#weezly talks tcr

[weezly14]

What are your thoughts of TCR, Weezly?! I’m curious what you think of the show so far. 😊

Hey there.

So, TCR. Where to begin.

(A question the show seems to struggle with as well.)

I have a hard time saying I like or dislike it. Mostly I’m frustrated by it. The pacing has been all over. I’ve stuck with it because I’m curious and because Tom Holland is giving such an amazing performance, but honestly? He’s the bright spot.

Let’s do bullet points:

Why was it framed as a mystery, the promo was ???

Episode 4 could’ve been ten minutes in another episode

We spent way too long on exposition.

Episode 5 was great. The final moments? Super effective. I think this was the most respectful portrayal of CSA I’ve ever seen on screen

Episode 6 should’ve been the pilot. Amanda has been super under utilized and the show doesn’t pick up until we start seeing through her and watch her out the pieces together

For the past few episodes I find the time flying and asking where the rest is when the credits start rolling

Again, Tom can Act.

As someone who’s struggled with mental health, I appreciate how carefully and respectfully they’ve handled the material and therapy sessions. Episode 7 was excellent

I think the show itself doesn’t quite know who its audience is or what its message is. My old playwriting teacher used to say, “plays don’t have footnotes.” I think if you need a press tour or an interview with the director/writer/actors to determine the message of the piece or to understand what it’s about, that’s bad writing. The show should stand on its own. It shouldn’t need an accompanying essay or footnotes to explain itself. The press tour should promote, not explain or be damage control. It shouldn’t be necessary to get the work as a whole.

“It’s about asking for help” - this is so frustrating because I know exactly where they’re getting that. It’s the scene in episode 7. But the takeaway there, as I see it, is not “ask for help,” it’s “realize/acknowledge that you have a problem and your brain is lying to you.” In order to ask for help you need to recognize that there’s a problem! And this show could’ve easily been marketed as “take responsibility for your actions,” something about how we don’t choose what happens to us but we can choose how we respond. Mental illness is not an excuse for bad behavior, it can be a contributing factor, and there’s been enough in the past two episodes in the theme of taking responsibility and healing and growing from what happened that - in another edit - that could’ve been the message of the show.

I’m absolutely going to keep watching, and I hope Tom gets an Emmy for this role because truly, he’s given an incredible performance. But the writing and editing have been disappointing and I’m so annoyed because there’s such potential for an incredible show here. Alas.

In summary: mixed feelings. I’m still watching, there are things I really like, and things have bothered me, and I’m not sure if it’s good or bad because I think that’s less important. Is it effective? That’s a better question, I think. And, honestly, I don’t think it is. It doesn’t know what it wants to be.

(Happy to discuss further.)

[weezly14]

Hey Weezly, wondered about your thoughts on EP 9 of TCR. Tough one to watch, at least for me anyway. Thanks!

Hi there. You may regret asking for my thoughts.

Let me preface this by saying that I came into this show wanting to like it. I think Tom Holland is a great actor, and the source material was interesting, and I was curious to see what they'd do with it - especially once it became clear they were going the "inspired by" route rather than an adaptation of the Billy Milligan book.

That being said, I think episode 9 is when we start seeing the plot really get going, and, as a result, see just how poorly constructed it is. Episode 9 laid bare all the flaws and issues I could ignore in previous episodes. I'm going to watch the last episode because I've invested all this time already, but I liked this show a lot more before I watched this episode.

