The White Lotus season 2

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Didn’t Daphne run into Cameron’s arms after discovering the body in Ep1?

I need to rewatch but I don’t think Cam dies.

My money’s on Grandpa, Greg, and a gay guy to die.

No - if you re-watch that scene, there's a guy to the right of the two women Daphne talks to - he's dark haired, wearing sunglasses, and has a short beard, in swim trunks. When she starts running out of the water - look in the background. You see him get up from his chair. I am almost 100% sure it's him that catches her on the beach. Then the camera kind of moves through the crowd. I didn't see any of the known cast in the crowd.

Interesting in that, so far, that is the only time she is alone. She is always with her husband or Harper.

Yes. That whole scene is interesting. She's there with her huge bag and her aperol, vacant chair next to her as if she's expecting her husband and then she makes this weird little speech, which is out introduction into her character. It's all a little "off," IMO.

I think she's the mastermind and poisons him and/or lets him drown. Almost every scene she has, she references killing - even this one she says that they will have to drag you out of here. It would be quite the Survivor twist if seemingly the least intelligent member of the group ends up "winning it all".

I like this theory!

DP, but this also fits with what I said earlier about her earlier comments to him, that she would never emasculate him like they said Harper did to Ethan -- but that she totally could if she wanted to.

There would be symmetry with season 1 as well as season 1 opens with the 'killer' talking to tourists arriving at the airport for their vacation.

These formulaic guesses or wannabe Easter eggs all cancel out and aren’t that interesting. Enjoy the show, maybe there will be some tragic accidental death(s) like last time or straight up murders, who knows.

[Anonymous]

Tanya's tarot card pull btw:

The Star: This card is usually considered a sign of luck, prosperity, and fertility. It symbolizes generous action. It is also related to sacred love.

The Moon: The Moon is a card of illusion and deception, and therefore often suggests a time when something is not as it appears to be. Perhaps a misuderstanding on your part, or a truth you cannot admit to yourself.

The Devil: This card represents being seduced by the material world and physical pleasures. Also living in fear, domination, and bondage, being caged by an overabundance of luxury, discretion should be used in personal and business matters.

The Fool: The Fool card is indicative that you could be about to embark upon something totally new. This could take the form of a journey that was not planned. For Tanya, it appeared upside down which apparently has a more negative meaning and is meant to serve as a warning that your bright-eyed trusting nature needs to be tempered and cautioned.

The Chariot: This is one of the strongest Tarot cards of the deck and shows the journey ahead. It is a positive card and shows a phase of transition in life's pattern. Being the card of movement from a stuck up situation to the better days, it is taken as yes in most of the yes and no spreads.

[Anonymous]

Did anyone else laugh so hard at the opera scene when Tanya says "Who's that lady? The queen of Sicily?"

Where is her husband? Hasn't it been two days yet?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I love how the writer so enjoys shining light on uncomfortable hypocrisy!

I mean, what's the difference between Rachel (season 1 - married to Cornell douche) and Daphne, and Lucia? They all take money in exchange for putting up with a man but I almost respect Lucia more!

Lucia was purely transactional with Dom - had sex, got money, respectfully went on their ways with no relationship.
Rachel semi-transactional with husband - got married, got money, forces self to have a relationship with unlikeable husband.
Daphne semi-transactional with husband - got married, got money, enjoys husband and children, forces self to not despise cheating husband.

I really don’t see those three women as being in purely transactional relationships. Obviously Lucia is but Rachel genuinely seemed to have fallen in love with the man she was with only for that initial glow to wear off and decide she doesn’t like him and Daphne does seem to love Cameron, although she wrestles with his many flaws. I know both of the wives are wealthy due to their husband‘s success but I don’t get the impression that’s the only thing keeping them in the relationship or that’s what they married them for initially

Rachel had a top-notch education and was a writer. It was only after she married and saw she was expected to live her life like his mom—a life of leisure and gossip and nothing of substance. She realized she was in over her head and completely unhappy. It’s like the girl that ends the marriage and has it annulled. There was no indication she was going to ride that marriage out. She was done.

It’s like we saw different show! Rachel went to SUNY Potsdam, was a sub-average gig writer, and returned to him in the airport after she left him!

