New to Season 4

Post by K
Brenda was also a pleasant surprise to me in Season 4. I found her very
interesting from the beginning, but she was so hard to like. Shown only
sporadically in Season 3, I appreciated her as a full-time character in
Season 4, who showed how much progress she had made. I liked her
relationship with Joe, even as I applauded her choice to go with Nate
(pretending I didn't know how badly that turned out in Season 5).

I also liked the way Brenda psychologically adopted Maya. Many women in
Brenda's situation would have resented the child, but Brenda had both
the intelligence, maturity and perspective to appreciate the young girl
unconditionally. Maya was Nate's child, and Brenda never stopped loving
Nate, in spite of the evils and conflicts which confronted the pair.

I agree that Brenda made real progress during S4 (even during S3), which
made her deterioration and insecurity during S5 less believable, never
mind unattractive.

Post by K
Nate was my favorite character until they destroyed him in Season 5. Just
watching him struggle to heal over Lisa and allow himself to love Brenda
again was a joy to watch. Seeing Nate as a really loving father was also
beautiful to watch.

It's a tribute to Peter Krause that a character written so chaotically
was always presented with conviction.

Post by K
There was not nearly enough build-up to the whole Lisa and Hoyt relationship
and Hoyt's suicide. I can appreciate leaving Lisa's death something of a
mystery, but it was handled rather badly. Very poor writing in the final
episode of Season 4.

Almost every aspect of the 'Lisa' arc from Day One (back in S2) was
contrived and unconvincing.

Since they wrote out Tracey (who had the hots for David during S1) it
seems the writers felt they had to introduce another female freak: so
Lisa, talking to ants and foisting vegan 'meatloaf' on guests, was the
result.

No one needs to be a Lit prof to know that
'engaged-guy-knocks-up-wrong-girl' is the oldest, hoariest clichee in
the book when it comes to melodrama and TV soap.

In retrospect I wish Alan Ball and his team had developed a long-term
story line for all the main characters ast the start of the series, and
kept to it. But they had no firm plan and by S3 the story development
had become so slap-dash it was -- literally -- amateurish.

What kept the show alive was the characters themselves who were well
drawn, and superbly acted.

C.

FatKat

2005-09-07 22:59:09 UTC

When did Brenda bond with Maya? Following Nate's death, Brenda showed
little patience for Maya. Even if that stemmed from Brenda's stress at
the time, it made the two of them look like strangers, only
incidentally connected. Yet suddenly, Maya is now a Chenowith? (In
the awkward "Dinner w/my new Okapi" scene, I can almost here Momma
Chenowith & Billy chant "one of us, one of us".) Also, I'm not sure if
Brenda & Nate, in the end, really did love each other. Sure they loved
what they had, and shared a love for their child. But each other?

It's a tribute to Peter Krause that a character written so chaotically
was always presented with conviction.

They nearly destroyed it for me at the end of Ecotone. The idea of him
surfing off to the sunset underlies that he was just an overaged
manchild the whole time. But whoops, it was David's acid-flashback the
whole time.

Almost every aspect of the 'Lisa' arc from Day One (back in S2) was
contrived and unconvincing.

Agreed - as I see it, 6FU works when it keeps an even keel between the
living and the dead. The "ghosts" only work for me when there's equal
reason to believe that we're seeing real ghosts/seeing just reflections
of the characters' subconcious. The Lisa-loves-Hoyt arc had just a bit
too many supernatural overtones for my taste.

Post by manitou
In retrospect I wish Alan Ball and his team had developed a long-term
story line for all the main characters ast the start of the series, and
kept to it. But they had no firm plan and by S3 the story development
had become so slap-dash it was -- literally -- amateurish.

Maybe a long-term arc would have worked, but then it could be argued
that it would have stuck the show to a predetermined course not
necessarily to the show's advantage. I preferred the slap-dash
approach because it worked with the chaos of the characters' lives.

manitou

2005-09-08 00:35:05 UTC

Post by manitou
I also liked the way Brenda psychologically adopted Maya. Many women in
Brenda's situation would have resented the child, but Brenda had both
the intelligence, maturity and perspective to appreciate the young girl
unconditionally. Maya was Nate's child, and Brenda never stopped loving
Nate, in spite of the evils and conflicts which confronted the pair.

