Just Another Mad Bad Fan PostPosted: Fri Mar 10, 2006 2:35 pm
Does Helen Have Second Thoughts?
I was just wondering whether or not Helen was having second thoughts after dumping Sean in the final episode of Series 1. We see her back in her office with her head (briefly) in her hands and then we see that she is still wearing her engagement ring. She fiddles with it for a bit, and just when we think that this is going to be the dramatic moment when she takes it off, she rather strangely doesn't! She then attempts to phone Sean at home (for what reason?) and gets the answer phone. Was she considering changing her mind? Does Sean's act of burning his suit in the garden finally convince her that she is doing the right thing and that she is well rid of the prat? Helen is clearly a girl who doesn't take kindly to being humiliated in front of the whole wing - compare this with her response to Nikki in Series 1, Episode 1 and her dumping of Nikki after the riot. When Helen returns at the beginning of Series 2 after her break, she says "I'm where I want to be now", Nikki asks "Meaning not back with Sean?", to which she responds "Hardly!" As if to say "As if I'd be back with someone who was prepared to publicly humiliate me for the sake of his own pride." So does Sean finally seal his own fate?
_________________
notsuchabadgirl PostPosted: Fri Mar 10, 2006 2:41 pm
The idea of Helen having second thoughts of "Sean the prawn" is just too horrible to contemplate Laughing
Seans fate was well and truly sealed after helen and nikkis first kiss.
_________________
Simone_Rocks PostPosted: Fri Mar 10, 2006 2:43 pm
Sean was a tool. Id say by burning the suit that he completely sealed his fate..from that moment on Helen knew she'd done the right thing. I dont think she was having second thoughts as such..but probably just wondering what she would do next..would she tell nikki would she take a break from the prison..how was her life going to pan out now?
_________________
Obsessed with Helen PostPosted: Fri Mar 10, 2006 7:39 pm
I think Helen was looking at that pathetic ring and wondering what the f.....?
I interpete the call to the house as her checking to see if he was okay, just because she didn't love him, didn't mean she didn't care.
I think Helen's fate with Nikki was sealed even before the first kiss.......
_________________
ekny PostPosted: Fri Mar 10, 2006 8:20 pm
Obsessed with Helen wrote:
I interpete the call to the house as her checking to see if he was okay, just because she didn't love him, didn't mean she didn't care.
I agree w/OWH here, she's doing a bit of a girl-thing with the phone-call, that was my take on it; it's an impulse, that's all. Plus she's just told him she won't marry him for the most final, devastating, inarguable reason: anything else can be fixed, can be addressed. "I don't love you"... nup, that's terminal, no coming back from it.
She's burned her bridges. (Which is no effing reason for Sean to burn his suit. He's a child.)
_________________
Obsessed with Helen PostPosted: Fri Mar 10, 2006 8:23 pm
ekny wrote:
"I don't love you"... nup, that's terminal, no coming back from it.
Nice observation....
_________________
Helen&Nikki4ever PostPosted: Thu Mar 23, 2006 6:33 pm
[quote="Obsessed with Helen"]I think Helen was looking at that pathetic ring and wondering what the f.....?
quote]
At least she took that one off aparently! Wink Wink Very Happy
_________________
abzug PostPosted: Thu Mar 23, 2006 6:53 pm
I agree with everyone else here. I think she was motivated to call him because she had been so abrupt and brutal, and she wanted to soften in a bit, now with time to prepare, speak more gently and articulately. The thing is, they've been together for a number of years, so we can assume she has fond, caring feelings for him, and its painful for her to dump him. I know that's been my experience when I've ended long-term relationships--for a while afterwards I'm really concerned about the ex's emotional state, are they ok etc, and I have the urge to comfort them (strange, I know, but not uncommon, I think?), even though I am the source of the anguish.
I'm not sure if I think Helen wants to comfort Sean per se, but I do think she wants to give him more information about why she did what she did--perhaps she's even contemplating telling him about Nikki?