There's a whole lot of weird fantasy happening in the last page or so of this thread.

I skipped a lot of that nonsense too. D- for the attempt to make formulaic parallels of characters from S1 to S2.
The theme for s2 is masculinity. The theme for s1 was social justice warriors.

I don't think it's masculinity. It's sexual desire - maybe even just desire. Everyone is so randy this season or wants to be.

I think it is power dynamics in relationships, and of course the s word (trying to help Jeff with the google crawl bot) is a part of that in many of these relationships

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Did anyone else laugh so hard at the opera scene when Tanya says "Who's that lady? The queen of Sicily?"

Where is her husband? Hasn't it been two days yet?

Yes! And her little wave and smile...and the expressions of the Italian women was priceless. So cute and funny.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I love how the writer so enjoys shining light on uncomfortable hypocrisy!

I mean, what's the difference between Rachel (season 1 - married to Cornell douche) and Daphne, and Lucia? They all take money in exchange for putting up with a man but I almost respect Lucia more!

Lucia was purely transactional with Dom - had sex, got money, respectfully went on their ways with no relationship.
Rachel semi-transactional with husband - got married, got money, forces self to have a relationship with unlikeable husband.
Daphne semi-transactional with husband - got married, got money, enjoys husband and children, forces self to not despise cheating husband.

I really don’t see those three women as being in purely transactional relationships. Obviously Lucia is but Rachel genuinely seemed to have fallen in love with the man she was with only for that initial glow to wear off and decide she doesn’t like him and Daphne does seem to love Cameron, although she wrestles with his many flaws. I know both of the wives are wealthy due to their husband‘s success but I don’t get the impression that’s the only thing keeping them in the relationship or that’s what they married them for initially

Rachel had a top-notch education and was a writer. It was only after she married and saw she was expected to live her life like his mom—a life of leisure and gossip and nothing of substance. She realized she was in over her head and completely unhappy. It’s like the girl that ends the marriage and has it annulled. There was no indication she was going to ride that marriage out. She was done.

It’s like we saw different show! Rachel went to SUNY Potsdam, was a sub-average gig writer, and returned to him in the airport after she left him!

There's a whole lot of weird fantasy happening in the last page or so of this thread.

I skipped a lot of that nonsense too. D- for the attempt to make formulaic parallels of characters from S1 to S2.
The theme for s2 is masculinity. The theme for s1 was social justice warriors.

I don't think it's masculinity. It's sexual desire - maybe even just desire. Everyone is so randy this season or wants to be.

I think it is power dynamics in relationships, and of course the s word (trying to help Jeff with the google crawl bot) is a part of that in many of these relationships

I don't think it's just s-e-x, I think it's sin. We aren't seeing much s-e-x that doesn't carry with it some kind of illicit connotation. We are either seeing people have s-e-x that betrays someone else, or in which one partner is betraying the other, or we're seeing partners who aren't having s-e-x for some reason or where one refuses to have s-e-x with the other. Or in the case of scene at the end of the last episode, it's about how an act of s-e-x can be a betrayal of others in surprising ways. The theme isn't s-e-x, it's betrayal and sinfulness more generally.

Remember the story of Hades and Persephone that Bert tells in episode two? That story has s-e-x in it (Hades rapes Persephone), but it's not about s-e-x. It's about power, control, abuse, betrayal.

And I think that's true for the season as a whole. It's about sinfulness in general, and what happens to people once they have sinned. Are they repentant? Are they corrupted? Do they succeed or are they punished? I guess we'll find out.

[Anonymous]

The 7 deadly sins and the characters who have committed them this season:

Lust - Cameron (with Lucia, Mia, and Harper), Dom (with Mia and Lucia but also in general and in the past), Albie (with Portia, unconsummated, and with Lucia), Valentina (with the front desk woman, unconsummated), Mia, Lucia, Giuseppe (the piano player, with Lucia), Portia (with Jack), Jack (with Portia and Quentin), Quentin (with Jack), the front desk woman (with Rocco, presumably unconsummated)
Gluttony - Everyone, it's Italy!
Greed - Cameron (asking Ethan for money, refusing to give Lucia money), Daphne (all the shopping, the house in Noto), Lucia (constantly asking people for money, yes it's owed to her but also she's sometimes devious in getting it, as with Albie), Greg (complaining about the prenup)
Sloth - Portia the first several episodes when she won't do anything about her situation, maybe Tanya when she takes to her bed, maybe Ethan when he refuses to have sex with Harper?
Wrath - no one, yet, but it's coming
Envy - Harper (of Daphne and Cameron), Cameron (of Ethan), Greg (of Tanya), Portia (of Tanya), Valentina (of Rocco)
Pride - Cameron (the bragging), Daphne (same), Harper (same), Ethan (same), Bert (all the lecturing of Dom), Valentina (general vibe of superiority)

Here's who has been punished so far:

Giuseppe, with the drug reaction

I think the next few episodes will focus on punishment.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Mike White famously loves the show Survivor and even appeared in a season of the show. I think there are a ton of Survivor parallels in White Lotus and since I have nothing better to do this morning (just kidding, I have a long to do list but zero desire to tackle it) here are some of the parallels I see. Obviously the show is not strictly a game and no one is getting "voted out", but White is clearly playing with some of the tropes of the game in my eyes:

Alliances

Alliances are central to Survivor game play and are the source of the vast majority of interpersonal drama. Some alliances can form early on in the game and last to the bitter end, essentially securing the final two or the winner's win. But most alliances shift throughout the game as people are eliminated and other players have to hop to new alliances with better numbers to protect themselves.

The most obvious alliances parallel involves Portia, who arrives with Tanya but is immediately banished by Greg (early alliances are often based purely on who you like and don't like, personality-wise). She then gloms onto Albie and his dad and grandad. Nursing a flirtation from an interested party to form an alliance is a Survivor classic, and one way that younger women on the show who might otherwise be considered liabilities early on for lacking physical strength, secure safety during the early part of the game.

There are other alliances going on as well. The foursome start out with to obvious alliances -- the Spillers and the Babcocks. But then Daphne clearly tries to recruit Harper to her alliance (is it her individual alliance or one she shares with Cameron? it's unclear) when they go to Noto. Noticeably, no one seems to be recruiting Ethan. If Harper turns against him, he has no protection.

Tanya has been recruited by the gays to their alliance but it feels nefarious. Mia and Lucia were allied with Dom but they crossed to many lines with Albie and the grandad, so he's told them he's through with them.

Blindsides

This is when a player flips on an alliance at the last minute, voting against someone they'd previously promised to help protect. Blindsides are a survivor classic. You can see blindside parallels in the way Portia ditches Albie for Jack, effectively switching her alliance from the Di Grassos to the gays. But Tanya's discovery at the end of the last episode indicate a blindside is in the works with the gays as well, though it's not clear exactly what it will be. I suspect, as others do, that the gays are secretly allied with Greg, putting both Tanya and Portia in danger.

Harper's discovery of the condom wrapper felt like a blindside, since Ethan had in fact been lying to her all day about what happened with Cameron. On the other hand, I think the ultimate alliances in the foursome are very much up in the air and Harper might be looking to convince both Cameron and Daphne that she's joining their alliance against Ethan, only to blindside them in the end in an act of loyalty to her husband.

Whoever dies is likely getting the ultimate blindside and I do think White is trying to make this as surprising for the audience as possible, so I think the biggest blindside is yet to come and likely to be a shock.

Swing Votes

A Survivor classic, this is what happens when you have two equally sized alliances and one or two people who are unaligned. The wooing of the swing votes is a Survivor mainstay. I think the most obvious swing votes are Mia and Lucia, who have a tight alliance with each other but very weak alliances with others (Dom, Albie, Cam, Valentina) often based on temporary goodwill or a financial transaction. They are playing games and swing votes often get caught up in their temporary power only to get quickly punished for this as soon as the number shift and they are no longer needed. I fear this is what will happen with Lucia for sure. Mia seems a little more cautious and thus maybe safer but we'll see.

Portia is also a potential swing vote and could help or hurt Tanya with the dangerous situation in Palermo.