When did Brenda bond with Maya?

Brenda first saw Maya when Nate brought her to Brenda's dad's funeral
back in S3 and clearly found the child lovely.

During the later part of S4 when Brenda and Nate had reconnected it was
very clear that Brenda was committed to the child.

Post by FatKat
Following Nate's death, Brenda showed little patience for Maya.

This was a brief, isolated incident, and another example of
inconsistent, unconvincing writing, though I suppose it can be
attributed to stress.

Post by FatKat
Even if that stemmed from Brenda's stress at
the time, it made the two of them look like strangers, only
incidentally connected. Yet suddenly, Maya is now a Chenowith? (In
the awkward "Dinner w/my new Okapi" scene, I can almost here Momma
Chenowith & Billy chant "one of us, one of us".) Also, I'm not sure if
Brenda & Nate, in the end, really did love each other. Sure they loved
what they had, and shared a love for their child. But each other?

My spin on the show was that Brenda and Nate did belong together, but
the writers preferred to keep them estranged, even when the
relationship, as portrayed, was clearly becoming stronger and more honest.

Again, however, so much of the writing was erratic and inconsistent I'd
say it's virtually impossible to make serious appraisals or judgements
re the characters, especially Nate and Brenda.

It's a tribute to Peter Krause that a character written so chaotically
was always presented with conviction.

While it was an amusing and even entertaining little dream, it was yet
another example of the writers taking the easy/flakey route rather than
doing something consistent with the character's history and ongoing
development.

Almost every aspect of the 'Lisa' arc from Day One (back in S2) was
contrived and unconvincing.

Plus, it was obviously a last minute decision to explain Lisa's death.
In one of the DVD commentaries it is mentioned (Alan Poul IIRC) that
when Michaela gives the book to Nate for David (or was it David for
Nate?), this was an arbitrary detail to add color to the scene and was
not at the time intended as a setup to the eventual revelation of incest
and murder (for which there were no other clues, not even tiny ones).

I'm aware that David Chase had the entire story in his mind when he
began work on "The Sopranos", even though he was well aware it might not
even get off the ground.

Good fiction doesn't write itself.

By the last two seasons of "6FU" every time a new character appeared the
main question for viewers was "who'll they end up in bed with...?".

C.

Donne'

2005-09-08 02:42:44 UTC

At David and Keith's wedding, was Brenda sitting holding hands with Joe at
the ceremony?He was the only familiar face I recognized, but Brenda was with
Billy when she died, so maybe it was just a date.
Do ordinary citizens get to vote on the Emmys? Rachel Griffiths should
win,if not for the entire season, than the dream scene with she and Billy
discussing his manhood. You can't count the facial changes Brenda goes
through in this daring scene.

2005-09-08 03:20:14 UTC

Post by Donne'
At David and Keith's wedding, was Brenda sitting holding hands with Joe at
the ceremony?He was the only familiar face I recognized, but Brenda was with
Billy when she died, so maybe it was just a date.

Her obit states "Brenda will be dearly missed by her beloved children
Maya Fisher, Willa Chenowith, and Forrest Nathanson, her loving
husband Daniel Nathanson, and her brother William Chenowith of
Malibu."

She was pregnant at the wedding, presumably with Forrest, so I'd guess
that the guy was Daniel Nathanson, though other people have said it
was Joe. As a new viewer, I don't know what Joe looked like.

Since the obit says she will be missed by Daniel, it would indicate
that he was still alive when she died. I'd have to guess that Billy
was visiting the day she died and Daniel was smart enough to get out
of there before Billy started up about "emotional closure"

KC

b or t k-c

2005-09-07 23:05:49 UTC

Post by K
I didn't like their continuing non-monogamy when they had made a serious
commitment to each other. However, they mostly came across, as usual, as the
most stable relationship on the show.