_________________
ekny PostPosted: Thu Mar 23, 2006 7:56 pm
abzug wrote:
I'm not sure if I think Helen wants to comfort Sean per se, but I do think she wants to give him more information about why she did what she did--perhaps she's even contemplating telling him about Nikki?
For me, I'd have to say I didn't think so: she was reading the story of their Relationship on the desk--the number in the speed-dial, the photo, the ring--but there was nothing *left* to say, it's why she puts the phone down again. It's a done deed. There may be some of that compassion one feels right after you've beaten the shit out of someone (it's actually not very familiar to me, metaphorically, but I've read about it), but the grown-up thing to do is suck it up & be an adult about it. In some ways, making nice is just beating him up all over again: the consequence of Helen's dumping Sean is that she *can't* call him: she no longer has that luxury. --e
_________________
abzug PostPosted: Thu Mar 23, 2006 8:09 pm
ekny wrote:
but there was nothing *left* to say, it's why she puts the phone down again. It's a done deed.
I thought she hung up because she got the machine? Am I remembering wrong? Or, being too literal?
_________________
ekny PostPosted: Thu Mar 23, 2006 8:50 pm
abzug wrote:
ekny wrote:
but there was nothing *left* to say, it's why she puts the phone down again. It's a done deed.
I thought she hung up because she got the machine? Am I remembering wrong? Or, being too literal?
Yeah she got the machine; she coulda left a message.
_________________
abzug PostPosted: Thu Mar 23, 2006 9:42 pm
ekny wrote:
Yeah she got the machine; she coulda left a message.
I guess. I just always got the feeling she actually wanted to talk to him directly in that moment. Leaving a message on the machine wouldn't have sufficed. In fact, she'd have no way of knowing if he'd even get the message, given that its her apartment etc. Too bad good ole Sean didn't have a cell phone. But as we know, cell phones often aren't as telegenic as answering machines, given that you can't film a person listening to a message at the same time as the message is being left, and given that a cell phone makes someone theoretically always reachable (making it harder to use as a metaphor of disconnect, of ships passing in the night).
_________________
munky PostPosted: Fri May 19, 2006 2:21 pm
I'm not sure here about Helen not wanting to tell Sean about Nikki.
To me Helen is an honest person. As much as she was cool and aloof with Sean when he was going on about various things about the wedding, she's not the sort of person to just crush somebody else's dreams without an honest explanation. She's not a bastard.
Remember how much (I think about 4 times) and in what a way she begged Sean to come out of that damn tailor's parlour and go somewhere where they can talk properly. I think she respects love and commitment(which would be the basis of Sean asking her hand in marriage) in principle to not just dump somebody who wanted that with her. She's got too much integrity for that. So I do think that given a proper chance she would have told him at least that she has mixed feelings about a woman, if not paint the full picture.
In a way, I think her telling him that Nikki kissed her was a sort of her screaming to him and to herself 'Are you so blind that you can't see what's happening'?
Especially in the view of the fact that Helen still wanted to comfort him in his loss, Sean retaliatory gesture is as petty as they come. He had no right to bring their problems into Helen's work (even more so when Helen was being attacked from below and above), there was no need for him to humiliate Helen and it was morally wrong to humiliate the woman you wanted to marry a few hours ago because she was honest enough to tell you that she can't marry you because she doesn't love you. Sean was a weak petty bastard.
Anyway, I don't think Helen had second thoughts at all, she was just being the caring person that she is. She wouldn't have said something as terminal as "I don't love you". Also, more than telling Sean, admitting to Sean, she told herself. Her running on the street afterwards was her crying at the realization that she's never been in love with Sean (or any of the other many boyfriends) AND, imho, that she in love with Nikki (a woman).
Emotionally that is an earthquake. You're shattered and confused and happy and sad at the same time and so many other things. I think instinctively in a situation like that you need to see where the other person stands after such a confession just to ... sort of consolidate your bearings. For better or for worse, up until that point Sean was the only person close to Helen. She needed to talk to somebody after that earthquake.
_________________
Lisa289 PostPosted: Fri May 19, 2006 4:36 pm
you're good at this analyzing lark, aint ya munky?
