A documentary called Hail Satan? seems aimed squarely at provocation, which is fitting: Filmmaker Penny Lane (as her website URL proclaims, it’s her real name) likes to provoke audiences a little. Last year she made a movie called The Pain of Others, cut together entirely from YouTube footage uploaded by those who believe they have Morgellons disease. Her 2016 film Nuts! is a semi-animated documentary about an eccentric radio magnate named John Romulus Brinkley who, during the Depression, built an empire by claiming to cure impotence with goat testicles.
Lane’s films are always funny and weird and always pushing at the way we think about “truth.” Her latest is Hail Satan?, a portrait of the Satanic Temple, a Satanist organization that frequently advocates for total secularism in the public square by, for instance, trying to install a statue of Baphomet onto courthouse grounds in Little Rock to “provide an alternative” to the dominance of other religions signaled by a prominent display of the Ten Commandments. The film tracks with members and leaders, exploring the rise of the organization and its activism — or, depending on your perspective, trolling — in Arkansas and other parts of the country.
The movie plays like a comedy, not least because the organization is purposely cheeky about what it does. They call themselves Satanists not because they worship the devil — they don’t believe in the existence of a being called Satan — but because they hold to a set of tenets that emphasize overturning theocracies and traditional hierarchies (including, and maybe especially, any that privilege Christianity) and emphasize the autonomy of the individual. For Satanists, Satan is a symbol of ultimate human freedom and agency.
But in a world still heavily influenced by conceptions of Satan drawn both from Christianity and (perhaps even more so) pop culture, and which experiences the lingering effects of the Satanic Panic, saying you’re Satanist is a deliberately provocative move. And that’s what Hail Satan? unpacks: why people join the Satanic Temple, what they’re looking for, and whether it really is a religion, or if it’s actually a political movement or just a band of trolls.
The film debuted in January at Sundance, a film festival that takes place about 40 minutes from Salt Lake City, the seat of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints (or Mormonism). There, it was the subject of plenty of chatter among festivalgoers. Now, it’s opening in theaters.
I sat down with Lane in New York a couple weeks ahead of the film’s theatrical debut to talk about why she made it, whether it’s a religion or a political movement, and how the film changed her mind, as an atheist, about religion. Our conversation has been edited and condensed.
This is quite a project. How did you end up making the film?
By the time I heard of them, the Satanic Temple had gone from being kind of a joke to being a real thing. I thought that was pretty cool. The notion of a religious movement being born out of a joke seemed like kind of a cool story, and not one I’d ever heard before.
I started by asking, “Are they serious, or are they kidding?” And realizing that the answer was “yes” and “yes” was just really fun. If the answer had been only yes to one of them, then I probably wouldn’t have been interested.
I loved the idea of watching a new religion get born, right before our eyes, and how goofy and weird that looks, especially if you’re not part of it. They’re literally doing rituals with things they’re getting from the Halloween store. Which I think even they would acknowledge is goofy, but it’s especially goofy if you’re on the outside looking in and you have no idea of what the personal meaning would be for them.
Part of what it meant to say that it had become “real” was that it had become a really interesting, and in some ways very efficient, political movement. Their activism had already proven to be effective in certain ways. But then I came to understand that their religious convictions were sincere, too. They weren’t just trolls. That was kind of mind-blowing.
I had to resist — as you do when you’re making a documentary — other stories taking over. For example, it could’ve become a biographical sketch of some of the members, and I resisted that, because it’s actually not that interesting.
It also could have very easily become a portrait of an organization as it grows. Substitute in any activist movement and you can watch it fall apart as it gets bigger. That’s in the film. We certainly gestured at it.
But I refuse to let that take over, because the underlying political stuff was so important. And also because the story, as I envisioned it, challenged my ideas about religion, religious identity, what religion is and could be. That was much more interesting to me.
Plus, I knew it’d be funny.
That’s what’s surprising: The film is deadly serious, but it’s also hilarious. It plays like a comedy. And that can be nice, in a landscape of documentaries that are very somber and serious.