Tribal Council

Tribal Council, where someone is voted out or, in the last episode, where the winner is selected, happens at the end of every episode of survivor. This last episode had MAJOR tribal council vibes at the end, with both the dinner hour at the hotel and the opera in Palermo. Right down to classic Survivor imagery of fire and close ups of statues, plus the White Lotus scores always gives Survivor with the wordless chanting -- if you are much of a Survivor watcher, it's hard to avoid the obvious references.

Anyway, tribal council is where a lot of $hit goes down but because it's very public, with everyone sitting in a circle, it's hard to scheme. There are a LOT of meaningful glances. Kind of like the dinner with the foursome. Sometimes players will even have hurried, whispered conversations before the vote to try and change a plan last minute based on what has been said at Council. When Mia went off with Cameron in full view of Albie, it had that feeling of Lucia trying to swing a vote last minute using Cameron as a tool. The Di Grassos have also had a lot of Tribal Council-esque glances through the show during dinner, as gramps and Dom track the location of Mia/Lucia, and gramps also tracks Dom's tracking of Mia/Lucia.

The foursome always feels Tribal Council-y to me at their dinners, with revelations and accusations thrown out, never more so than in this last episode. Cameron grabbing Harper's knee under the table reminded me of the way players sometimes slip other people immunity idols at council, though I don't think Cameron wants to give Harper immunity, if you know what I mean (lol).

Often, after tribal council, the show will follow the tribe back to camp where they will go to sleep. Only sometimes some people don't go to sleep and there is activity -- idol hiding, alliance conversations, etc. Kind of like how Jack went to hide his idol after leaving Portia, wink-wink (I know I'm being silly, I enjoy the innuendo!).

That's all I've got for now. I saw some Survivor references in the first season but they are out of control in this season and I think it's clear White was heavily inspired by his fandom and likely also his experience on the show. It's also clearly a passionate interest of his -- I think his interest in class and hierarchies dovetails nicely with his interest in Survivor. It's also what I like about that show too -- it has a way of exposing people in the most fascinating ways, both their worst impulses (betrayal, exploitation, lying and stealing) and their surprising vulnerabilities and resiliency.

One thing about Survivor is that nasty people never win. They can't, everyone hates them. The winners are always schemers and pretty much no one ever wins without telling at least a few little lies. But the winners usually have strong social skills and are genuinely likable, or have qualities that help others respect them. That's how they get the votes at the end even after participating in voting off a lot of the jury. This aspect of Survivor makes me think it's unlike Mia or Lucia wind up dead (schemers, sure, but too plucky and likable to be hated) and also that Tanya probably makes it out alive. Cameron though... he's the sort who would make it deep in the game and then be gloriously ousted by the exact people he's been cruelest to. My money is on Daphne, Harper, or Ethan, or potentially all three, killing Cameron in an extremely satisfying way. The slaying of the villains has long been my favorite Survivor feature -- nasty people never win.

Fellow survivor fan here. I do think Mike has been heavily influenced by his time on survivor and this is interesting but it feels like a reach in a lot of places. One thing I'd actively push back on though is the bolded. This is kind of true on survivor (not universally though, see the OG Richard Hatch even), but it is not true in The White Lotus. To the contrary at the end of season one everyone basically went back to their lives. Steve Zahn's family left basically unchanged (except maybe the son, who saw an opportunity for transformation and took it). The person most severely effected was the guy who tried to steal from them for his girlfriend. The friend who orchestrated that goes unpunished. The guy who dies is not the worst person on the show but he was hardly the villain. The murderer gets off. Tanya destroys that massage workers dreams after leading her on for a week and then disappears with a man and her money. The White Lotus says that you can be horrible and rarely face consequences, and it is strongest when it is showing the mundane cruelty of people. The little things that happen everyday that show who a person is, and slowly corrupt them further. How one bad choice leads to another. How you can't contain the damage of being awful, but how other people are awful too.

This is not a show about the good guy winning.

PP here. I agree that in Season 1, this wasn't White's m.o. at all -- it was very clear that he was making a point about how wealth helps people escape accountability. I also don't think Season One had as many Survivor vibes generally, other than the tropical locale and some of the music.

