s01e07 — VII

I will definitely convey your words to Cate Blanchett, in a couple of days, I will say "Kate, well, cosimo did not believe you, did not convince you, you know." "Rape Nonsense" - we have a documentary, a court drama here, I thought it was an art drama, well, okay. So then Alfonso did not cope with his task at all, if the final disappointed you so much. Catherine is scum, we get it, and then her husband and Brigstocke are role models?

@coosimo: and in what way is the story from the book, which is essentially the sick fantasies of a heartbroken mother, true?

And I see you stupidly do not know how to accept your wrongness)) they say about such people - even if they look into their eyes, it's all God's dew!)

@coosimo: You are certainly an interesting shot…
It is easier to believe in a stupid, literally made-up story of a grandmother in love with her son than in a woman's story of rape…

Does it really seem more adequate to you that a healthy mother woman was happy to watch a young guy die, just because he was all such a cutie wanted to make love to her?)) Rather, there were many more questions about this version.
It 's worth thinking about why women arouse such hatred in you 🤷♀️
Judging by the number of dislikes on your account, I guess this is not the first time you have expressed such a unique opinion)

For me, Catherine's story looked +- convincing, because in the series it was hinted enough that the grandfather believed her, because he noticed how the grandmother was obsessed with her son; he knew that the son had done something very bad to his girlfriend; and, apparently, he noticed many other alarm bells behind his blood.
Otherwise, with such a thirst for revenge and ruthlessness towards the "guilty", he clearly would not have taken Catherine's word for it. 🤷♀️

Plus, Catherine is shown as an ordinary person with feelings of shame, pity, empathy, and so on. Why would she be normal in everything, but when an innocent boy in love drowns, become a tyrant and wish him dead when there is no need for it 😐

@coosimo: >> the incels on reddit agree with me
>> I deny raping women
>> based on some other cases
Catherine moaned and screamed about rape right through the whole series, that's such a creature)
I'm embarrassed to ask, how many people have you raped or how have you been offended by female people?

@id17776223: and what does it prove?

@id17776223: after your comment, I even revised
it, does it turn out that Nicholas saw everything? The only question is which version of events did he see, the book version or the one that Catherine told

@Olessya14: Why would he see the book version?

@Adrasteya:

From the fact that he could see any of the versions - nothing indicates which one.

@Gamlet: No, it's quite obvious exactly what he saw. It's as obvious as the idiocy of your questions. For some reason, women who have been abused do not see any inconsistencies here. And only a man tries to question the version laid down by the script and the author of the original source. Surprisingly (no).

@Adrasteya:

Obviously, the only thing here is that you came up with the idea that he saw the version that suits you.

Because the series doesn't say which version he saw, which means it's not obvious.

@Gamlet: In the series, literally everyone eventually accepted Catherine's version, including Stephen, who found it the hardest. But, of course, you know better.

@Adrasteya:

I pointed out the specific facts in Catherine's version, which are simply there - they are no more visible to me or anyone else. But they confuse you and do not fit your version.


At the same time, if crazy old Stephen took this version on faith - for me it is not an authority, but for you it seems otherwise.

I guess that's why he was internally angry at his mother because he saw something, but does not remember… but the psyche seems to be a little disturbed ... I didn't read the book, I just watched the series

@Gamlet: They don't bother me because they fit into my version of events. I have no questions about logic, I understand it.

@Adrasteya:

Well, you are not confused and Stephen is not confused, we have already understood that, thank you.

Let's also listen to other people's opinions and not wish violence on anyone.

That's why comments exist - for discussion.

@id17776223:

He doesn't remember exactly what he saw, but Adrasteya knows exactly what, although it's not said anywhere.

Do not interfere with making things up!

@Olessya14:

He doesn't remember which version he saw.:

"Anyway, what she saw and heard that night was erased from her child's memory. It was erased from memory, but the figure of the mother was forever stuck in the brain. A mother is a stranger who cannot be trusted, who cannot be trusted. All these years she had been trying to imagine what would have happened if he had seen what was happening to her in that hotel room in Spain. Well, he saw everything. And I heard it. And the signs of this appeared during his growth, during the transition from childhood to adolescence and beyond, only she failed to consider them.

