on the latter. The over/under is 2 episodes.
--
LET'S HUG IT OUT BITCH!
|
|
|
Posts:
318
Registered:
2/26/08
|
|
(902 of 906)
Apr 2, 2008 7:50 PM
|
> it was interesting to me, and awkward to watch, that
> Laura had moved on from the dr-patient relationship
> and that was why she interupted him several times and
> even told Paul that he doesn't get to tell her what
> she's thinking anymore (hmm, didn't Gina also stop
> him from doing that?) anyway, She had moved beyond
> that role but he hadn't and I believe that he
> couldn't move onto a meaningful relationship with her
> because the affair was not about their relationship
> but about the intimate dynamic that occurs in
> therapy, the counter transference was his. That was
> why he was left so bereft at Gina's afterward. It
> kinda look like he had slammed into a brick wall
> emotionally.
Very incisive, karmafo222! Bereft indeed.
I know next to nothing about countertransference (CT), or psychanalytic theory about CT. I have surmises based on what I'm familiar with about transference, and the very term countertransference, and I suppose now from what you and some others have posted in these forums (not that I've managed to reach most of what's been posted).
I wholeheartedly agree as Michael and others have posted that Paul is a fantasist, and pathetic at much interaction we see beyond patients in his office.
I surmise that CT, like transference, entails idealization that can occur because the therapeutic setting is charged, intense, yet limited.
I don't see Paul's debacle trying to interact with Laura at her place and consummate their relationship as resulting from his holding an idealized view of Laura per se. More like, as you say (and consistent, I believe, with what some others and Gina have said) that Paul has profound trouble relating to most anyone appropriately, passionately, outside the bounds of the patient-therapist relationship. Is this CT, strictly (or not so strictly) speaking? I don't know.
Consider too, for example, Laura's insightful response to Paul at Alex's funeral that maybe it's easier for him to help other people deal with their grief than to grapple with his own. I regard this as of a piece with your incisive take on the debacle at Laura's place and with his marital rupture. I don't know that it's counter-transference, though.
Has Gina or Paul mentioned CT?
|
|
|
Posts:
177
Registered:
1/31/08
|
|
(901 of 906)
Apr 2, 2008 2:44 PM
|
|
Yes, I agree, the "homewrecker" spouse or partner is the one responsible. The only caveat I see, however, is that since the 60's, women have been talking about equal rights, not becoming "slaves" to the usual expectations of others, and generally speaking on the commonalities of women who therefore stick together under the description "feminism." So, IMO, when a woman goes after another woman's man, she is intentionally hurting her "sister", as we came to describe each other. I never understood this glaring irony. Maybe if women decided not to hurt other women, we would all be better off. After all, we would take the power away from the men in this instance, wouldn't we?
|
|
|
Posts:
30
Registered:
3/10/08
|
|
(900 of 906)
Apr 2, 2008 2:16 PM
|
> > When Paul was in Laura's apartment and they
> were
> > talking about their relationship, she blocked
> him
> > when he started to repeat THAT pattern -
> explaining
> > to Laura what she was thinking and why. A
> pattern
> > which is also no longer working with Kate.
>
> I realize Laura reacted this way. But what does Paul
> say that's intended to explain Laura to Laura, except
> once when she asks how his opinion has changed? To
> me, Paul was apologizing, trying to express empathy.
> What did Paul say to Laura at her place that was
> s objectional?
>
> I don't blame Laura for saying, Let's not talk.
> Let's see what happens if we don't talk. But not
> t because Paul was being overbearing at her place.
> Rather, because of what you go on to say; because
> e Laura has had enough of Paul's hemming and hawwing
> -- driving them both crazy as he later says to Gina.
>
>
> > in the last to
> > episodes in which Laura and Paul are together,
> he
> > continually makes reference to his marriage, to
> his
> > home. He talks at length about his parents'
> break up,
> > and how he doesn't want to be like his father.
> He
> > asks Laura if she is upset that he hasn't "left
> > home", he describes visiting the art exhibit,
> and
> > how crowded it was, but "we" went through it
> anyway.
> >
> > Every time he talks about his current
> situation,
> > Laura seems to flinch. When he asks if she is
> upset
> > that he hasn't left home, she says, somewhat
> > bitterly, that he shouldn't leave home on her
> > account. You can see it becoming very clear to
> her
> > what this relationship would be about. And she
> is
> > not happy about it.
>
> Right! She doesn't want to be a "home"-wrecker. And
> if Paul wasn't prepared to be with Laura, happily,
> without guilt and baggage, then she doesn't want
> that. She wants it "to last."