_________________
campgrrls PostPosted: Fri May 19, 2006 7:08 pm
I agree on Helen wanting to give Sean some explanation. Not to mention that they'd have to talk about what to do next: practicalities of moving out of the flat etc.
I always thought that Helen fiddling with her ring was done in a fairly resigned but devastated way. It was like she was contemplating the ring as a symbol of her past assumptions that she was heterosexual. She never had problems with the idea of lesbian relationships, but leaving Sean was leaving behind a certain amount of heterosexual security. It was a big step that she finally was pressured into making on the spur of the moment.
And the problem remained that Nikki was still in prison so making the decision to leave Sean and that lifestyle, left her in limbo not knowing where her life was going next.
abzug PostPosted: Fri May 19, 2006 7:26 pm
campgrrls wrote:
And the problem remained that Nikki was still in prison so making the decision to leave Sean and that lifestyle, left her in limbo not knowing where her life was going next.
Good point. I remember when I was watching it that I assumed (like Nikki did) that Helen was now going to be with Nikki. But of course Helen is not there yet in her thinking, and won't be for another 5-6 episodes.
_________________
Just Another Mad Bad Fan PostPosted: Sat May 20, 2006 12:40 am
Does Helen Have Second Thoughts?
Exactly abzug! So I don't think that if Helen isn't even admitting it to herself yet, that she's likely to say anything to Sean about it. Also, she had only the day before told Sean the little porky about Nikki trying to drag her into her cell and kiss her, and she had agreed with Sean's assertion that that was assault. It would be rather extraordinary for her to then say to him, " I just wanted to tell you that the reason why I don't love you anymore and can't marry you, is because I think I might be falling in love with the woman who I told you assaulted me yesterday"! I really don't think she'd want to go there! Although it would have been most helpful for us if she had, because then we would have got to hear her explanation as to why she had lied to him, as he would most certainly have questioned her sanity, and she would have been forced to tell him the truth - so I think she would have avoided that particular can of worms!
There is also the possibility that Sean would pooh-pooh the idea that she was developing feelings for Nikki anyway. He is so arrogant and, as Helen tells Zandra in Series 2, totally sure of himself, that he would probably just dismiss it as foolishness on her part, as a result of the stress of her job perhaps, and all the more reason for her to pack it in and stay at home and get on with the Parr breeding programme! He would not even contemplate that she could possibly fall for a woman, and especially not a con, when there was a catch like him on offer. He also had no hint from her that she was not entirely heterosexual. It was not as if he had any evidence of her going off him sexually, on the contrary she seemed to be doing the opposite, in a futile attempt to convince herself of her heterosexuality, so that, combined with his personality type, would have made him even more inclined to dismiss it, and she would probably know that too.
I think that she still needs to take herself away from the whole situation, so that she can get some perspective on her own confused feelings, before she can even admit to herself, and then eventually to Nikki that "Of course" Nikki "means something" to her. So she is certainly not ready at this point to admit that to Sean.
_________________
Jeanna PostPosted: Sat May 20, 2006 1:05 am
Quote:
It was not as if he had any evidence of her going off him sexually, on the contrary she seemed to be doing the opposite, in a futile attempt to convince herself of her heterosexuality, so that, combined with his personality type, would have made him even more inclined to dismiss it, and she would probably know that too.
And he is generally dismissive of it, but she seems to be searching for a stronger reaction. Wanting him to look her point-blank in the eye and say, why, darling, there's nothing in the slightest gay about you. She wants that corroboration, tho subjective, at this point to talk herself out of the conflicting feelings she's experiencing. And then, having it both ways, she's a bit chagrined, it would seem, that he's at all surprised that another woman would find her attractive. Why wouldn't Nikki find her attractive? What is it she says? Something like, 'well, you needn't sound so surprised about it.' As if he's hurt the very feelings she thought she wanted him to downplay.
_________________
abzug PostPosted: Sat May 20, 2006 1:46 am
Jeanna wrote:
he's hurt the very feelings she thought she wanted him to downplay.