Nick saw this negative for the first time yesterday. Catherine was afraid that she had made a mistake, regretted that she had shown him the picture.

– I don't remember… I don't remember anything. He shook his head, looked at the unmanifested photo, but could not return to his child self.;

The kid saw some kind of sex, but rape or lovemaking, they never told us. Several times the kid was asked if you saw something or not, do you remember that night or not? And each time he replied that he did not remember anything. In fact, this means that here the word of a sick, heartbroken mother is against the word of Catherine. But if it weren't for the episode with the urgent departure of the girl, with two conversations between her mother and Jonathan's mother, where clearly the person on the line was angry and, it seems, happy about the death of the guy, I would have continued to doubt whose version of events is the truth. As it is, we are being persuaded to the rape version.

@Qtilla:

If some questions do not fit your view of the events in the series, then this does not mean that you need to switch to the one who asked them.

We are in the comments for the series and for the series - people came here to discuss the series and the plot, so write on the topic, otherwise why is this garbage here)

@Qtilla:

And on the subject: so the actions were wrong after all, right?) But the reason for the wrong actions is rape.

It turns out that there is an assumption that there was a rape and this is what justifies all further wrong actions - because of him.


But at the same time, for some reason, the version that there was no violence is not considered at all, and then all the actions are just right, although this version is simpler and hence more real according to Occam's razor.


This is at least strange.

@Gamlet: I still don't understand the fact - why did Jonathan (a rapist, a scoundrel, and just a bad person), who threatened to kill her and her bastard, run into the raging sea to save this kid????

@Gamlet: you're just judging by yourself. The authors tell the story of Catherine. Cuaron is on her side in this story. The screenwriter is on her side, the author of the book based on which the series was filmed is on her side. And only you, for some reason, want to believe the aggrieved person who was complaining because of his inexperience, and not a woman who got into a terrible situation. If I were you, I would wonder why you are making such a choice, despite those who wrote and filmed this story.

@Adrasteya:

No, you judge me by yourself.

And I'm discussing questions about the series and the actions of its characters, events.


You don't have any answers to these questions and you can only stoop to personal insults that you spam - nothing else.

@Gamlet: your questions arise precisely from the fact that you have never been in the position of a man who was raped. This has already been pointed out to you above. These questions do not arise for those who have this sad experience.

@Adrasteya:

No, the questions arise from the facts in the series, not because I was raped or not.

And it's not clear why you want so much that because of the questions about the series, I was raped and you were among the first to like this comment.

@Gamlet: OK, I'll try to explain it to you. There are a lot of women in the comments here who have been touched by this series to the quick and painful. Because it is difficult to find a woman who has not been sexually abused, even if not in such a harsh form. And most often, in response to their stories, women hear that they invented it, that they exaggerate, dramatize, etc. And here you come, all so handsome, and start poking at the patient with a stick with a smart look. No, let's figure it out, not everything is so unambiguous, she is clearly lying.#34;. This is a story about how a woman suffered twice: first from violence, then from being afraid to report violence. I was afraid of people like you.
And yes, if you had a similar experience, you wouldn't have these questions. This is not a wish, it is a statement of fact. People with developed empathy are able to conduct a thought experiment and take the place of the injured party. But apparently, this is not available to you either. You prefer to poke with a stick and make an offended face when a reply arrives.

@Adrasteya:

No one poked you anywhere - facts and events from the series were discussed.

Nowhere in the series does it say how the version is real-there are book versions versus Catherine's version.

So you can discuss any of them.


Empathy does not mean choosing one side that is personally closer to you.
And ignore any facts.
That's what you do, so you automatically put me in the defender of the rapist.

If there was no violence, then there is no protection for it - as a result of the series, we do not know whether it was or not.

@Adrasteya:

Imagine that there was no violence - Jonathan is a hero, saved a child and died just like that, the night before his death was wonderful.

You abused Jonathan's bright memory without reason many times, you wish violence to other people and prove Catherine right, but the situation was different.

That's where you don't have empathy, right?