However, I think this season, which has a lot more intrigue and aligning and re-aligning of characters, is much more heavily influenced by White's Survivor fandom. It really hit me during this week's episode because there was a musical interlude that was literally just close ups of fire of Survivor-esque chanting music in the background. That's straight out of the Survivor playbook.

Regarding the whole "nasty people never win", it really is true. Hatch was grating at times, but never nasty. People were bothered by the fact that he walked around naked, but he genuinely just liked doing it -- he wasn't mean to people. And he was the first person to create the whole concept of an alliance on Survivor. There was talk in the first season about whether this was even allowable. So he gets this reputation for being devious, but only because he essentially invented a core feature of Survivor gameplay that has been present in every season of Survivor since. That's not nasty, it's smart. Smart people with strong strategy are often rewarded on Survivor.

No, when I say nasty, I'm talking about players like Russel Hantz. Nasty, mean-spirited players who are frequently put down other players and constantly betray alliance-mates for a short term advantage. These people never, ever win survivor because it pisses people off, and then no one will vote for them to win in the end. If you are going to screw people over on Survivor, you have to do it in a way that makes people still like, or at least respect you. You can't just openly be a jerk.

Applying this to this season, I think it's likely that Cameron gets a comeuppance in the way that Shane from last season didn't. Unlike in last season, Cameron's nemesis is not someone from a "lower" social class. The people who pose a threat to Cameron are all also wealthy, all seem to have some dirt on him, and all feel betrayed or harmed by him. I do think Cameron is one of the bodies in the water at the end, and I expect that Harper, Daphne, and/or Ethan will play a role in putting him there.

I also think Greg is plotting against Tanya, likely working with the gays in doing so, and that he's going to be unsuccessful because, again, he's too nasty and unlikeable to come out on top. And again, this won't be some plucky hotel worker succeeding against him. It will be Tanya, who is rich af.

This season isn't about how the rich and privileged escape accountability when they harm people with less privilege. This season is about the Catholic concepts of sin and punishment, which lend themselves well to themes and plots form Survivor.

I don't think the two seasons can be so easily bifurcated. It isn't that one is about social justice/elitism and one is about toxic masculinity. It is just slightly different focuses on the general concept of how people are yes, always trying to survive, in a world where the scales are tipped for or against them in various ways and how people use what they have to navigate that. And that overall is the essence of Survivor, and so I fully agree the themes are reflected here I just don't think it is so one to one. And as I said on the last page, the fact that Angelina is making an appearance here I think is not an accident and a really interesting choice. Angelina was quite pregnant when they started filming and he says it was really difficult to get her on set. He could have chosen anyone but he chose her.

I would not hope for some satisfying comeuppance, I don't think MW believes in that. Although I did read an interview with him and he said that he was surprised at how very very dark season 1 was, how it seemed to evoke a hopelessness that there was no good in the world and he felt that as a reaction to that this season would not be quite so bleak in it's portrayal of people.

I do think your observations about alliances are really interesting though and agree and I think what this really gets to (and is still survivor relevant) is power. This season is about power in relationships. Who has it, and what they do with it when they get it, and how that either sets them up in a stronger position or a weaker position going forward.

When Daphne decides to use her power (staying the night in Noto, having a kid with her trainer) she is strengthening her position in her marriage. She makes Cameron afraid of losing her, she ensures that no matter what he does, she is the powerful member of the couple. Cameron is afraid of Daphne, she is not afraid of him. He is afraid he could do something that would make her leave, he is afraid of not keeping her happy, he was afraid that she might die. She is on the surface the less powerful member of the couple but deep down she is the one in control. Harper has been the partner without power in her marriage (she didn't make the money, she wants a baby but he won't have s*x with her, etc) but until this point she didn't KNOW that. She thought they were equal, and she sees in this other couple that Ethan has the control over her. And that this is the source of her unhappiness. Ethan is not afraid of Harper. And I think Ethan showed in this recent episode that he is more aware of his power than he let on when he pulled that stunt with Cameron at the table. And you could see that there too, Ethan has control over Cameron, not the other way around. Cameron is full of bravado and is one of the least powerful characters on the show in a practical sense. And likely knows that his only real source of power is his money, and clearly there is a lot to suggest that that is not as it seems.