Well put! This one scene is endlessly interesting, isn't it?
_________________
ekny PostPosted: Sat May 20, 2006 5:01 am
abzug wrote:
Jeanna wrote:
he's hurt the very feelings she thought she wanted him to downplay.
Well put! This one scene is endlessly interesting, isn't it?
And speaking of that scene, no one's ever discussed what's in the picture frame behind them, so I will because the first time I saw it I laughed for about 2 minutes in my office, all alone, like a perfect BG loon. It was just too freakin funny.
I can't post a pic here--I'm sure someone will, but my initial take was: Salome with John the Baptist's head. It comes into focus pretty well, and I've looked *everywhere* for a copy (as well as for my later identification) but of course can't find one. There's a woman top left, a severed head on the bottom, & a tray or plate beneath. It's quite clear.
I realize all the background art in BG isn't necessarily Meaningful, as we've discussed, but seems to me really unlikely this was just tossed up there by accident. Oh, hm, let's see... shall we do the water lillies? ...Déjeuner des canotiers? ...or--heyyy! Salome with John's head on a plate!
I mean hello.
I got to thinking about it, however, & believe it's possible--and more interesting & appropriate--if it's Judith with the head of Holofernes. In terms of characterizing Helen, I'd say a vengeful, spiteful woman who brought about the murder of a saint wasn't right at all: far more accurate a righteous woman who relieved the world of a tyrant.
A wee bit off-topic but under the circumstances, I hope to be forgiven. ;)
If anyone can find the artist & a reproduction, I'd be seriously grateful.
_________________
COOLUK1 PostPosted: Sat May 20, 2006 11:01 am
Sean
He had no right to bring their problems into Helen's work (even more so when Helen was being attacked from below and above), there was no need for him to humiliate Helen and it was morally wrong to humiliate the woman you wanted to marry a few hours ago because she was honest enough to tell you that she can't marry you because she doesn't love you. Sean was a weak petty bastard.
But he must have seen her 'work' as a major factor in, if not the cause of, the end of their relationship. Like a lot of men, he wouldn't think the he could possibly be been part of the problem..he'd feel like a totally blameless victim here.
Helen often fretted at home about work, brought paperwpork home..he knew Nikki was an 'obssession' and so on.
So for him, where better to publically humilate Helen..he was angry and upset not only with Helen but with Larkhall.
_________________
munky PostPosted: Sat May 20, 2006 11:22 am
Don't get me wrong, I understand perfectly why he felt like he had to do doing what he did. He's so very predictable.
The point I was trying to make is that he didn't have any integrity. He didn't even rise to half of Helen's. Compare man for man, Sean and Thomas. Even by a man's standards Sean was a weak, petty bastard. Let alone by Helen's standards.
_________________
COOLUK1 PostPosted: Sat May 20, 2006 11:27 am
The point I was trying to make is that he didn't have any integrity
Yes well a lot of men don't sadly, as l know from personal experience.
Imo women generally do have more intergrity than men.
_________________
hetane PostPosted: Sat May 20, 2006 12:56 pm
Um, here's clueless again, that's me that is. I didn't see Sean as a bad sort at all, he seemed just like he was going along in life, had his own business, his girl, was planning on marrying her, then would come the kids. Regular, everyday "Joe"
That for me said that Helen was "stuffing" her lesbianism, cause she really didn't have "the evil guy who beat her so women would be better than this" sort of thing in her life.
She seemed to pick guys she could justify dumping eventually. Bet it was a pattern with her, though subconsious.
Thomas, to her was "everything you would want in a man". But she was soooooo much stronger in personality than he was. Women smitten don't seem to act like she did with Thomas, merely making time to fit him in. I believe whole-heartedly had Helen stuck with Thomas, she'd have found a way out of that relationship. He followed her around like a puppy in my opinion. I thought him waaay weak for her personality and if "he was everything you'd want in a man" seems she would have stayed in her cycle of finding then dumping a every day sort of man. She found these guys so she could dump them... because underneath it all, her whole life... she really did ... "Want a woman"
I rather liked that the guys in Helen's life weren't bad guys, she just needed to come to grips with her sexuality. For me it also takes away the oft cited theory that lesbians are lesbians because we hate men, or think all men are bad guys. We are lesbians because it's natural for us to love women. Not because men don't listen to us, or don't support us. Helen didn't need an excuse (like crap men in her life) to accept her sexual identity. She stepped into her lesbian identity on a positive note, (accepting her sexuality), rather than a negative note (men are crap).