Although the reality of such a development of events according to the series is as possible as Catherine's version.

@Gamlet: for everyone who has watched except you, it is obvious which version is real and which is fictional. There is a lot of evidence in the series, to which, alas, you are blind. It is more interesting for you to try to catch the injured party in a lie.

@Adrasteya:

You don't need to sign for everyone - you don't know and can't know how everyone thinks exactly the same way - just like you don't know and can't know which version in the series is real.

@Gamlet: once again, which version in the series is real is confirmed not only by facts, but also by visual techniques.
I was just watching carefully. Therefore, I can say.

@Adrasteya:

Yes, yes, we watched it carefully, and that's why instead of answering questions about the series, facts and events in it, for some reason you only made up descriptions of me in all messages.

That's how many have already accumulated:

a handsome blind idiot, childless, without empathy, with an intelligent look and an offended face that women are afraid of


The result is that you haven't looked at anything carefully and you don't have an objective opinion.

You only have a preconceived opinion, which you intend to defend by insulting the interlocutor.


It's no longer interesting - you won't hear anything new from you.

@Gamlet: You flatter yourself. Even my alleged description of you can't reproduce, let alone watch the series.
By the way, you have given exactly 0 arguments in favor of your version. But for some reason, there is something wrong with my position.

@Adrasteya:

Because I had questions and I wanted to discuss them, but I couldn't because of you.

Since you are not interested in discussing the series, but it is interesting to voice and prove only your biased version.


And here is another argument and fact due to your carelessness - you do not even remember what you wrote yourself and how you flattered me.


But on the contrary, the facts and your quotes:


"And here you come, all so beautiful, "

" to which, alas, you are blind."

"As obvious as the idiocy of your questions. "

"you obviously don't have any children yet "

People with developed empathy are able to conduct a thought experiment and take the place of the injured party. But apparently, this is not available to you either. "

"Do you prefer to poke with a stick and make an offended face"

"the woman suffered twice: first from violence, then from being afraid to report violence. I was afraid of people like you."

P.S. also, here's a catch-up for the aggrieved: "yes, the aggrieved are higher up"

@Gamlet: As I say, they are not able to reproduce it accurately. You can copy quotes, but their meaning has escaped you. It's clear now where your questions about the series came from.

@Adrasteya:

You've written so much about me, even though you don't know anything - you just made it up.

That's exactly the same as Catherine - she made it up and you believed her because you are also making it up out of nothing.

You and Catherine have the same approach to making things up)

And facts and reality are all trifles)

@Gamlet: you confused Catherine and Nancy.

"The authors tell the story of Catherine. Cuaron is on her side in this story. The screenwriter is on her side, the author of the book based on which the series was filmed is on her side. "

Here is also an interesting point - everything seems to be on Catherine's side in a story that seems to be written and filmed about violence.

The story ends with Catherine's version, and therefore the emphasis remains on her.


In that case, why add Jonathan's rescue of the child? After all, without it, everything looks more unambiguous and raises fewer questions, for example, like this:


The morning after the violence, Catherine went to the beach and there a smug Jonathan walked past her and winked with a grin and went swimming.

After a few minutes, Catherine noticed that he was frantically waving his hand among the waves - she watched this silently for a couple of minutes, then others, rescuers, noticed, but it was too late.

The rapist got what he deserved.


If all the authors and creators wanted to tell a story about violence and prove once again that black is black, then why did they dilute it with white?

Without Jonathan saving the child, the story of violence did not lose anything, and with him it became more blurred, indistinct.

Both in the book and in the series, it was left.


What they needed it for.

@Gamlet:

And there is also such a factor here - why the authors made it so that Nicholas does not remember anything.


It is clear that he has an injury and he has forgotten everything, but if they had a goal to tell a story about violence, then they would have added some detail, even if:

"When asked what Nicholas saw when he stood in that photo, he replied: "Nothing, but for some reason I remember the knife."

Any detailed one detail would be enough and the overall message would become more complete and integral.


But they themselves left a complete void here - room for possibilities.
Both in the book and in the series.


What they needed it for.