>
> As Laura says, she isn't "over" Paul. That's
> not the problem. She hasn't recoiled because he's
> expressed feelings for her. She would want
> Paul if he could be with her passionately, happily,
> without being tortured, terrified of being "swallowed
> up." Sadly, she correctly guesses he's not. Doesn't
> believe him: "Sorry". Puts him to the test, giving
> him a last chance. He fails.
babeeblues- just had an insight regarding this post, it was interesting to me, and awkward to watch, that Laura had moved on from the dr-patient relationship and that was why she interupted him several times and even told Paul that he doesn't get to tell her what she's thinking anymore (hmm, didn't Gina also stop him from doing that?) anyway, She had moved beyond that role but he hadn't and I believe that he couldn't move onto a meaningful relationship with her because the affair was not about their relationship but about the intimate dynamic that occurs in therapy, the counter transference was his. That was why he was left so bereft at Gina's afterward. It kinda look like he had slammed into a brick wall emotionally.
|
|
|
Posts:
1,562
Registered:
1/30/08
|
|
(899 of 906)
Apr 2, 2008 1:57 PM
|
> I just think calling women like
> Laura "home wreckers" lets the husband off the hook
> too easily. The spouse who has the affair is the
> "home wrecker".
Ok, OK - they're ALL homewreckers...
Off with their heads, the lot of them....
|
|
|
Posts:
151
Registered:
8/30/07
|
|
(898 of 906)
Apr 2, 2008 12:30 PM
|
> > . . . no home is wrecked from the outside - only
> the spouses can wreck a marriage. . . .
>
> Bravo circe326! Well put!
>
> 1974, What is "over-sexed"?
I second that. It is Paul who allowed "the wreck" into his home. Paul is in the wrong because he crossed a line, professionally. Remember when he was so careful with Sophie in not crossing any inappropriate lines with her, he knew she had been let down by adults who were supposed to protect her so he made sure she was "safe." Paul should have done the same with Laura. He knew this woman had serious issues yet crossed the line because of his neediness.
In the end he redeemed himself by not getting into her bed and he was lucky Laura woke up and moved on.
|
|
|
Posts:
318
Registered:
2/26/08
|
|
(897 of 906)
Apr 2, 2008 4:32 AM
|
> . . . no home is wrecked from the outside - only the spouses can wreck a marriage. . . .
Bravo circe326! Well put!
1974, What is "over-sexed"?
|
|
|
Posts:
7
Registered:
3/14/08
|
|
(896 of 906)
Apr 1, 2008 10:13 PM
|
|
I think the term "home wrecker" applied to someone like Laura is a red herring. As seductive as someone like Laura may be, no home is wrecked from the outside - only the spouses can wreck a marriage. If the marriage is good, a man does not answer the siren's call. But it's often just easier for the wife to blame the "other woman" rather than acknowledge the poor state of the marriage and the husband's culpability. Isn't the husband more responsible for maintaining or wrecking a marriage than the other woman? The other woman isn't even in the marriage - she didn't take vows to his wife - he did! I'm not saying it's good or even neutral to enter an affair with a married man. I just think calling women like Laura "home wreckers" lets the husband off the hook too easily. The spouse who has the affair is the "home wrecker".
|
|
|
Posts:
14
Registered:
3/31/08
|
|
(895 of 906)
Apr 1, 2008 9:49 PM
|
|
I wanna see Laura put the moves on Gina!
|
|
|
Posts:
1,562
Registered:
1/30/08
|
|
(894 of 906)
Apr 1, 2008 9:01 PM
|
> > > BTW, did anybody notice the seductive way
> Laura
> > hung
> > > all over her door after she opened it for
> Paul?
> > I
> > > mean, it gave me the gags, Give it a Rest
> for
> > > Chrissake, Laura. Somebody get this broad
> a
> > pole --
> >
> >
>
> this among many other mixed messages sent by this
> woman is why i think she could benefit greatly from
> sessions with gina. it would be fun to see how she
> might have handled laura and how laura might have
> been different (as in perhaps not describing her sex
> acts in great detail, for one thing).
Yeah, couldn't you just see Gina -
"Laura, don't analyze, don't describe, don't say anything...just shut up and listen, you over-sexed blah, blah, blah"...
Hey, Katie - here's an In N Out plot line for ya....
|
|
|
Posts:
143
Registered:
5/22/05
|
|
(893 of 906)
Apr 1, 2008 8:55 PM
|
> > BTW, did anybody notice the seductive way Laura
> hung
> > all over her door after she opened it for Paul?
> I
> > mean, it gave me the gags, Give it a Rest for
> > Chrissake, Laura. Somebody get this broad a
> pole --
>
>
this among many other mixed messages sent by this woman is why i think she could benefit greatly from sessions with gina. it would be fun to see how she might have handled laura and how laura might have been different (as in perhaps not describing her sex acts in great detail, for one thing).
|
|
|
Posts:
1,562
Registered:
1/30/08
|
|
(892 of 906)
Apr 1, 2008 8:47 PM
|
> BTW, did anybody notice the seductive way Laura hung
> all over her door after she opened it for Paul? I
> mean, it gave me the gags, Give it a Rest for
> Chrissake, Laura. Somebody get this broad a pole --
|
|
|
|
|