Just how I view it.
_________________
COOLUK1 PostPosted: Sat May 20, 2006 1:21 pm
I don't think Sean was a 'bad bloke' as such ..he was like a lot of men are... so into 'himself' and what 'he' wanted that he didn't/couldn't see that Helen and he weren't that compatible.
This can happen with any relationship not just m/f. You can get one partner who just isn't as committed or reading from the same page, as the other one imagines.
This is where the 'soul mate' aspect comes in..when two people really click they just instinctively *know* where the other one is coming from.
Helen and Sean could never have been soul mates and I guess doomed from the start Nikki or no Nikki.
Helen and Thomas, while not soul mates, might have worked as a couple if he was happy to be a bit of lap dog...??
He did show a bit of spunk though when he decked Fenner and had the guts to make Helen face up to her self and walk out of the restaurant.
_________________
munky PostPosted: Sat May 20, 2006 1:33 pm
I didn't mean to make a connection between Sean being weak and lacking integrity and Helen wanting a woman. That is exactly what I adored about BG and Simone's take on Helen: the homonormative take on it, where Helen wants a woman because she wants a woman, because structurally she is made such that she feels fulfilled by/with a woman.
I didn't feel she picked up dumpable guys. Because until Sean, she seems not to have known/understood that there was anything wrong (wrong to herself) with being with a man. She didn't know better before Nikki.
I saw Sean as a bastard because when things got tough, in time of crisis, when characters are shown, he didn't rise to the challenge. He was weak, petty and vengeful. He didn't have the heroics of a lover scorned. Because fundamentally he didn't love Helen, he loved himself in the relationship with Helen.
BUT, yes, he wasn't Fenner. None of the men in Helen's life were. They couldn't have been. Helen wouldn't have fallen for them. Unlike Karen she doesn't have a blind spot where bastards are concerned.
I'm sorry, but I did saw Thomas as what a lot of women want in a man. He's handsome, smart, honest, quite happy to fight for feminist issues. He's not perfect, none of us and none of the characters are. If he would have been weak he wouldn't have taken Helen on the issue that was the hardest of them all: the fact that she really wanted a woman. A lesser man wouldn't have even gone there with the thoughts (cause he would have felt threaten by the very idea), let alone have the integrity to be a friend in that moment of crisis.
Put it this way: post coming-out I could very well see Helen (and even Nikki) be good friends with Thomas (and even Dominic).
But not with Sean. He doesn't have the necessary integrity and you can never count on him in time of crisis. He might just throw his teddy out and set it on fire cause the other children don't want to play with him anymore.
_________________
badgirlnuts PostPosted: Sat May 20, 2006 5:06 pm
I think Sean had every right to be mad as hell.Helen strung him along ("I love you Sean,lets get married as soon as possible"), this after the 1st kiss,when she was in definate emotional turmoil. He deserved better. As far as Thomas being the almost perfect man then how come his 1st wife left him for his friend? It had nothing to do with either man Helen just fell in love with Nikki and realized what she really wanted from life.
_________________
munky PostPosted: Sat May 20, 2006 5:41 pm
Of course it had nothing to do with either man.
Sean had every right to be distraught as the dissolution of his relationship. But he has no right ot be pissed off and act on it cause something didn't tunr in his favour. I don't see Helen lying to him before the tailor incident. When she was sure she told him. Isn't that what an honest person does. What was she supposed to do, inform him that she's got something on her mind but she wasn't sure what it was?
As far as he deserving better... it always takes 2 to tango. Can you honestly say that Sean had no way of knowing that something was wrong?