@Gamlet: Thank you for defending the opinions of adequate, thinking people. Although we are in the minority, and we are more ignored, but we are there. I support all your comments in this branch of the series!

@Adrasteya: Well, regarding Jonathan's motivation to save her son the day after the violence against Catherine, I think it's a good question.

@yolo1337: the fact is that almost all rapists are very cowardly and insecure people. And they won't save anyone just like that, out of altruism. And in general, they will not save anyone. Any psychologist will confirm this for you.
And here they show the version of gg - threatened with a knife, raped and bullied for three hours. And in the morning, after a sleepless night, she went to the beach and plunged with a child to sunbathe next to the rapist. I didn't call the police right away. And in the morning she did not go to the police, explaining that
she did not have the strength. And I found the strength for the beach. Where is the adequacy? Wasn't she worried about her life and the life of her child? All battered and bruised, as she says.

@yolo1337: I have already answered this question. Apart from the fact that rapists are such special people with horns and a tail, there is no contradiction here. These people can do charity work, rescue cats and transfer grandmothers across the street. In addition, it is clear from Jonathan's behavior that he was impulsive and did not calculate the consequences of his actions. He didn't think he was risking anything. This is not an altruistic act, he was just showing off.

I wish you had never existed in nature and would even dream of contributing to this. Mistake, dirt, trash

@Gamlet: I'll do you a favor and answer:

1. Your question comes from the false premise that rapists are some kind of special terrible people who have nowhere to put brands on. Whereas in reality they can be normal and even otherwise good people. They can rescue stray kittens, love their children, etc.
Jonathan swam well, saw that someone was drowning, rushed to rescue. It's a completely normal reaction. He hardly knew whose child was there. There was no time to get acquainted with this information.
On the second question: you obviously don't have children yet and you don't know how a five-year-old child who has got something into his head can take out the brain. She hadn't seen Jonathan on the beach that day, why would she be afraid of him there? Or is it more logical for you to stay in the room where she was raped half the night?

@Adrasteya:

Both of your answers come from the false belief that Jonathan was a rapist, although the series does not say so - only according to Catherine.

For some reason, you write some fictions about me in every message, the same as about the series.


I am not writing anything about you personally - try to write at least one answer in which you will not mention me, but only what is discussed here - the events of the series.

If you can, of course.

@Gamlet: I'll cut into the srach)
1) I personally do not have an answer to this question. If Catherine's version is still true, then Jonathan's sudden heroism is a fuck-up. This is really illogical.
2) I can understand that she went to the beach. After such an injury and a sleepless night, consciousness is confused, it is nauseating to be in the room, the child is whining, what to do next - she does not know... Anyway, I have no complaints about this scenario move) And she only saw Jonathan on the beach when she woke up.
In general, I understand your doubts. If the authors had made an open ending in the style of "so think for yourself how it really was", then perhaps the version of Jonathan's mother would have looked more plausible. But it seems like the ending is unambiguous. Then they would have revealed why Sasha ran away - either they just had a fight, or he raised his hand at her, or even worse.
In short, I understand why she went to the beach, why she destroyed the jar and the photo, why she didn't tell anyone. I understand and I'm very sorry. I rather don't understand why she didn't tell her husband the truth when it all came out. The situation was imperative here.

@Gamlet: the fact that Jonathan was a rapist is confirmed in the series: Catherine's words, which are indirectly confirmed by such details as, for example, the smell of cologne that she felt on Stephen and directly told him about it. It is impossible to come up with such a detail. The fact that Jonathan is a rapist is confirmed by the situation with his girlfriend Sasha. Firstly, she ran away from him, and according to Nancy's conversation with Sasha's mother / aunt, it is clear that there is not just a quarrel, but something serious. And judging by the fact that the news of Jonathan's death was received by that side without regret, then he obviously did some kind of strong nastiness. Stephen didn't just suddenly believe Catherine easily, he finally got the puzzle right. And the fact that he did not have the same opinion about his son as his wife, he let it slip when he recalled how they came to Italy to collect their son's body.
The alternative story is written by a mother who wasn't there at all. How can you believe the words of a man who was not even close to what happened and not believe Catherine, who survived it? Despite the fact that she told the story with genuine emotions. She's a journalist, not an actress, to portray something that supposedly didn't happen.