This is my role in life. I’ve often been very blessed to have directed the only movie that you saw that week that didn’t make you want to slit your fucking throat. Well, [2018’s] The Pain of Others is depressing, but most of them are pretty funny, and that’s helped my career, I think, to some extent.
But this one premiered at Sundance, and that was very interesting. Normally, when you’re at Sundance, you can forget that you’re in Utah. But I had one festival volunteer, who I think was, like, 75 years old, tell me at the beginning of the screening, in no uncertain terms, with a very straight face, that she was not happy to have been assigned to my film.
And I was like, “I’m sorry, it may not be exactly what you think … Maybe you’ll enjoy it?” I don’t what I said, but it was very awkward.
But at the end of the film, she literally came running up to me and said, “I think I might be a Satanist.” It was such a weird experience.
Part of what you learn at your premiere, and when you’re doing the festival run, is: Who does this film resonate with, actually? I think it’s been pretty different than who I’d thought. I worried that it would be baseline too offensive. I don’t know how to put it, but people were coming from places in the country where a Christian worldview is so integrated into everyday life that it would just be beyond offensive to even imagine the movie existing.
So I worried that it would just be too offensive. From my Massachusetts world, the world I grew up in, I felt like it could be punching down at “dumb yokels” in Arkansas; that felt real to me, and I didn’t want the film to feel like that, especially since all of the legal battles in the film are small and local. Like, who cares what the Phoenix City Council does? Or who cares if there’s a Ten Commandments monument in Little Rock — like, really, who cares?
But I actually think that the real impact of the film was the opposite of that. It was people for whom [Arkansas State Sen.] Jason Rapert is in charge of their bodies and lives that actually understand the stakes of the film better. That was really interesting.
So the Utah-ness of the premiere was helpful to me, in understanding that the film would actually resonate more in those places, not in New York and LA.
But I don’t know. We’ll see what happens at theaters.
It’s interesting, because it seems like the groups of people who are offended by the idea of talking about Satan and Satanism go far beyond just Christians. Maybe because of the legacy of the Satanic Panic?
Absolutely. Especially early in the pitching process, it didn’t matter who I was talking to, or if they came from a Christian background. They were just all offended. Everyone’s offended by it, no matter who they are.
And that’s what was so delicious about it, Alissa — I’ve never made a movie where, in common conversation, … everyone is very certain they know everything there is to know about Satanism. Like, everyone. It doesn’t matter how many times I say, “Well, you know, actually you’re wrong, and I’ve been researching this for three years,” … They’re like, “No. You’re wrong.”
If you ask them, “Where did these ideas come from?” Like, how do you know that a Satanist is a devil worshiper and kills babies? They don’t know, but they won’t even consider that they’re wrong. For them, it’s just a fact.
These are ideas that came from Hollywood movies and daytime talk shows, and then before that, thousands of years of fear that had manifested into fantasy, largely in the Catholic Church. There never was a “black mass.” The descriptions we have of black masses came from Catholics who were going into detail about what they thought must be happening at these imaginary black masses down the road. They get real detailed. They’re like, “And then they get the communion wafer, and they shove it up the ass.” And you’re like, “Sure, okay.” [chuckles]
The whole notion of Satanism is a long history of fear and fantasy. Only very recently has it become an actual history of people who call themselves Satanists. Which is amazing. I didn’t know any of that.
Right, Satanism as it’s practiced today is a very postmodern phenomenon, and not at all what people are expecting.
No. A lot of people are so entrenched in those other conceptions of Satanism that they watched the entire film and said, “I loved it. Totally loved it. So great. But why do they call themselves Satanists?”
And I’m like, wow. This is a very tough one to break through. But even I had those thoughts. Six months into the project, I’d be washing the dishes, and be like, “But wait … but why do they call themselves Satanists, again?” Or, “Wouldn’t it be better if they called themselves something else?”
It is a super complicated worldview that takes a long time to digest.
Right. For them, there are rituals and practices, but they’re not about worshipping some being called Satan. They’re about something else. But most people’s mental picture of Satan is drawn from pop culture, a little red man with horns and a pitchfork. But watching the film, it occurred to me that their ideas about what “Satan” is are a lot closer to what some more progressive Christian denominations think Satan is: a force of evil that can live inside of us, and is out there in the world.