And anyway, what exactly is it this better that he deserved. What else was there for Helen to give him apart from being honest when she knew what she was honest about.
_________________
Jeanna PostPosted: Sat May 20, 2006 6:34 pm
ekny wrote:
And speaking of that scene, no one's ever discussed what's in the picture frame behind them, so I will because the first time I saw it I laughed for about 2 minutes in my office, all alone, like a perfect BG loon. It was just too freakin funny.
I can't post a pic here--I'm sure someone will, but my initial take was: Salome with John the Baptist's head. It comes into focus pretty well, and I've looked *everywhere* for a copy (as well as for my later identification) but of course can't find one. There's a woman top left, a severed head on the bottom, & a tray or plate beneath. It's quite clear.
I realize all the background art in BG isn't necessarily Meaningful, as we've discussed, but seems to me really unlikely this was just tossed up there by accident. Oh, hm, let's see... shall we do the water lillies? ...Déjeuner des canotiers? ...or--heyyy! Salome with John's head on a plate!
I mean hello.
I got to thinking about it, however, & believe it's possible--and more interesting & appropriate--if it's Judith with the head of Holofernes. In terms of characterizing Helen, I'd say a vengeful, spiteful woman who brought about the murder of a saint wasn't right at all: far more accurate a righteous woman who relieved the world of a tyrant.
A wee bit off-topic but under the circumstances, I hope to be forgiven. Wink
If anyone can find the artist & a reproduction, I'd be seriously grateful.
O! this is wonderful. <G> This is usually the kind of detail I notice if I'm watching a film on a big screen, but on my tv it gets lost in the background. I had to pop in the dvd and take a look. I would say, definitely John the Baptist and Salome, prob. 19th cent. But good luck trying to find it. It was a very popular subject. And the b/w sketch makes it a most subtle detail. And damn right it's there for a reason. This is the final ep. of series one and Sean is about to be handed his head on a plate, tho he never gets a 'proper' explanation of just why. He does blame Larkhall as a whole for being the 'corespondent' in their break-up, and his little act of self-immolation, while maximally embarrassing his now ex-fiancee, outs him as the straw man he's been all along.
I might've used Aubrey Beardsley's sketch of the same subject for Oscar Wilde's theatrical version, but I suppose Beardsley has gone somewhat out of fashion, tho something young couples might've decorated with in the 60s and 70s...but what is that portrait doing up on their walls to begin with?! lol What a sly set decorator.
You're right, an image of Judith, who did the active severing herself, might be the optimal choice here, but can you imagine if they'd used Artemisia or Caravaggio's great works... In those stunning colors. That would've been overwhelming.
And, as for Thomas being a friend and doing Helen a favor by walking away...yes, he does, but I don't think he does it for her, it's a totally self-serving gesture done out of self-preservation as he's just told her he'd been in a bad relationship with someone who'd used him to get over somebody else.
_________________
ekny PostPosted: Sat May 20, 2006 8:28 pm
Jeanna wrote:
O! this is wonderful. <G> This is usually the kind of detail I notice if I'm watching a film on a big screen, but on my tv it gets lost in the background. I had to pop in the dvd and take a look. I would say, definitely John the Baptist and Salome, prob. 19th cent. But good luck trying to find it.
Oh yay, someone wrote back on this, thank you! Yes, I looked pretty thoroughly, although I couldn't quite tell if it was 19th c or a bit earlier. I wish we had an art historian on board who could just eyeball this stuff & answer all our questions, <snap!>.
I only found it because I was making note of just how their exchange went in that scene so was looking at it close-up at work. Which screen isn't much bigger than my tv screen at home (13" + 20yrs old: it's a wonder I can see ANYthing) but I am sitting like 3" away from it which helps w/details.
Sometimes I fantasize about having a really good screen where I could see stuff properly... then I get a grip. Just as well, if I got any more detail-driven I might never leave the house again; they'll come untomb me in a decade or so to find Helen & Nikki playing to my bones, sitting up alertly on the couch, notebook still in hand.