Here's a brief bullet-pointed list of some of my issues with it:

i hate this courtroom drama angle. a) that's not how trial works and b) why the fuck are we having a trial in the first place. Is he not pleading guilty? The trial just makes it clear how convoluted and contrived the case is - a shooting that injured but did not kill - and I know we were given the heads up that the defense lawyer isn't a good trial lawyer 2 episodes ago or something, but god, I could've represented Danny better. And the prosecutor gave a great performance except I cannot imagine a judge allowing half the shit he did. Also, again, the defense lawyer? Didn't cross-examine Marlin? wtf

the racial and sexual politics of this show are all the fuck over the place, and I could sort of let it slide but nope, now I've gotta call it out. 1) the prosecutor has been so clearly and completely painted as The Bad Guy so she's an easy target for abuse from viewers because she's being mean to our protagonist, and the fact that she (and the judge, who I assume will give Danny a harsh sentence next week - because the jury decides the verdict but the judge decides the sentence) is black and Danny is white? Feels some kind of way. 2) Angelo on the stand? This is a drug dealer, why would he show up? Further on Angelo - in like a 10 second scene last week we saw that Jonny-Danny had apparently a sexual relationship with him which makes the trying to get a gun scene hit so different. There's so much to unpack here. And yet. 3) Jerome. So, like most of the actors on this show, he's given a great performance. He and Tom have had some great scenes. But a) the amount of emotional labor this black character has done for the white character he barely knows is vaguely upsetting, b) when we're first introduced to Jerome via Ariana it doesn't come across as Great Love (sure we can debate this but I digress) but as soon as he seeks out Danny in prison and on the stand we get that narrative of practically Soulmates, c) this show purports to take place in the 70s - not a great time to be gay! To say nothing of the extra layer of race. Stonewall was 1969, dudes. On the one hand, super glad we're not having to listen to slurs. On the other, how is seemingly everyone barely blinking at Danny having a female alter or at the very least, if they don't accept the idea of alters, cross-dressing and fucking dudes? The prosecutor tries to prove that Jerome and Danny/Ariana weren't a couple because they never interactied outside the club - I'm sorry, it's the 1970s. Again, there is so much to unpack here re: Jerome as both a black man and a gay man and! We are getting! Nothing!

I liked Rya well enough but this episode she really grated on me? Her monologues felt preachy and patronizing.

Candy. So, one of the things I've come back to over and over is - we know Marlin abused Danny, and now we're to believe that Candy, on some level, knew. We also know that she married Marlin and theoretically stayed with him for financial reasons. Financial abuse is real, I'm not discounting that. But aside from being a dick, we don't really see Candy and Marlin's relationship as terribly abusive. She's so deferential to him, and yet we never see why, what has her so scared of him. She has a job! Her child is out of the house! Her characterization has been nearly nonexistent and it's frustrating.

So after struggling with undiagnosed MPD/DID for his entire life, we're supposed to accept that Danny, who was given a diagnosis like three days ago, is suddenly able to control his alters? With no issue? The scene 2? 3? Episodes ago where he tells Rya there are voices and he needs help is completely undermined by how much of a nonissue his alters have been in the interim.

All press tour Tom has been saying this show is about asking for help, and Danny asked for help in that scene - which was a great scene, I felt so seen there - and then in episode 9 we get Rya saying how brave or whatever Danny is for asking for help. BUT! He didn't! He committed a crime and was sent to jail and ended up in these therapy/interrogation sessions and then eventually yes, asked for help. But he was not out there crying for help, asking to be saved. He had his alters! He was unaware that he wasn't okay!

It's so clear that this show doesn't know what it wants to be and doesn't know what its focus is. Is it Danny? Is it Rya? The first 4 episodes are their own fucking show, and 6-9 are their own show. 5 feels like its own thing, too.

Additionally, this show is set in the 1970s. Why? Because Billy Milligan. Except they took the teeth out of that story, completely sanitized it to the point that there are virtually no stakes, but kept the set dressing. But that's literally all it is at this point. We get b-roll of 70s London, we have the costumes and cars, but aside from one shot of defense lawyer in army fatigues, we have no real sense of where we are in time. That is the only allusion to Vietnam. The prosecutor talked about incarceration like she's also read The New Jim Crow. Not a slur to be heard despite the fact that we are allegedly between Stonewall and AIDS. Rya talks about mental health like someone might in the present day. If they were already going to not make this about Billy Milligan, why the fuck did they keep it set in the 70s?

