okay...what in god's name was Susan wearing when she was trying to seduce Mike? lampshade perhaps?
and why did Gabrielle burn the passport? anyone?
Yeah, Susan's negligee was ugly. And blue. Blue not sexy.
I assumed Gabrielle burned the passport to ensure that Carlos stays in jail while she figures out exactly how guilty he is.
For both Bree and Gabrielle, I think the motto for last night was, "Hell hath no fury like a woman scorned." Poor Rex, he's screwed now, because if Bree puts the same thorough and zeal into destroying him as she does to keeping her house clean, he's going to wish he was dead.
With Gabrielle, I think that where trust is concerned, she'd always held her husband to a higher standard than herself for some reason. I guess she burned the passport to punish him for not living up to that trust.
Bree storyline - A+. I never know what will come of a Rex/Bree interaction. It all starts off so cliche but never ends there. Awesome TV - I held my breath for most of her "vindictive lawyer" monologue.
Susan storyline: B+. I am growing weary of the "wacky hijink" each and every week. And I thought I would never see a black bra under lingerie again after Sex and the City ended - make it go away. But the mother-daughter scene was awesome. I felt the "we're best friends/we even chat about our sex lives" rapport seemed very fake sitcom contrivance but the daughter wasn't overly precocious so I could deal. But to (finally!) see the darkside of that style of parenting, the bitter resentment of trading childhood for quasi-adulthood to be her mother's friend...great TV. Especially since I thought that the confrontation scene would have played very differently if Mike had not been there to impress, prompting the daughter to call her out.
Gabrielle - B. I'm glad that they are finally moving this character along. Interesting to see where the Carlos in jail storyline will go. Man, she can move and push a lot of heavy crap for such a petite woman.
Brood of MaryAlice - B. The "too cryptic" conversations are starting to bug, but the thought control/mashed potatoes scene was chilling.
Bree - I don't know what to give it. My like of the character took a big hit last night. I totally understand her being threatened by the "perfect nanny" when she feels inadequate. But to see her children make progress and behave beautifully and undermine that for her own satisfaction? I can't love that.
Those kids are not a loveable handful; they are protobullies and they way she is steamrollled by them makes me nuts to see. Maybe if I see the softer side of these kids with her, I could better understand why she lets them run her over. I think they think they have shown me that. All I see are holy terrors.
She obviously needs those kids to be a mess and she uses them as weapons when it suits her. And that's a valid storytelling choice. But I can't "love her" for it, which bums because I love Felicity Huffman.
I do like the continuity - a stray comment takes her somewhere unexpected (the nannycam) and she tries it then abandons it. She is trying on a number of approaches. So I'm not totally put off. But I hope they open up this storyline soon.
I assume you mean Lynette at the end there and not Bree. :)
I didn't mind that storyline. I didn't see her as undermining any sort of progress the kids have made. She just wanted to see how the new nanny would deal with brussel sprouts, and was pleased to see that Claire isn't actually Mary Poppins.
I thought it was cute when they do the "three-bear hug" - I guess that's supposed to show us the softer side of those kids.
Well, in Lynette's defense, I think the fact that the nanny hadn't yet experienced the "dark side" of the boys was a valid enough reason to make sure that she did, sooner rather than later. It may be that she (the nanny) will find a way to make the boys eat their brussel sprouts and like them, but until she does, then she's not really "competing" on fair ground, is she?
And the brussel sprouts in this case are of course a metaphor for all the things the boys NEED to do, but don't WANT to do. Like trying to get them to take their pills a few weeks ago. It's easy enough for the nanny to play the part of the lovable clown as long as Lynette's around to play the part of the heavy ... but that's not really fair to Lynette. After all the time she's put in with those kids, she deserves to be able to spend time with them without them comparing her to the "perfect" nanny who's never had any reason to discipline them.
Freakgirl, quit saying the same things as me at the same time I'm saying them.
People will think we're married or something.
I have to admit I really liked Gabrielle's storyline last night. The scene in the visitation room was great, and I loved that she did the unexpected at the end. I'm so glad she's getting a deeper story, b/c I was really tired of the affair line.