Tanya gave Greg the power, but not ALL of it. The pre-nup means she does understand the power of her money. Greg is trying to go behind her back in some way to wrest power from her. Will she find out soon enough to make a countermove? Clearly yes.

The power dynamics between the three sicilians are also constantly at play. Albie has the power with his father, the power to influence his mother. But the father and even more the grandfather bristle at the idea that he has this power. The grandfather pushes against it. The father is like Cameron, has all the money but none of the power.

Lucia has no power at all for much of the season so far, flipping from side to side (survivor!) to get to the next day at the resort. To get one more night, to stay on the island. And suddenly here in this episode she gets some power and it is interesting that she immediately seizes it and tries to use it without hesitation. I imagine she is looking for a ticket to LA. And she is walking a tightrope of using the power she has over Albie, who has power over Dom, to have power over both of them and extract what she wants. But her power is fragile, and I think she will overplay her hand.

But men and women are acting badly here, women and men are seeing, identifying, grasping or losing their grip on their power in the relationships around them. Portia is the most unhappy because she has absolutely no power and no belief in her ability to have power, until suddenly she has power over Albie and the Essex guy and she blossoms.

So I think this season DOES have parallels to survivor, but I don't think it is about the good guys winning, I think the whole thesis of the show is that life is unfair and brutal. I am a philosophy major and the most interesting and intense argument I ever had in school was a discussion with a professor about whether altruism truly exists. Is it even possible for someone to do something entirely devoid of self interest, entirely for another. And I think of that conversation often when watching this show, as it shows that every decision made, big and small is informed by the power dynamics at play in the situation around them.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I love how the writer so enjoys shining light on uncomfortable hypocrisy!

I mean, what's the difference between Rachel (season 1 - married to Cornell douche) and Daphne, and Lucia? They all take money in exchange for putting up with a man but I almost respect Lucia more!

Lucia was purely transactional with Dom - had sex, got money, respectfully went on their ways with no relationship.
Rachel semi-transactional with husband - got married, got money, forces self to have a relationship with unlikeable husband.
Daphne semi-transactional with husband - got married, got money, enjoys husband and children, forces self to not despise cheating husband.

I really don’t see those three women as being in purely transactional relationships. Obviously Lucia is but Rachel genuinely seemed to have fallen in love with the man she was with only for that initial glow to wear off and decide she doesn’t like him and Daphne does seem to love Cameron, although she wrestles with his many flaws. I know both of the wives are wealthy due to their husband‘s success but I don’t get the impression that’s the only thing keeping them in the relationship or that’s what they married them for initially

Rachel had a top-notch education and was a writer. It was only after she married and saw she was expected to live her life like his mom—a life of leisure and gossip and nothing of substance. She realized she was in over her head and completely unhappy. It’s like the girl that ends the marriage and has it annulled. There was no indication she was going to ride that marriage out. She was done.

It’s like we saw different show! Rachel went to SUNY Potsdam, was a sub-average gig writer, and returned to him in the airport after she left him!

There's a whole lot of weird fantasy happening in the last page or so of this thread.

I skipped a lot of that nonsense too. D- for the attempt to make formulaic parallels of characters from S1 to S2.
The theme for s2 is masculinity. The theme for s1 was social justice warriors.

I don't think it's masculinity. It's sexual desire - maybe even just desire. Everyone is so randy this season or wants to be.

I think it is power dynamics in relationships, and of course the s word (trying to help Jeff with the google crawl bot) is a part of that in many of these relationships

I don't think it's just s-e-x, I think it's sin. We aren't seeing much s-e-x that doesn't carry with it some kind of illicit connotation. We are either seeing people have s-e-x that betrays someone else, or in which one partner is betraying the other, or we're seeing partners who aren't having s-e-x for some reason or where one refuses to have s-e-x with the other. Or in the case of scene at the end of the last episode, it's about how an act of s-e-x can be a betrayal of others in surprising ways. The theme isn't s-e-x, it's betrayal and sinfulness more generally.

Remember the story of Hades and Persephone that Bert tells in episode two? That story has s-e-x in it (Hades rapes Persephone), but it's not about s-e-x. It's about power, control, abuse, betrayal.