The difference is that for Satanists, that’s not evil. That’s just you. That’s fine, and you should embrace it. But that means what they believe they’re communing with in their religion is very different from the perception other people have of them, right?
Since the film makes the point that the Satanic Temple is not just an activist movement, but also a religion, how did that affect you? How did making the film change or challenge your conceptions of religion?
I basically have no religious background. I’ve never even been to church — maybe for a funeral once or something. For those of us who have never been religious, you think, as an atheist who knows nothing, that religion is primarily about a list of beliefs that, from the outside, are patently absurd and stupid. Who would believe these things?
But I came to understand that for most people, the importance of religion is not about a list of beliefs, but about experience, day-to-day life, community, and a coherent narrative — a sort of organizing force that provides meaning and structure to existence.
I definitely started out the project believing, as I had my whole life, this “New Atheist” kind of dogma, that religion is stupid and that the world would be better off if people weren’t religious. Then I came to understand that the function that religion plays for people in their lives is so valuable — not even valuable, just so important and foundational, in terms of what human existence is. And it’s not going anywhere.
So it would be better to imagine better religion — or maybe “better religious institutions” is even a better way of putting it — than to fantasize that the future is gonna be all just individuals floating around in relationship to other individuals with no tribes, and no mythologies, and no narratives.
Not only would I not want to live in that world, but I don’t think it’s possible.
I think that was my own personal evolution in the project, which is somewhat irrelevant to the film. But that’s where I went. I’ve never understood religion or religious people more than doing this project. I started out thinking I was making a film that made fun of religious people, and then I realized I was making a film about religious people, and that’s a very big realization for me.
I knew that they said that they were a religion at the beginning, but I don’t think I really believed it. I thought, “Well, you’d have to say that, wouldn’t you, if you were fighting for religious rights?” I didn’t really believe that they were until I got away from the leadership and went to the local chapters, and saw them doing good works in their communities I talked to all these different Satanists and got an understanding of how important this has been in their own lives.
It was so moving. It was so moving to me, to hear this over and over again — to discover that every one of these people have felt completely alone, their whole lives, and had never felt like they were part of a group. They hated groups, and never wanted to be part of a group, until they suddenly realized they could be part of this one, and it would be awesome. That they could do more as a group than they could alone. The sense of validation that they all felt.
And it made me feel jealous of them, to be honest. Because I didn’t come out of the project as devoutly Satanist myself, but it did make me realize what I don’t have. I don’t have that. I never have. I don’t think I ever will. There’s something about joining that’s so not for me. Whenever I try to join a group, I’m allergic to it. But somehow these Satanists have managed to be joiners. I think they’re a lot happier for it.
And it’s interesting to me that they have rituals together, which they’ve developed themselves. You watch them and think, why would you invent a religious ritual that looks so strange from the outside? But this is one among several documentaries I’ve seen over the past few years that make the point that all religions look weird to outsiders, especially at the beginning.
They all look weird from the outside. We don’t think a Catholic mass looks weird, because we’re just used to it. But, I mean, it is weird.
Honestly, when I was a kid growing up in an evangelical church, I thought Catholic masses looked weird.
The universe of meaning that is encoded in those rituals, for the participants, is illegible to us. We don’t know why they’re doing those things. Why are they doing that? Why are they doing this thing with the upside down cross? What is this stuff?
Honestly, that’s why I started to believe they weren’t just trolls, they were a religion. Because they do these rituals privately, and it has nothing to do with whether it offends you. It has everything to do with what that experience means to them, and nothing to do with anyone else.
For a while, I struggled with whether this was performative or authentic. You’re saying the script, you’re repeating the words, you’re putting on certain clothes, you’re singing certain songs — you’re sort of enacting these ritualistic behaviors in different ways, in community, that had been written and handed down. That’s how you authentically express your belief: to perform it. I realized that religion is both.
Right. The performance becomes authentic as you do it.