Bree kicks ass. It was funny, as she was walking out of the hospital room, my sister said, "Poor Bree", just as I was thinking, "Poor Rex". He's really missing out! I can't believe he wouldn't ask her to assert more control in bed.
Susan and Lynette's storylines were okay. I can't believe we have to wait til January for new eps!!
I DID mean Lynette. Thank you for figuring out my stupididity.
But remember the moral of Edie's story? The mean social worker made my drunk mom look good? She set the nanny up for a fall, simple as that. Is she more pleased her children have found an adult who brings out the best in them, or is she more jealous the nanny is more effective than she is? I see the validity of both points of view but I have a strong preference for one over the other.
Parenting on this show is interesting. When does a struggle over brussels sprouts turn into mashed potatoes (bad parenting) or throwing brussels sprouts turn into remorseless hit-and-runs (bad seeds).
As a former child care provider to the brussels sprouts throwing type, there is no question "discipline" really exists. Those kids know that if they act up strongly enough, they get their way every time. The nanny is not there to create discipline where none exists.
Yeah ... but Lynette isn't Edie's drunk mom either, so it's hard to compare the two. I honestly didn't get the impression that Lynette was jealous in the bad/petty way. If she was, odds are, she probably would simply have fired the nanny. She's just going through withdrawal. One minute she's having a nervous breakdown trying to be supermom to her kids, the next minute, she feels unnecessary and obsolete. I think she was fine until she saw the nanny give the "three-bear hug".
I have to figure this isn't all different from the syndrome that mothers of boys have when their sons get their first real girlfriend ... and again when they get married. It's not that they're not happy for their son and/or that they don't like the woman who's "stealing" their love ... it's just an irrational response to feeling as if you've been replaced.
Of course, I'm neither a woman nor a mother, so I could be talking out my ass here.
I disagree: she was consumed with petty jealousy. I totally recognized that in her because I recognize it in myself.
Most women are pettily jealous. We are always comparing ourselves to everyone else, and the worst sin someone can commit is to be better than us. The worst is to be better than us at our own life. Similar to Lynette admitting she felt worthless to the other women who make motherhood look easy - who often felt worthless themselves about their mothering.
That part of it was totally honest and I'm glad they showed it. All I'm saying is she uses their bad behavior for her own ends a lot of the time. Including getting the nanny to feed them the dreaded sprouts.
being a mother of two who recently went back to work and got a nanny, i can relate to some of the feelings that Lynette was having.
it's very frustrating because on one hand, you really really want to have a good nanny and you want your kids to love her, but you don't want your children to prefer her. so, it's kind of a catch-22. in the beginning i was so heart-broken when the kids would cry as i left the house, and soon, as they started to NOT cry when i left, i wondered why they weren't crying.
i, unlike Lynette, would NEVER get a nanny-cam. You have to trust that the nanny is doing a good job. someone once told me that "everyone picks their nose when they think no one is looking" - it's a good quote. i don't want to invade her privacy. it's not fair. i know she's doing a good job because my kids are happy. that's the most telling sign.
Best part of Bree reaming (erm, figuratively) Rex at the end? Her sweater matched the hospital walls perfectly.
Also, Susan's underwear scarred me for life.
I was a little disturbed by Lynette's actions too. I have three sometimes-unruly-kids-who-can-throw-me-over-the-edge so I tend to relate to Lynette most of the time. While I can understand that she felt jealous (I remember the time my toddler son called the daycare teacher "Mommy"...ouch), I thought her sabotage of the nanny was just plain wrong. I would have agreed if they just showed her contemplating it, but it was immature and truly not benefiting her children in any way to do the brussel sprout thing. How do you raise the kids to be good, solid, responsible people when you derive delight in their torture of someone who so clearly is trying to so what's best for them (unlike their own mother!!!).
Here's an idea Lynette...suck it up and ask the nanny for advice on handling the rugrats. You might learn something that will make your life easier and your children more likable. At least that what I do...
Hmmm. I really took the whole brussel sprouts thing as Lynette trying to figure out whether she was really doing something wrong, or if no one on earth could get the kids to eat their vegetables.