Jeanna wrote:
And damn right it's there for a reason. This is the final ep. of series one and Sean is about to be handed his head on a plate, tho he never gets a 'proper' explanation of just why. He does blame Larkhall as a whole for being the 'corespondent' in their break-up, and his little act of self-immolation, while maximally embarrassing his now ex-fiancee, outs him as the straw man he's been all along.
Very nicely put, cheers.
Jeanna wrote:
I might've used Aubrey Beardsley's sketch of the same subject for Oscar Wilde's theatrical version, but I suppose Beardsley has gone somewhat out of fashion
My feeling about all this stuff is the same--there'd be some issue around rights & reproduction that might not make it possible to use 'real' art but only close look-alikes. It no doubt varies with program, budget, etc., but we'd have to ask someone like filbertfox, perhaps that's the kind of technical detail she has some knowledge of...?
Jeanna wrote:
but what is that portrait doing up on their walls to begin with?! lol What a sly set decorator.
Well, yeah. I just kept giggling to myself in the office. Poor bugger, hope s/he enjoyed themselves doing it, god knows waiting for some anonymous loon on the internet to notice the better part of a decade later wouldn't be much reward. ;)
Jeanna wrote:
You're right, an image of Judith, who did the active severing herself, might be the optimal choice here, but can you imagine if they'd used Artemisia or Caravaggio's great works... In those stunning colors. That would've been overwhelming.
Yeah, too much even if $ or rights weren't an issue; it's supposed to be background for a reason. I suspect it is Salome rather than Judith, but really feel the latter's a better choice. We'll probably never know: the simple fact that Sean's going to, as you put it, get his head handed to him on a plate may be as far as they thought it through. Regardless I'm glad someone found it as interesting/entertaining as I did. It might be the slyest joke I've seen in the background yet, I totally agree with you. --e
COOLUK1 PostPosted: Sat May 20, 2006 8:36 pm
Oh I do love these threads ...lol...thank you all
it's a wonder I can see ANYthing) but I am sitting like 3" away from it which helps w/details.
You'll make your eyes bad EK
Sometimes I fantasize about having a really good screen where I could see stuff properly... then I get a grip. Just as well, if I got any more detail-driven I might never leave the house again; they'll come untomb me in a decade or so to find Helen & Nikki playing to my bones, sitting up alertly on the couch, notebook still in hand.
Just toooo funny...Lol
_________________
Jeanna PostPosted: Sat May 20, 2006 8:59 pm
Laughing Indeed.
Also in keeping with the subliminally, at the very least, implanted image, by proximity, of Sean having his pate (that's pate with a long a, not liver pate <G>) on a platter he himself blazingly hands us the other side of the headless (or heedless) horseman equation by symbolically beheading his own effigy; a scarecrow rarely has a head (so much for "if I only had a brain") and is a straw stuffed torso on a stick.
_________________
ekny PostPosted: Sat May 20, 2006 9:28 pm
COOLUK1 wrote:
Oh I do love these threads ...lol...thank you all
Wouldn't be much fun w/o everyone! ;)
whaddya mean 650/20 isn't a MEASUREMENT wrote:
it's a wonder I can see ANYthing) but I am sitting like 3" away from it which helps w/details.
COOLUK1 wrote:
You'll make your eyes bad EK
Aw. Thanks. Trust me, I've had specs since 7, they won't get much worse.
ek pending corpse aka shadow of former self etc wrote:
Sometimes I fantasize about having a really good screen where I could see stuff properly... then I get a grip. Just as well, if I got any more detail-driven I might never leave the house again; they'll come untomb me in a decade or so to find Helen & Nikki playing to my bones, sitting up alertly on the couch, notebook still in hand.
Just toooo funny...Lol
<creeeeaaaak!>
_________________
ekny PostPosted: Tue May 23, 2006 6:02 pm
munky wrote:
I don't see Helen lying to him before the tailor incident. When she was sure she told him. Isn't that what an honest person does. What was she supposed to do, inform him that she's got something on her mind but she wasn't sure what it was?