It is so frustrating because the actors are giving it their all. Tom? No notes. I was moved this episode, I've been moved all season. But I cannot get away from how poorly constructed this all is. This could've been so good. We should've spent more time digging into each alter. (What the fuck purpose did Mike serve? Ariana is the one "who can have sex" yet we also see Jonny engaging in sex?) What about the other dead alters in the barn? What about Adam. It has been hinted at all season that Marlin was not the first - the existence of Adam before Marlin would indicate that Danny had already experienced something that caused his psyche to split. we know nothing about dad. we still know nothing about Adam!!!!!!! Are we ever getting that resolution? Then what was the goddamn point? Why is there even a trial. Why have him commit a crime that's so toothless and that he's so obviously guilty of? Why structure this around a crime in the first place? Emmy Rossum has been severely underutilized, fuck, even Amanda Seyfried. Cannot believe they got Jason Isaacs to be in like. 17 minutes of this show. And once again, Tom Holland can have no lines and still be the most interesting character on screen. Can he go back to theatre, I'd love to see what he can do with a good script if this is what he can accomplish with a bad one.

I'm tired. This show had such potential, and it's tripping at the finish line. After taking four episodes to get started. Acting is great, cinematography has been good, but story? Writing? It's disappointing. I'm frustrated.

[weezly14]

Speak your truth about tcr 🎤

ok, i'm gonna break this up into episode 10 thoughts and series overall thoughts.

episode 10:

this is easily the prettiest episode; the cinematography and direction is great. i'm a sucker for long shots and creative lighting and framing several characters the same, etc - well done.

love that we get an arc for lawyer guy in the last two episodes (sarcasm.) what purpose does it serve?

ah, yes, we need him and Rya to have a moment in the diner. he needs to have PTSD so that he can mention it and Rya can monologue and then have a lightbulb moment

EXCEPT - a) i cannot buy that this dude - a MAN - told a woman he's known for three? weeks? not long anyway - that he has PTSD in public. not only that! it is, remember folks, the 1970s! i don't remember PTSD entering the public lexicon until the early 2000s, maybe, and it was bothering me so i looked it up and PTSD didn't enter the DSM until 1980; it started being used to refer to Vietnam vets in the 70s but it wasn't as commonplace as it is now.

Which just gets further into the issue I have with this episode and this show where the writers can't seem to remember where we are in time. a man being vulnerable about his war service and trauma with a woman he barely knows in public? using terminology that wasn't commonplace at the time? rya's entire monologue in the diner felt very current, in the way she laid things out. is this truly how they spoke about mental illness in the 70s? it doesn't feel like it.

i said the second we entered the courtroom drama portion of the show: they're gonna put "Adam" on the stand. AND THEY DID

honestly as much as i know the subject matter of this show is dark, i've personally never felt triggered but fuck me, i hated that scene of Danny on the stand talking about Adam. not only can i not believe that Danny - being confronted for the first time with the fact that the abuse Adam suffered was actually abuse he suffered, on the stand, in public - would take it all in stride like he did and not fracture further, BUT he called it rape, out loud? it definitely was, but do you know how hard it is for people to name the thing that was done to them? i'm not saying Marlin didn't rape Danny; I'm saying I can't believe Danny would accept that the rape happened to him in one moment and then in the next one call it exactly that. his testimony on the stand was that of someone who's spent years in therapy working through this, not weeks/months.

add to that - i absolutely hated the way that Danny spilled his guts, is on the stand in tears, and when he's done speaking Stan simply says, "the defense rests" and turns his back and walks away. Danny needs care, and that mic drop moment wasn't as effective as it was cruel - to me, anyway

Rya just? Quit? lol ok.