Dealing with the issue of "monogamy" seems to be a problem for all of the
couples on SFU, doesn't it? The difference with David and Keith is that they
face their difficulties with it face-on, and seem to have come to some
agreement about it's not being an absolute requirement for them as a couple.
One of the things I found most interesting about how their relationship was
dealt with was how a couple's intellectualized agreements can be out of sync
with their real human-nature emotional responses to issues like non-monogamy
in practice. It was very true-to-life, it seemed to me.

...................

Post by K
I discovered Six Feet Under for the first time this winter by renting
Seasons 1 and 2 on DVD, and then buying the first 3 seasons when Season 3
came out. I totally loved the first 2 seasons, but was quite disappointed
with Season 3. Nevertheless, I got HBO when Season 5 started. I unsubbed to
it the day after the finale. I really hated most of Season 5. Therefore, I
was quite surprised and delighted to discover that I really love Season 4!
Not as much as 1 and 2, but way more than 3 and 5. From reading the comments
of others, it seems that most people felt that it was all down hill after
Season 2. For me, it came back up between 3 and 4 and then unfortunately
tanked.
Maybe best for me was George in Season 4. I read a summary of Season for
episodes from the HBO web site beforer starting to watch Season 5, but I
don't think I realized how George's "mental illness" was not discussed at
all in Season 4. Seeing him act quite "normally" for most of the season, and
then only express any problems by getting a bit paranoid and survivalist
toward the end, I am even more appalled at how they dragged him away,
hospitalized him, and gave him ECT against his will in the beginning of
Season 5. Later in Season 5, there were vague comments about George's
history of "mental illness" and how it had affected his family, but no real
explanations as to why. Psychotic depression doesn't even seem like a
sensible diagnosis for George within the framework of an inherently flawed
"mental health" system. George showed some signs of depression, but his most
central problem seemed to be paranoia, and not even a dangerous type. For
what was shown of George, his treatment was totally uncalled for.
Brenda was also a pleasant surprise to me in Season 4. I found her very
interesting from the beginning, but she was so hard to like. Shown only
sporadically in Season 3, I appreciated her as a full-time character in
Season 4, who showed how much progress she had made. I liked her
relationship with Joe, even as I applauded her choice to go with Nate
(pretending I didn't know how badly that turned out in Season 5).
Nate was my favorite character until they destroyed him in Season 5. Just
watching him struggle to heal over Lisa and allow himself to love Brenda
again was a joy to watch. Seeing Nate as a really loving father was also
beautiful to watch.
There was not nearly enough build-up to the whole Lisa and Hoyt relationship
and Hoyt's suicide. I can appreciate leaving Lisa's death something of a
mystery, but it was handled rather badly. Very poor writing in the final
episode of Season 4.
I was surpised at how much I enjoyed "That's My Dog." I generally detest
violence, but it was done in such a way that showed great insight into the
David's character. It also portrayed Jake in such an interesting manner,
such an amoral person.
I lost all respect for Claire when she had an abortion without even
struggling with the decision, and seemed to show abolutely no remorse for
killing her child. In general, she was portrayed in a totally
unsympathetic
manner after that. The only exception was how caring she was to David after
his ordeal. I loved what she said to him, and how she talked Nate into
coming back to work.
David and Keith were kind of boring in Season 4, except for David's attack.
I didn't like their continuing non-monogamy when they had made a serious
commitment to each other. However, they mostly came across, as usual, as the
most stable relationship on the show.
Not enough Billy!!! With the destruction of Nate in Season 5, Billy became
my favorite character, but I greatly enjoyed him from the beginning. I wish
Brenda and Billy had gotten together. I'd like to think that after she was
widowed, maybe they would, despite her sending him away because it scared
her. In general I do not approve of incest. But the extreme weirdness of
growing up in the Chenowith household left them too damaged for anyone else.
They simply belonged together.
So, all in all, Season 4 was a pleasant surprise. I taped Season 5 and I
think I'll rewatch it soon, now that I have seen its most recent
predecessor. It might make more sense and work better for me.
Karen

schmuckputz

2005-09-08 07:54:30 UTC