I think so. I mean, why else would people do it?
I often think about church services as theater.
I would think so. And art. And it’s a ritual.
But it’s also about becoming part of something bigger than yourself, in a bodily form. And that’s totally what they’re doing.
Experiential and spiritual and all those things. Again, it’s something that’s just bigger than you.
So, if Satanism is a religion, is the Satanic Temple a religion first and a political movement second, or is it the other way around? That seems important, because their perspective on politics seems fairly unique; they’re not advocating for their own dominance, but for nobody’s dominance. I think that might be what a lot of people wish all religious groups would do.
I had to disentangle Satanism as a religion from the Satanic Temple as an institution, because they’re not identical. I would say that if the Satanic Temple is a church, it’s kind of a failing one (in many ways that we don’t have to get into). But as an advocacy group, it’s very effective.
Satanism, as a religion, is growing and on the move. But that’s not a political stance; that’s a religious identity.
But what the Satanic Temple did that was so novel was bring the idea of activism into the idea of worship, and combine them. They say, “Whatever, it’s both. Get over it.” This is part of their religious practice. Take it or leave it, but that’s what they say.
In the end, I was more interested in the idea that it was a religion with political elements, but I don’t know that that’s accurate. It’s just what I was interested in. And I don’t even think that that’s what the film said. I think most people would say it’s a political movement with maybe some religion stuff in there.
It also depends who you ask. Some of the members are more politically motivated than others. There are some of them for whom I think 90 percent of the appeal of this identity is a kind of outward-facing, trolling, provocation, political movement, and 10 percent of it is about something that feels like what we might call religious. For others, it’s the other way around. There are hundreds of thousands of members.
It’s interesting to see this as a new religion, and wonder how it might change as it ages.
A local chapter of the Satanic Temple came to a screening, and were answering some questions afterwards — which was great, because I didn’t want to answer some of the questions for them.
One of the questions was, “How would you possibly think that you could avoid all the same pitfalls of any other institutionalized religion, for all time? How do you not become hierarchical and dogmatic?”
And the chapter head in Ontario said, “Well, you have to look at our core values. If five of the seven tenets are about willingness to change your mind if you’re wrong, in the face of new evidence, then that’s a good starting place.”
They would never carve their tenets in stone, quite literally, and that fact to them is an attempt to avoid dogma.
Is it going to work? I don’t know. But it’s an interesting idea. I’m sure everyone has these ideas at the beginning. But then … flash forward.
Hail Satan? opens in select theaters on April 19.
Internet Users Shared Their Head-Scratching Findings That Are More Like Riddles Until You Realize What They Actually Are
You can find nearly anything on the internet. And people who bump into something unusual turn to it to find answers. On Reddit, there’s a topic where users easily solve challenging riddles. They know everything about mysterious marine creatures, extraordinary tools, and exotic musical instruments.
Bright Side likes to learn more and more about this world, and internet users are ready to share their knowledge with us. Enjoy!
18. “Found these unusual scissors. They’re uncomfortable to hold, in either hand, 2 or 4 fingers.”
These are children’s training scissors for preschoolers. The extra holes are needed to let a grown-up co-scissor and help the child.
17. “What is the purpose of these mirrors? I came across them in Trosa, Sweden.”
In Sweden, these mirrors are called “Skvallerspegel” which can be translated to “gossip mirror.” In the Netherlands, they’re called Spionnetje, or “small spy.” These mirrors allow you to see what’s going on in the street from the comfort of your couch. They can be also found in Norway and Finland.
16. In Spain, why are there water bottles outside all the driveways and entrances?
Citizens use this approach to fight cats’ and dogs’ urges to mark their territory. Maybe animals don’t want to pee where they can drink water or the bottles serve as obstacles that confuse them.
15. “I found this in an old church.”
This is used to fill multiple communion cups with wine at the same time. The way this tool works is depicted in this picture created with the help of Photoshop.
14. “My girlfriend found this shell on the beach.”
13. “What is this tube full of balls in the wall?”
This is a tool that helps to detect termites at home. Its indicator lets you know if there are termites in your house.