the thing that pissed me off the most, though???????? i've said before, the existence of Adam before Marlin's abuse indicates that Marlin was not the first abuser. Danny's dad is alluded to in passing, and then we have an entire fucking episode about trying to find him in London which, I stand by my statement, is such a waste of an episode, but nothing else really? they sort of implied that maybe Marlin wasn't the first abuser Candy had dealt with? but it was all very implied, blink and you'll miss it - to the point that I thought it was just going to end unresolved. THEN, ten minutes from the end, Candy drops the bomb that Danny's dad abused him first?????????? this bothers me on several levels. 1) the way she danced around saying the words was imo how Danny should've been in the courtroom but given that we're past that it seems odd to suddenly be unable to say the words? 2) we're supposed to believe that this woman found out her four year old was being abused by his father and left, and then when she realizes that same child is being abused by her new husband she does nothing? the glimpse into their life that we see in that episode introducing kid Danny to us - it does not appear that they are struggling so desperately that she needed Marlin. 3) relatedly, Candy was called to testify to Danny's abuse, and Marlin scares her into not pointing the finger at him. BUT SHE KNEW ABOUT DANNY'S FATHER. why would she not have said anything? it absolves Marlin, it paints her as a good mom ("I got us out of there as soon as I knew") and it helps Danny. 4) They waited until the last ten minutes of the last episode to reveal this!!!!!!!!!!

this episode both felt too short and also, i was so done by the end.

overall series thoughts

Tom can act. Truly, he deserves an Emmy, Golden Globe, etc for this performance, because he's the shining star

the script was terrible. certain lines just bothered me and the characterization was all over the place. i feel like we watched two different shows - one about Danny in therapy, and one about Rya and Stan teaming up to save him. this was not a cohesive story.

again, the crime he was charged with was stupid. he shot at someone in broad daylight, missed, and the person didn't come forward? pick a different angle in, this one was toothless

i hated the courtroom stuff, i'm sorry. it was bad.

why was this set in the 70s? billy milligan. aside from DID and the not guilty by reason of insanity, in what way did this story or character in any way resemble billy milligan? they got the set dressing and the costuming right, but the racial and sexual politics, the way that rya is apparently divorced and on decent terms with her ex and former professor (love how that's never discussed and also - until 2010, new york state did not allow no fault divorce. maybe this is a minor quibble but my first thought watching this, seeing Rya doing the single mom thing, saying she's divorced, was to ask: what were the laws around divorce back then in New York? 1974 is when women were first allowed to open their own bank accounts), the glossing over of Vietnam until it was useful for Stan to be a vet with PTSD, the way that's thrown in at the last minute and also discussed in a way that seems inaccurate to the time - like, the writing either needed to reflect the time period, or they should've changed the setting. they were already changing everything, why commit to the one most exterior piece of the story? set it in 2005. Stan can still have PTSD, Rya can still be a divorced struggling single mom, prosecutor's speech about the incarceration of black and brown men wouldn't have felt quite so heavy handed - i mean really. What purpose did the 70s setting serve?

i think i liked this show more before i watched episodes 9 and 10.

it had such potential. and that's what irritates me the most, honestly. Tom gave a great performance, Amanda and Emmy were criminally underutilized, the story could have been there and could have been something. but they fumbled it. it wasn't cohesive or clear about what it wanted to be. was it about Danny or Rya? was it about the criminal justice system or mental health? was it about Mental Health or DID? because honestly, we didn't get nearly enough time with the alters, and Danny seemingly was told he had this disorder and then immediately was able to master it and control his alters. he was cagey and didn't wanna talk and was confused for several episodes, then he's "hooray for therapy" and not even speaking in the courtroom scenes/episodes. is this show really about him? it feels like this show is about Danny in the way that the movie 42 is about Jackie Robinson - it says it is, the title's about him and everything, but look closer. it's about him but he's not the active agent in this story. it's about what has been done to him, the forces enacted against him. we see less of Danny's journey than we see Rya and Stan and even Candy talk about it.