But yeah, Lynette obviously suffers from trying to be too perfect. I think it's an honest portrayal - everyone on Wisteria Lane has flaws; why get mad at Lynette when she shows hers?
Okay, now wait. I'm making the assumption that Lynette feels it's important for her kids to eat brussel sprouts. Which is why she has put HERSELF through the torture of trying to make her kids eat them. Based on that, if one of the nanny's jobs is to give the kids their dinner, then I don't understand how it's "sabotage" or "torture" for her to ask the nanny to feed the kids brussel sprouts.
Were Lynette's motives pure when she asked this? Of course not. But I'm assuming that sooner or later, the nanny was going to have to feed those kids brussel sprouts, or something else that the kids don't like. It's not like the time that Lynette left the husband to babysit, and gave the kids cookies to eat after 5pm. Now THAT was sabotage, and she got caught at it, and she fessed up, and the husband laughed and "got the point".
Seems to me the worst that Lynette is guilty of is rushing a moment that was going to happen eventually anyway. We all know how unruly these boys are. They were NOT going to continue being perfect angels for the nanny indefinitely. And if they were, I'd find that completely unrealistic. Nobody -- from Lynette to any teacher they've ever had -- has been able to control these kids. But the nanny magically can, through some puppetry and funny storybook voices? I doubt it.
Asking a nanny to deal with unruly kids is hardly "torture" -- from what I understand, that's part of the job description, isn't it?
Having said all that, I agree with you Hayley that one thing Lynette should be doing and isn't is to ask the nanny for some advice. For that matter, the two of them should be swapping notes on a regular basis. Because let's face it, by stealing Lynette's "three-bear hug", the nanny herself is guilty of "cheating" a bit too. Maybe both women are acting out of pride -- both so determined to seem "valuable" at what they do that they're unwilling to share their secrets and work together as a team for the greater good of the kids?
Well, we're going to have to agree to disagree. Brussels sprouts are a nutritious food choice for kids, no matter who tries to make them eat it. Especially when you know no Mary Poppins with a cheese trick will be able to make them either. Just like no husband can control sugar-jacked kids. Glad Lynette was able to make her point.
I think the nanny and any nanny motives are meaningless, at least for last night. She obviously is highly talented, thus poachable. If Lynette wanted advice, as Hayley, points out, I guess she would have offered. But it's not her place to offer it unasked.
I saw potatoe, you saw potaatoh. No biggies in the Desperate scheme, really. It just diminished my like of the character, that's all.
As to your assertion "Asking a nanny to deal with unruly kids is hardly "torture"" -I've got some kids (relatives even) you may want to meet that will make you take that back. Sigh.
Well, I'm just saying, I assume the job description for a nanny is not: "Take care of perfectly well-behaved kids." And let's remember that the nanny never bothered to ask about or even meet these kids before she agreed to nanny them. She got offered a salary and ran to it. I frankly found it a bit unrealistic that they were SO well behaved for her as long as they were. So the "torture" of dealing with them in the brussel sprouts scene seemed far more realistic and long overdue to me.
But if we're dismissing the nanny's motives, I guess that's unimportant.
As for the brussel sprouts, it actually sounds like you're agreeing with me. They ARE a nutritious food choice. So Lynette acting out of jealousy aside, what was so unreasonable about her asking the nanny to feed them to the kids, if one of the nanny's jobs is to feed the kids nutritious meals?
Anyway, as you say, potaytoe, potahtoe.
As with all things on Wisteria Lane, nothing is at is appears. So who knows, Claire (that's the nanny's name, right?) might have some devilish plans of her own. Mind control? Baby swapping? Sleeping with John the lawnboy?
Ahh, Wisteria Lane as metaphor for life: nothing is as it appears, sooner or later you have to eat your brussel sprouts, and you can't trust your wife with your passport nor your neighbor behind your back with a blender. But as a bonus, now we have a clue why Rex cries after he ejaculates.