12. An unusual tree
It’s the Agave Americana in blossom.
11. “What is this animal? This image was caught on a trail camera.”
This is a fisher, it’s a member of the mustelid family. Sometimes it’s also called “pekan.” Despite its name, the animal doesn’t always eat fish.
10. “I saw this in a shop near Manchester.”
It’s a tool that helps you get your boots on and off. The way it works is shown here. Inside the tool there are hooks that help you put your boots on.
9. “20 years of research and the internet is my last hope!”
These are the teeth of a Black Drum fish, they’re also called corbs.
8. “Found this at an antique festival near Atlanta. It’s 17” by 5.5″.”
It’s for rolling newspapers into a “log” for the fireplace.
7. I found some kind of jellyfish on the beach.
The Portuguese man o’ war (Physalia physalis) is a marine hydrozoan (invertebrate.) A big transparent bladder is filled with gas, which lets it float on the water’s surface. Its tentacles have stinging cells and the poison is dangerous for human beings.
6. “My friend found this thing in the water.”
This is an Orisha figure used in Santeria. One hand holds a snake, the other hand holds a mask. These figures are kept in water 100% of the time in accordance with the rules of the religion.
5. “Something’s falling out of the sky.”
No, it’s not a UFO. It could be a condensation trail produced by an aircraft. Contrails are composed primarily of water, in the form of ice crystals.
4. “Found this in my grandfather’s basement.”
This is called an ocarina, and it’s an ancient musical wind instrument. It’s used all over the world: in China, Latin America, Africa, and Eastern Europe. In Europe, this instrument is more like a toy for kids.
3. “Found this figurine in the forest near my house.”
It’s a broken part of a candle holder. Though some people use it as an ashtray.
2. “I found this on the Caribbean side of Eleuthera in the Bahamas at low tide.”
It’s a sponge. They don’t have nervous, digestive, or circulatory systems. They consume oxygen, filtering water through their bodies.
1. “What is this fish for?”
Iron deficiency is a serious problem in developing countries. These fish help people get enough iron if they boil these figurines in water.
Have you ever found anything unusual?
14 Ads From Marketing Gurus Who Are at the Top of Their Game
It’s great that commercials are no longer something unbearable or something that distracts you from watching your favorite movie. Modern marketers sometimes create such amazing masterpieces that they captivate your attention and you forget that this is just something that is supposed to sell you a product.
You probably already know that the Bright Side team loves advertisements that are made by talented people. So we would like to highlight these commercials that we think you might love.
1. The IKEA designers recreated the designs of the living rooms from The Simpsons, Friends, and Stranger Things
2. Adidas inspires you to climb all the mountains.
3. BMW: More power, less consumption.
4. The National Geographic Wild channel shows predators and their prey.
5. McDonald’s is sure that children love Happy Meals because they can be eaten with their hands.
6. This is LG’s way of telling you that delicate and non-delicate fabrics can be washed together.
7. Rota Uniprag pest control will make all the bad insects leave your house.
8. This bookstore knows that some books trap you from the very first pages.
9. Burger King, for those who love grill
10. Stabilo: highlighting the most important things
11. There is no way you can miss this STIHL blower magazine ad.
12. Nivea’s way of letting you know they can help you get rid of cellulite
13. Wilkinson Sword shows us how individuality is created.
14. PlayStation is the best way to train your fingers.
Which of these commercials do you think deserves a round of applause? And we would also like to know if you have ever bought things because of good commercials or do you always try to shut down your emotions while shopping?
Preview photo credit Sony
Big Little Lies season 2, episode 2: “Tell-Tale Hearts” recap
If Big Little Lies’ second-season premiere was the calm before a storm of consequences, then the second episode, “Tell-Tale Hearts,” is a whole new maelstrom of melodrama.
This episode sees our five scheming socialites falling deeper into the web of secrets and lies that have surrounded them, as family tensions, spousal betrayals, and devastating reveals about sexual assault and domestic violence all churn to the surface. It probably shouldn’t be as fun to watch as it is, but Big Little Lies has always been pretty gleeful about its sordid affairs.