(the 42 comparison is another tangent but if you wanna talk to me about it please don't come at me in bad faith.)

i think the "just ask for help" bit bothers me so much because DID isn't so much a disorder about asking for help? yes, Danny did eventually seek help with the voices in his head, he worked to integrate them. but DID is not depression is not bipolar is not anxiety - is not any number of other things, and i think we do mental health a disservice by painting it all with the same brush. and of course this is where the issue of umbrella terms comes in. yes, all of it can be grouped under Mental Health, but asking for help in the context of: i'm feeling stressed and anxious about bills/starting a new school/my future is very different from: i think i have clinical depression, i have insomnia, racing thoughts, suicidal thoughts, flashbacks, etc. Danny needed help, that much is clear, but not in the same way that you or I might. so is his story unique or is just another mental health story? am i expressing this distinction clearly enough?

that being said, i appreciate immensely how respectful the abuse and suicide attempt were depicted in this show. not showing it is often more powerful, and i'm glad for the sake of the audience and the actors (particularly the child playing young Danny) that an attempt was not made to show the abuse, to depict the slashing. we know. it's enough.

did i like this show? i don't know. i'm gonna think about it for a long time. again, the performances were outstanding. there were moments that moved me and made me feel seen. but, for the hundredth time, just because a piece of art can evoke an emotional response does not mean that that piece is objectively good or well-constructed. i don't like amy pond as a character and i think the weeping angels are overrated but even i cried in the angels take manhattan. does that mean it's a good episode and i liked it? no, it means stephen moffat knows how to emotionally manipulate/impact an audience.

idk, i'm not sure i'd recommend this show except to say that Tom is great in it, or if i wanted someone to discuss it with me.

overall? it feels like a missed opportunity.

[weezly14]

2) we're supposed to believe that this woman found out her four year old was being abused by his father and left, and then when she realizes that same child is being abused by her new husband she does nothing?

YES BC IT HAPPENED TO ME!!! are you really questioning that this happens? yes this shit happens in the real world sorry to bust your bubble. people like candy feel like they don’t have any power, they’ve usually been manipulated too. and they do shitty stuff to people they love bc of it. it’s fucking horrific but it happens and you are completely invalidating the victim’s abuse when you say things like that. and that fucking hurts!!!

being empathetic also means not immediately questioning somebody’s experience.

hey there.

first off, sorry that happened to you. but, secondly - and i mean this in the most respectful way possible - this post wasn't about you, nor was i questioning your experience or anyone else's. my point was that the way this character - not a real person, a character on a television show - was characterized was inconsistent at best. the writers chose to frame her as a mother who did not stand up for her son, only at the eleventh hour reveal that she had done so, once upon a time. if they'd spent any actual time fleshing out and developing her character this would have been a great moment showing how complex people can be, but since Candy is given so little air time or, it seems, thought, it's not complexity or "she's complicated" that comes across, it's, in my opinion, poor characterization. (that we hardly see any of her and Marlin together, except near the end when he's already been established as The Bad Guy, further proves my point. we are barely told that he's abusive toward Candy, much less shown.)

i'm not invalidating anyone's abuse because i'm not saying abuse doesn't happen. i'm not even really talking about abuse in the general sense - i'm talking specifically about how it's framed on a television show that was crafted and written by people to tell a story. i'm saying that the way they told that story was sloppy.

and, for the record, i resent the way that you came into my inbox - anonymously - to not only assume the worst about my intentions but to almost force me to either admit that i, too, have trauma and therefore deserve to have an opinion, or to admit that no, i haven't been abused like you have so i cannot possibly have an opinion. i refuse to play this game.

[weezly14]

what do you think of seeks response to tcr? I don’t like that shes ignoring mental health problems it’s really insensitive

Buddy.

First off, I’m not sure what you’re looking to accomplish here. Are you hoping that I agree with you? That I disagree?

Second, @seek--rest isn’t ignoring mental health problems? I’m not sure where you got that impression. What she’s said is: tcr is a show that purports to be about mental health - which, by the way, is such a big, nebulous concept and that in and of itself is kind of annoying because do we mean DID or depression, are we talking disorders that require treatment and medication or the general anxiety etc everyone faces at some point or other - and really, it isn’t. Which is true. I agree. Tcr is about one person and unraveling a crime and is only starting, in episode 6, to be about the mental health system in any real way.