And I think that's true for the season as a whole. It's about sinfulness in general, and what happens to people once they have sinned. Are they repentant? Are they corrupted? Do they succeed or are they punished? I guess we'll find out.

I'm not sure you read my comment! I agree with you, although I would replace sin with power. It is about power, how it is gained, and whether the consequences of gaining it are worth it, or if it is by definition a corrupting force. S*x is just a tool used to gain or retain power.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I love how the writer so enjoys shining light on uncomfortable hypocrisy!

I mean, what's the difference between Rachel (season 1 - married to Cornell douche) and Daphne, and Lucia? They all take money in exchange for putting up with a man but I almost respect Lucia more!

Lucia was purely transactional with Dom - had sex, got money, respectfully went on their ways with no relationship.
Rachel semi-transactional with husband - got married, got money, forces self to have a relationship with unlikeable husband.
Daphne semi-transactional with husband - got married, got money, enjoys husband and children, forces self to not despise cheating husband.

I really don’t see those three women as being in purely transactional relationships. Obviously Lucia is but Rachel genuinely seemed to have fallen in love with the man she was with only for that initial glow to wear off and decide she doesn’t like him and Daphne does seem to love Cameron, although she wrestles with his many flaws. I know both of the wives are wealthy due to their husband‘s success but I don’t get the impression that’s the only thing keeping them in the relationship or that’s what they married them for initially

Rachel had a top-notch education and was a writer. It was only after she married and saw she was expected to live her life like his mom—a life of leisure and gossip and nothing of substance. She realized she was in over her head and completely unhappy. It’s like the girl that ends the marriage and has it annulled. There was no indication she was going to ride that marriage out. She was done.

It’s like we saw different show! Rachel went to SUNY Potsdam, was a sub-average gig writer, and returned to him in the airport after she left him!

There's a whole lot of weird fantasy happening in the last page or so of this thread.

I skipped a lot of that nonsense too. D- for the attempt to make formulaic parallels of characters from S1 to S2.
The theme for s2 is masculinity. The theme for s1 was social justice warriors.

I don't think it's masculinity. It's sexual desire - maybe even just desire. Everyone is so randy this season or wants to be.

I think it is power dynamics in relationships, and of course the s word (trying to help Jeff with the google crawl bot) is a part of that in many of these relationships

I don't think it's just s-e-x, I think it's sin. We aren't seeing much s-e-x that doesn't carry with it some kind of illicit connotation. We are either seeing people have s-e-x that betrays someone else, or in which one partner is betraying the other, or we're seeing partners who aren't having s-e-x for some reason or where one refuses to have s-e-x with the other. Or in the case of scene at the end of the last episode, it's about how an act of s-e-x can be a betrayal of others in surprising ways. The theme isn't s-e-x, it's betrayal and sinfulness more generally.

Remember the story of Hades and Persephone that Bert tells in episode two? That story has s-e-x in it (Hades rapes Persephone), but it's not about s-e-x. It's about power, control, abuse, betrayal.

And I think that's true for the season as a whole. It's about sinfulness in general, and what happens to people once they have sinned. Are they repentant? Are they corrupted? Do they succeed or are they punished? I guess we'll find out.

Agree. Sin and betrayal.

[Anonymous]

So many great themes.

So when is our Wine WL Meet up downtown? Tuesday nights good?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Did anyone else laugh so hard at the opera scene when Tanya says "Who's that lady? The queen of Sicily?"

Where is her husband? Hasn't it been two days yet?

Yes! And her little wave and smile...and the expressions of the Italian women was priceless. So cute and funny.

Love the comedic moments from many characters

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Did anyone else laugh so hard at the opera scene when Tanya says "Who's that lady? The queen of Sicily?"

Where is her husband? Hasn't it been two days yet?

Yes! And her little wave and smile...and the expressions of the Italian women was priceless. So cute and funny.

I loved it. Also loved that they finally broke and waved back!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Did anyone else laugh so hard at the opera scene when Tanya says "Who's that lady? The queen of Sicily?"

Where is her husband? Hasn't it been two days yet?

He’s at the body shop

[Anonymous]

I hope the relationship between Quentin and Tonya just ends up being good friends who both enjoy beauty and company.