Yes, perhaps "sabotage" and "torture" were too strong. I guess I was unimpressed with Lynette's motive for setting the nanny up. I would think that a smart mother would want the nanny to have good experiences with her children until she (the nanny) develops genuine feelings of caring for them, so that when they freaked out, as children sometimes do, over brussel sprouts or naptime or wearing a shirt they don't want to, the nanny will be less tempted to strangle them, or quit the job, and more likely to want to work the problem out. I don't believe Lynette pulled out the brussel sprouts at that time because she was worried about the kids' nutrition or even because she felt it was the nanny's job. I thought it was pretty clear that she was threatened because the nanny seemed to have things under control...something she couldn't do.
I just expected more from Lynette. I related to her a lot before that...left alone a lot with too many kids who are too young, a former professional who felt she was better working outside the home than being home taking care of her kids. The episode where she fantasized about shooting herself and then broke down on the soccer field was familiar to me. Feeling threatened and jealous by someone who could handle her kids better than she could was familiar to me. But seeing the kids behave for ONCE and then trying to get them back to their obnoxious selves to spite someone who SHE sought and who thought she was there HELPING her, that screams of stupidity and immaturity to me. That's like on Wife Swap when the kids help out with chores but the lazy, junkfood-eating new wife has to impose rules like, "no more kids doing chores" and "no more healthy dinners, only McDonald's". Remember the episode where the kids were really into after-school sports and exercising, and the new wife's first rule was "no more sports". Why undo something that's good and productive? If Lynette could have just waited the kids would have shown their horrible selves eventually, and maybe by then Claire would not want to run screaming from the house because, like Lynette, maybe she would actually kind of love them by then. But unleash them early on and she'll lose Claire (who could find another lucrative job easily, don't you think?) and be stuck in the same position she was before. I believe the expression is cutting off your nose to spite your face.
And I happen to LOVE brussel sprouts, but if your kids have such a violent reaction to them, how about experimenting with other vegetables until you find one that will meet their nutritional needs and that they actually will tolerate? Not many people like brussel sprouts...especially kids.
But then again, it's a TV show, isn't it, and why am I taking it so personally?
The brussel sprout thing bothered me because they aren't the only vegetable on earth, like Haley says. Give your kids something else. Brocolli, spinach, etc.
Janet, I see Lynette and her actions the same way you do. I'm not impressed with the way she handled it. And the nanny cam thing skeeved me out. I hope she enjoyed watching Claire farting and picking underwear out of her ass. I think she uses her kids, too.
I also have a problem with the way Lynette's kids are portrayed. I know that their individuality isn't important as far as the show goes, but I don't feel like Lynette relates to them at all. It's like Lynette has an amalgamation of 4 children. Whatever.
I think it's great that Bree found this out about her husband. At the beginning of the show (I think I mentioned before) I was on Rex's side. Now I'm on hers. Finally she woke up and found out that while she was busy being perfect her family is self-destructing. And now she's doing something about it. Her kids are total shits.
I had the same thought, Freakgirl, about the neighbours noticing the men traipsing in and out of Maisy's house. And why was she getting so personal with guy#1 at the beginning of the show? I know she was supposed to be all Basil Exposition, but it seemed so stupid to be sharing those confidences with a john.
Sorry, I mean that I was on Rex's side at the beginning of the season, not the beginning of the episode.
Was I the only one who thought Rex had the idea that Mazzie told Bree he liked to be dominated and he thought her speech was just a charade to show him she could dominate too? I thought he was doing to say, "Bree, my GOD I have SUCH an erection!" after her little talk. It would have been SO perfect.
I really kinda thought that too, Beau.
But I mean, hell, Rex bitched at Bree for not letting him have a say in their relationship for upteen years.
Guess the big difference is that it's not just about domination in the sack for Rex ... but also about whips, chips, chains, dips ... too. ;-)
Maggie said: "Sorry, I mean that I was on Rex's side at the beginning of the season, not the beginning of the episode." And I had you pictured in stilettos and a pearl choker too.
Hayley, I might venture a guess that the reason you feel so strongly about it is that you finally see someone in your position on TV, and it is finally being portrayed in an entertaining way as not being all sunshine and roses. In fact, it's lonely and brutal a lot of the time.
This took me forever to find because I couldn't remember any names. I saw this story on City Confidential a few years ago and I wonder if this is the inspiration for the Maisy character.
I saw that City Confidential, too!