Heh, nicely said, couldn't agree more. ;)
Quote:
What else was there for Helen to give him apart from being honest when she knew what she was honest about.
Again, I think you're on target here. Actually, I've been reviewing early eps & think they give us a remarkable amount of information abt how Sean & Helen functioned as a couple with very brief scenes/dialogue. It's of interest to me almost solely as a way to better understand how Helen was in this context, but as for Sean--far as I can see (I'm talking about before the pressuring-her-about-marriage-business) he was as supportive as he knew how to be: he attended to Helen quite closely, but also treated her the way many men do treat women--as a very appealling but essentially foreign country that may or may not have booby-traps & minefields laid out so Tread Carefully! I don't think this was because he was weak or afraid, men & women do tend to speak with different intent, & I think they don't want to fuck up or put a foot wrong. Which would be remarkably easy to do with Helen, as she maintains a fair amount of emotional distance from him almost all of the time. He probably finds that pleasant (i.e. v unstressful), so long as it's working in his favor & the clouds stay distant on the horizon.
_________________
Just Another Mad Bad Fan PostPosted: Tue May 23, 2006 11:20 pm
Does Helen Have Second Thoughts?
Now there's an image ekny - your old bones perched up on your couch - and the World's Ugliest Dog chewing on one of them! They may in fact never ever find you, as the WUD may quite possibly slowly work his way through the whole lot...all that'll remain will be a pair of specs and a notebook! Very Happy
I love your notion of the way many men treat women "as a very appealing but essentially foreign country that may or may not have booby-traps and minefields laid out"! Laughing That is very funny; yes indeed, the poor things are rather at a loss aren't they - and that's before they even encounter our weapons of mass distraction!
_________________
ekny PostPosted: Wed May 24, 2006 3:35 am
Re: Does Helen Have Second Thoughts?
Just Another Mad Bad Fan wrote:
Now there's an image ekny - your old bones perched up on your couch - and the World's Ugliest Dog chewing on one of them! They may in fact never ever find you, as the WUD may quite possibly slowly work his way through the whole lot...all that'll remain will be a pair of specs and a notebook! :-D
Yah but... he's already dead, mon. Maybe I could prop a nice picture of him at my feet. 'Cept that would piss my cat off big-time. --e
_________________
COOLUK1 PostPosted: Wed May 24, 2006 6:25 am
Weapons of mass distrcation
Quote:
I love your notion of the way many men treat women "as a very appealing but essentially foreign country that may or may not have booby-traps and minefields laid out"!
That is very funny; yes indeed, the poor things are rather at a loss aren't they - and that's before they even encounter our weapons of mass distraction
Lmso...I love how good people are with words on here !!.
As I recall Nikki uses her WoMD on Helen during that lifers meeting
_________________
Just Another Mad Bad Fan PostPosted: Wed May 24, 2006 9:40 pm
Does Helen Have Second Thoughts?
Cool, I think those were perhaps her weapons of Miss distraction! Very Happy
_________________
COOLUK1 PostPosted: Wed May 24, 2006 9:56 pm
Oh ha ha ha ..very good!!! Laughing
_________________
munky PostPosted: Thu May 25, 2006 8:26 am
Quote:
I don't think this was because he was weak or afraid
Helen said to Zandra that Sean was weak but very sure of himself. I rather think that he was weak, a wimp. Like Colin later on.
I mean, Sean was afraid to go give a gardening lecture in a women's prison. He was apprehensive about venturing into a teritorry where Helen went every day. Fearless, to make and uphold the rule.
Sean, like Colin would have bowed to Fenner without a squeak.
I agree that usually men say they have difficulties in understanding what a woman is about. But there are exceptions. Thomas is one of them. In the sense that at least he was trying. He wanted to know (yeah, you can can say that he ultimately wanted to know for his own gain - but don't we all), wasn't afraid of what he was going to find and didn't set things on fire when what he found wasn't to his liking.
Thomas at least gives the impression that what he wants is honesty.
I thought Dominic was strong as well. He wasn't into that macho crap, but he had a strong character. Both with Fenner and with Helen/Nikki.