Or maybe you’re referring to the ask she got about identifying with Danny’s trauma. I disagree that she “ignore[s] mental health issues” in that response.

Look, this can be true: you (the general you) can identify with a character, relate to a piece of media, be deeply moved by something, AND that thing might not be Good.

There’s this idea that “if I like a thing it’s good and if I don’t it’s bad” that’s also starting to correlate with “if I found meaning in a thing then it Has to be good, it can’t possibly be bad.”

And look, I think in many cases, the argument over whether something is good or bad is irrelevant. Listen to the critics or don’t, but not every piece of art is meant for every person. Yes, I do think some things are objectively bad, but I think there are also issues of taste. So “is this a good or bad show” - why are we asking this question? Not to get all pretentious grad student, but let’s define our terms. How are we defining “good” and “bad” - moreover, how are we defining mental health? Mental health issues? These are big words, big concepts. Let’s be clear.

I’ve found meaning and been moved by parts of tcr. But what is the purpose of this show? Is it to tell a coherent story that utilizes its actors’ talents, that says something new, that is well done in terms of writing, directing, cinematography, music, editing? Or is the Point to get mental health stuff right? To move people?

In my opinion, a Good story is one that does both. I don’t think tcr does that. And I think arguing that tcr is good, actually, because it was relatable or invoked an emotional response or because it resonated with you (general you) due to your personal mental health struggles - that’s not a good argument.

We can debate a work on its merit, on the text, on the choices made in narrative, acting, editing, etc. “This was poorly written” being met with “but as someone with mental illness I felt seen” - ok! That’s great! The structure is still problematic. The exposition still drags. That’s not being insensitive. We’re not talking about the same thing.

[weezly14]

Agree with everything about tcr, but on the trial: he’s pleading not guilty by reason of insanity, which still gets you locked up, just in a psychiatric facility instead (think hinckley in the 80s). So a trial is still needed if the DA won’t agree to that plea, since they jury needs to determine if he’s insane.

Ok, fair point. I stand by my opinion that the crime they chose was stupid and toothless. Give us some actual stakes.

[weezly14]

tom is so damn good in TCR that i am just like. desperate, utterly desperate, for him to land a project with a very cohesive script and a very skilled writer. like he has IT, he has the range, he will be staggering with a truly excellent script and i cannot wait because i am manifesting that day to come.

that being said i liked your writeup and your thoughts, this show is such a strange one for me because i see the flaws very clearly but it also led me to have a breakthrough in my own processing of trauma that surprised me - cause i've been processing something for two decades, thought i knew the ins and outs of it completely, but it was this show that made me finally think about it in a new light that actually led somewhere good in therapy. for the first time in YEARS! so i will always be grateful to it for that.

but what you said about it being so good at making you FEEL something but the construction being off - that's really on point. the cast deserved both those standards being met

You and me both. I’m anxious to see the final episode but I have a feeling it’s going to leave me unsatisfied. But I’m with you - this show has moved me and while it hasn’t triggered any breakthroughs personally, it has let me see something of myself on screen.

(Please, Tom, do theatre next. During the strike. Find a script! Is Jez Butterworth working on anything new, he’d be a great writer for you.)

[weezly14]

I agree with everything you said. Everytime I finish an episode I'm like "...Damn what this show could have been in another universe with other writers...Hélas🫣"

Sometimes I wish I’d tried harder to be a tv writer!!!!!!! Alas.

[weezly14]

Appreciate your thoughtful perspective on TCR, Weezly. I haven’t watched it bc of my own history, but the one constant I have read about the show is the sensitivity in which they have portrayed mental health. Maybe I’ll give it a try. Thanks.

The sensitivity with which they’ve handled the subject matter is one of the (few) bright spots. That being said, depending on your history, proceed with caution. I’ve been triggered by other media and not by this show, but that’s just me. This is heavy subject matter. Take care of yourself.

And again for the people in the back: liking something and thinking something is good are not mutually exclusive, and one person’s critique does not stop anyone from enjoying a thing!