Torchwood 2-11 Adrift

[beccaelizabeth]

You know, I had thoughts. I was watching an episode. It had stuff in it.
Then it had that ending. She'd rather have no son than a crazy son? The hell?
... I'll have actual thoughts when I'm not incoherent with rage and feeling rather sick.

I know it was one character in the show as decided that and not the show... no, actually, I don't know that, I rather suspect the show agrees, and... fuck it.

I'm going back to bed. I'm going to ignore this. Bloody stupid.

Comments

[msp-hacker.livejournal.com]

I'm choosing to believe that she realizes her 15 year old son is gone, but she can still visit Jonah.

Though I will be very happy when Torchwood can go public and the family's are told and understand without the teller being thought as crazy, and care facility doesn't have to be a secret underground bunker in the middle of the Bristol channel.

[beccaelizabeth]

*nods*
and the care doesn't seem to amount to locking them up with people saying they wish they can help.

[halfspokenwords.livejournal.com]

*ponder* I have been thinking about this, and I'm just not sure what conclusions to draw.

For me, the problem is that we don't get to see what happens after the episode. I want to say that Nikki's "It was better when I didn't know." was something akin to the anger/resentment stage of grief. (Her son isn't dead, obviously, but the boy she had built up in her mind is.) If that's the case, then she might well come to terms with the change, and might very well continue to visit and and love Jonah.

If that happens, then this was just an instance of her having an emotional, kneejerk reaction to what was, essentially, a tragedy in which her son was injured, and not a really unpalatable statement about the comparative worth of the mentally ill. When Nikki throws away the videotapes, it's with a sense of closure-- but is it the sort of closure that comes with considering her boy dead, or the sort that comes with knowing where he is, even if that is locked up in an island asylum?

I can guess, but honestly, either option is viable.

[lizw.livejournal.com]

IAWTC, and the ambiguity was one of the things I liked about the episode. She says she was better off not knowing, but OTOH she seems to be moving on now (albeit painfully), so I don't think the viewer has to agree with her.

[beccaelizabeth]

For me, the problem is that we don't get to see what happens after the episode.
Exactly - and that's why it feels like it's the story's point and not just the character's. If there was moving on, if there was seeing her start to reconnect, or if someone even said she would, then I'd think the story didn't agree with her. Leaving it there it's like it does.

But with the being locked up in a drippy dark place and ignored - and having to ask if he was really home! - the way they treated him wasn't, well, treatment. And add to that the thing where she wanted to not know... urgh.

I object to character being used as object, as scary thing that could happen to someone, as mad = The End rather than as illness/cureable.

And why, if he saw something that messed him up, don't they retcon him so he didn't see? Wouldn't that make their point about why using retcon is good in the first place? He'd still have burn scars, and he'd have to deal with a lot, but it would be a different lot.

I just... it seemed to be working from a positively medaeval model and it was not good at all.

I might have other opinions later or on rewatch. I don't know. I'd like to think they're being more complicated than that. It isn't the first time this season that there's been mental health issues in play. But... those other characters ended up dead or in institutions, so... urgh.

[halfspokenwords.livejournal.com]

the way they treated him wasn't, well, treatment.

That's true, and it certainly made me cringe. I assumed that it was supposed to make me cringe, but now that you mention it, that might not be so. I mean, were we supposed to find that acceptable (anything's fine as long as we don't have to see those crazy folks!), or were we supposed to draw unsettling parallels with 'normal' care facilities. I can't tell. I wonder if the condition of the place might support the latter interpretation-- I mean, why does the place need to be dilapidated, with paint peeling off the walls and water leaking from the ceiling, if not to draw attention to its own flaws?

But then again, maybe I am trying too hard to make what unsettled me into a critique of real life, and not a reflection of it? I want my show to be as progressive as it claims to be.

And why, if he saw something that messed him up, don't they retcon him so he didn't see?

I WONDERED THIS ALSO. Sorry, somehow that warranted caps. It's a good question, though-- a really good one.. By their logic, it would seem to make sense: take away the memories, take away the madness. Maybe that simplifies things too much? (This is giving me interesting ideas, where someone is retconned to avoid something like PTSD, only the memories go and the PTSD stays...) It makes me wonder if they've tried rehabilitation and treatment (and retcon) and if it didn't take, or what? Again, the show didn't tell us. It's frustrating.

I think I am playing devil's advocate-- sorry! But I am still trying to work it out for myself.