The Gilded Age

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Anyone else totally turned off by Peggy's doctor suitor? So prissy. And his awful mother - good god. Run, Peggy, run.

Whatever that accent is, it should never be used again.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I wish they would give Christine Baranski more to do.

She could give Cynthia Nixon some acting lessons.

[Anonymous]

This show is finally picking up - loved when Gladys started standing up to the awful sister Sarah. Time to put that smug wench in her place!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:This show is finally picking up - loved when Gladys started standing up to the awful sister Sarah. Time to put that smug wench in her place!

Yes! Go, Gladys! Know your worth!

Cynthia Nixon is incredibly irritating and terrible. Christine Baranski definitely needs her part to expand. Marian is annoying. I was sad to see John leave. He was a favorite of mine, so I hope he still comes around on occasion.

When is Peggy going to fess up about her son and all that disgrace?!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Anyone else totally turned off by Peggy's doctor suitor? So prissy. And his awful mother - good god. Run, Peggy, run.

+100
The doctor's mother is ATROCIOUS. Phylicia Rashad seems to always play that character. Awful.

[Anonymous]

I am loving this season

[Anonymous]

Who can we petition to have a spinoff that focuses on the black elite during the Gilded Age?

[Anonymous]

Oh no, what do we think happened?!

I found Oscar’s story heartbreaking. To love someone like that, then lose him and never be able to talk honestly about it with anyone… However, as lovely as Marian was to him, that was so incredibly unrealistic. No one in that time would ever have treated a gay person kindly. Quite the opposite. This show really takes liberties when it comes to social issues.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Oh no, what do we think happened?!

I found Oscar’s story heartbreaking. To love someone like that, then lose him and never be able to talk honestly about it with anyone… However, as lovely as Marian was to him, that was so incredibly unrealistic. No one in that time would ever have treated a gay person kindly. Quite the opposite. This show really takes liberties when it comes to social issues.

Yes, I agree, same with the van Rhijn house entertaining black suffragettes. That would have simply not happened.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Oh no, what do we think happened?!

I found Oscar’s story heartbreaking. To love someone like that, then lose him and never be able to talk honestly about it with anyone… However, as lovely as Marian was to him, that was so incredibly unrealistic. No one in that time would ever have treated a gay person kindly. Quite the opposite. This show really takes liberties when it comes to social issues.

Yes, I agree, same with the van Rhijn house entertaining black suffragettes. That would have simply not happened.

+1
Exactly. I mean, it makes for a nice story, but totally unrealistic. However, they do seem to keep to the social mores re: things like Peggy’s child, divorced women, etc.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Oh no, what do we think happened?!

I found Oscar’s story heartbreaking. To love someone like that, then lose him and never be able to talk honestly about it with anyone… However, as lovely as Marian was to him, that was so incredibly unrealistic. No one in that time would ever have treated a gay person kindly. Quite the opposite. This show really takes liberties when it comes to social issues.

Yes, I agree, same with the van Rhijn house entertaining black suffragettes. That would have simply not happened.

+1
Exactly. I mean, it makes for a nice story, but totally unrealistic. However, they do seem to keep to the social mores re: things like Peggy’s child, divorced women, etc.

By both of your logic, we would have never progressed anywhere, ever. Of course it started with small kindnesses and small steps. And yes, ath that time there were white abolishinists who raised their children to be more progressive. There were “radicals” at that time, it’s documented. Lucretia Mott, Elizabeth Margaret Chandler…

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I wish they would give Christine Baranski more to do.

Yes, she's so good. And you know she'd be reeling since her whole identity was so wrapped up in being wealthy.

Not quite-- her identity was tied up in being a member of New York's longest-standing elite

[Anonymous]

I think George has been pretty whiny the last few episodes—“Sell me your railroad or else, waaaah!”

He also broke his promise to Gladys that she wouldn’t have to get married, and pressured her along with Bertha, now it’s all Bertha’s fault.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I think George has been pretty whiny the last few episodes—“Sell me your railroad or else, waaaah!”

He also broke his promise to Gladys that she wouldn’t have to get married, and pressured her along with Bertha, now it’s all Bertha’s fault.

Yes, and historically men like him were monsters. But Fellows can never quite make his people as abd as they should, because Morgan Spector is charming. So George gets whitewashed a bit.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Oh no, what do we think happened?!

I found Oscar’s story heartbreaking. To love someone like that, then lose him and never be able to talk honestly about it with anyone… However, as lovely as Marian was to him, that was so incredibly unrealistic. No one in that time would ever have treated a gay person kindly. Quite the opposite. This show really takes liberties when it comes to social issues.

Yes, I agree, same with the van Rhijn house entertaining black suffragettes. That would have simply not happened.

+1
Exactly. I mean, it makes for a nice story, but totally unrealistic. However, they do seem to keep to the social mores re: things like Peggy’s child, divorced women, etc.

By both of your logic, we would have never progressed anywhere, ever. Of course it started with small kindnesses and small steps. And yes, ath that time there were white abolishinists who raised their children to be more progressive. There were “radicals” at that time, it’s documented. Lucretia Mott, Elizabeth Margaret Chandler…

Agreed, and also I don't find it that weird that Ada and Agnes would host the suffrage meeting because they are established as characters who are feminists, far more welcoming to black people than most of their peers (Agnes hiring Peggy and supporting her writing career, welcoming Peggy's parents into their home, etc., and Ada just kind of being an all around bleeding heart). This is in contrast to their social peers who don't do this sort of thing ever. Also I think there is an undercurrent with both Agnes and Ada that they view their own lot in life as somewhat unfair (Ada for so long being consigned to being her sister's ward because she was a spinster, and Agnes being forced to endure a brutal and loveless marriage in order to maintain the family fortune) which makes them more attuned to other unfairnesses. Yes they are also incredibly oblivious sometimes, and tone deaf, and Agnes is a stickler for certain old rules of civility. But the idea that they would support suffrage or be friendlier than most to certain black people (note they are only welcoming to upper class, educated black people).

A big theme on the show is the idea of tradition v. progress and these two families, the Russells and the Van Rhyns, were chosen specifically because of how they represent that tension. So I don't think it's that weird or surprising when Agnes is sort of progressive on racial issues while also being very old fashioned about her son's possible homosexuality, or that Mrs. Russell would be open minded about divorced women while also selling her daughter off for a title. The contradiction is the point.