Strap in, because a lot happens in this episode.
Celeste and Bonnie are both trapped in isolating guilt spirals
“Tell-Tale Hearts” gives everyone a squalid tale to tell, and the result is that their stories spill forth almost immediately. This is partly because, as the bard once said, “Children will listen,” and all the kids of Big Little Lies have not only been listening to their parents, but also talking among themselves. The repercussions are significant, and I’m excited to watch how the sons and daughters of the group, who are now dubbed “the Monterey Five,” deal with the sins of their parents.
Celeste (Nicole Kidman) is still so plagued with guilt and tortured memories of her late husband, Perry, that she’s having trouble sleeping. But while on Ambien, she sleep-drives and crashes her car in the middle of nowhere, leaving her searching for a way to explain her behavior to Perry’s already suspicious and ever-watchful mother, Mary Louise (Meryl Streep).
While giving Celeste a lift home, Madeline (Reese Witherspoon) spots Bonnie (Zoe Kravitz) walking aimlessly along the deserted highway. Bonnie’s own spiraling guilt over Perry’s death at the end of season one has left her increasingly listless and disconnected from her friends and family. While Bonnie resists Madeline’s concerned scrutiny, Celeste seems to know exactly how Bonnie feels. “That woman’s not well,” Madeline tells Celeste, ignoring the obviously unwell woman right next to her.
In another parallel with her kindred spirit Celeste, Bonnie’s emotional detachment has caused her husband, Madeline’s ex Nathan, to call in Bonnie’s mom, Elizabeth ( Crystal Fox), to come stay with them, without telling Bonnie in advance. Her mother’s arrival — and her practice of witchcraft, which leads her to do things like sneak around at night, leaving animal bones in Bonnie’s room — only escalate Bonnie’s unease and exacerbate the tensions between Bonnie and Nathan. But Elizabeth does identify the basic thing that’s wrong with her daughter, the thing no one else seems willing to say outright: She saw Perry Wright die (at the end of season one), and she’s traumatized.
Bonnie’s mom seems to be the only person willing to fully and openly discuss what’s going on under their noses. That is, apart from the kids. And when the kids start talking, the dominoes start to fall.
The spilling of one closely-held secret causes a cascade of new problems
When she’s back home, Celeste dodges Mary Louise’s questions, only to have to break up an increasingly familiar bout of violence erupting between her sons, twins Josh and Max. This time, Max hits and swears at Celeste, who reacts by pushing him away and accidentally knocking him to the ground, screaming that she won’t let Max become like his late dad. Tick another box in the obvious mental checklist — “Signs your daughter-in-law killed your son” — that Mary Louise is keeping. (Oh, and she’s making plans to rent an apartment nearby, so that she can continue to keep an eye on Celeste.)
Dire as this situation seems, it’s just the beginning of new troubles for Celeste. Josh and Max have been picking up gossip from Madeline’s younger daughter, Chloe. Thanks to Madeline’s glib discussion of her friend circle and its fraught dynamics, Chloe’s sussed out that the twins’ late dad, Perry, is also the father of another boy at their school — Ziggy, the daughter of the fourth member of the Monterey Five, Jane (Shailene Woodley). Now she’s shared the big secret with the twins and Ziggy, unbeknownst to their parents. Josh and Max have, in turn, told their grandmother about their other brother.
The repercussions of this revelation are immediately sobering. Mary Louise is understandably confused about why Celeste didn’t tell her that she has another grandchild. This means that Celeste has to tell her the truth — that Ziggy is a product of a sexual assault. Jane is also thoroughly shaken by the news that Chloe, Josh, and Max are all privy to the secret of her son’s paternity — one she had wanted to tell Ziggy herself first. She makes the difficult choice to be honest with him about how he was conceived.
Meanwhile, Madeline, in the middle of trying to scold Chloe for spreading private secrets among her classmates, runs into trouble with her own husband, Ed (Adam Scott), who’s weirdly shocked and angry that Madeline didn’t tell him about her friends’ big secret. (Ed is presumably meant to seem hurt by his wife shutting him out of her life, but he mostly just ends up looking like a giant gossip, because, as Madeline points out, he’s asking her to fill him in on her friend’s sexual assault. Not cool, Ed!) This uncomfortable moment of conflict between Madeline and Ed is rapidly overshadowed by a revelation from the elder of Madeline’s daughters: While high school senior Abigail continues her ongoing argument with her mom about why she doesn’t want to go to college, she lets slip that Madeline had a short-lived affair last year with the local theatre director … and Ed overhears her. After processing this second, more legitimate bombshell, he tells Madeline their relationship is over.
And the hits just keep coming: When Celeste tries to talk to Mary Louise about Perry’s sexual assault of Jane, Mary Louise flatly rejects the idea that her son could be capable of committing rape and labels Jane a liar. She also implies that Celeste is disloyal for believing Jane, and then goes even further by disbelieving Celeste herself when Celeste tells her that Perry has a history of domestic violence. Insisting on branding Jane’s rape an “affair,” she coaxes the confession out of Celeste that she only learned of the assault the night of Perry’s death.
This is clearly a smoking gun to Mary Louise in terms of motive. Armed with all this new circumstantial evidence and an incendiary timeline, she tells Celeste she’s going to the police to report all the secrets that Celeste has been keeping: the existence of Perry’s other son, their combative history, and Celeste’s secret plans to leave him once and for all — arrangements Celeste was making last season on the eve of Perry’s death.
This episode asks whether the family that shares its secrets can survive them
The spilling of all these secrets all tie into the episode’s overarching theme — the concept of family and what the hell that even means, anyway. “Tell-Tale Hearts” suggests that there’s ultimately not much difference between a dysfunctional family that shares its secrets and a dysfunctional family that doesn’t. In an early scene, Celeste tries to tell her sons that they can talk to her about their dad, only to have them accurately inform her that she’d rather avoid the whole subject. “I shouldn’t do that,” she admits. “Families should be open with one another.”
“I don’t think we’re that kind of family,” her son Max replies shrewdly.
He’s echoed later on by Ed, who coldly challenges Madeline’s idea that there is an “us” during their breakup. “What does that even mean?” he asks. “It can’t mean honesty, truth, or trust.”
But if this episode makes a pretty strong case that the only way to keep your household happy is to never open your mouth, it also reminds us that, even then, the truth will come out. Which brings us to the fifth and final member of the Monterey Five. Just as she’s on the cusp of national prominence, Renata (Laura Dern) finds out that her useless husband has been committing fraud — when the feds show up to arrest him. Not only that, but he’s been squandering her fortune as well as his.
Renata reacts to his confession by flying into a hilarious rage and yelling, “I will not not be rich!” This is highly relatable, and also amazing — but she still winds up bailing him out and giving him a lift home from jail, which, let’s face it, is pretty much as great a show of loyalty as this show can deliver.
So far this season, Renata has mostly popped into the unfolding drama of her friends’ lives to be busy and important, which is typical Renata. I’m intrigued to see how the show will weave her storyline back into the larger narrative, but even if it doesn’t, and Laura Dern’s job this season is to drop in and have empowered tantrums every now and then, Big Little Lies will be five-star viewing. The crime melodrama is one thing, but if you can’t have a self-aware sophisticate screaming about her right to a slice of the patriarchy, what’s the point?
Viral News4 months ago
Marvel’s Avengers: Endgame hits theaters April 2019
Viral News6 months ago
Tony Robbins: HOW TO START OVER – 2019
Viral News2 months ago
This Is the Right Order to Watch the Marvel Movies to Get Ready for “Avengers: Endgame”
Viral News3 months ago
How to Answer Uncomfortable Questions So That People Don’t Ask Them Again
Viral News7 months ago
16 Game of Thrones Actors You Wouldn’t Recognize Without Makeup
Viral News5 months ago
Top 5 Viral Plays of the Year // 2018
Viral News3 weeks ago
All in the Family and The Jeffersons translate surprisingly well to 2019
topNews2 months ago
Rights group condemns U.S. ‘vigilante’ treatment of migrants on border