@Adrasteya:

"the fact that Jonathan was a rapist is confirmed in the series: in the words of Catherine" - no,

The words of the interested party are not unambiguous and categorical confirmation of anything.

"How can you believe the words of a man who was not even close to what happened and not believe Catherine, who survived it?" - did she survive exactly "this" after all?

if not, then you don't have to believe Catherine, but whether she survived or not, we don't know.


The general facts are: there was sex, there was Jonathan's death.

You can not believe in the book version - it is described by the mother of the deceased, who was not there.


Catherine, submitting her version, chooses from such options to represent herself:

- a traitor and a ruthless murderer of an innocent man

- the victim who took revenge on the rapist

Which version would Catherine prefer to tell other people about herself, when there are no other witnesses left and there are no facts?


How does Catherine need to tell her version of events if there was no violence and she chose to whitewash herself - with maximum emotions and details, which she does. Otherwise, no one will believe her!



Therefore, as you can not believe in the book version, you can also not believe in Catherine's version.

@Gamlet: You are missing one important factor - for victims of violence, this is a terrible trauma.
In 99 percent of cases, accompanied by overwhelming irrational feelings of guilt and shame.
And all you want after that is to erase everything from your memory and forget it like a terrible dream.
The psyche is in turmoil, and the body is acting on autopilot, just mechanically doing things that "need to" be done, trying with all its might to pretend that nothing happened.
That's why she went to the beach in the morning with the baby.
She only found out that there was a rapist on the beach when he ran to save the child.
She threw away both the jar and the photo evidence after his death for the same reason- so that nothing would remind her of this event, in the hope that it would get out of her memory.

In the series, many details were told- and that after this trip she returned lost, withdrew into herself, they had very rare sex, she plunged headlong into work to forget herself, etc.

These are all the consequences of injury.

Haven't you tied it all together?

And as for why he ran to save the child, who knows what this mentally ill friend had in his head. But this is definitely not heroism (even his father said that such a thing had never been noticed for him).
I can assume that perhaps he wanted to once again demonstrate his weakness and power over her.

@Gamlet: And her book, by the way, is written right according to the classics of crazy mothers - my unfortunate, innocent basket-shaped son was seduced and corrupted by this terrible, fallen woman ... 🫠


The father himself confirmed in the end - the mother (about her son) was wishful thinking, and he played along with her in this.

@Gamlet: No, you like to think that there was no violence. Ask yourself the question, why? Why, in a story that is written and filmed about violence, do you persistently search and invent facts that it did not happen?

@Leony: you're trying for nothing. Hey.

@Adrasteya:

Why is it about violence? Because you wanted to?

Or because it ended with a story(!) Don't you think about violence any more?

If it's over, then that's what it is - your approach.

Everyone chooses an approach for themselves - if you don't like and don't want to think further, then you can just stop at any moment when the last episode is over.

@Adrasteya:

You're talking about me again and about me, not about the series. They could only make one comment without me.

I did not invent a single fact, but simply listed the common versions of the book and Catherine - with which everyone agrees.

And I noticed that without violence, they are all slimmer.


Everything else is your fiction again, and even the assumption that there was no violence makes you invent dozens of things about me personally.

Ask yourself the question, why?

@Adrasteya: Well yeah I can see it already.
There must have been something very personal there.


I haven't seen such a veil over my eyes for a long time.


Your facts are not facts, but conjectures, but my facts are facts 💪 😅

@Leony:

I see, that is, now you will discuss me among yourselves, instead of the series.

There is zero meaning in the comments to the series, but the meaning is not important to you.

Plus, when his parents identified the body, he had a cut on his arm, which was not explained in any way in the book version, but was shown in Catherine's version.
And in general, his whole behavior in the book version, where he suddenly, at the sight of Catherine, is at first all timid, trembling like an aspen leaf - does not fight at all with the same book version, where he and his girlfriend on the train bangs and is absolutely not embarrassed, even when the controller enters. It really confused me when I watched it. And now it became clear that this was not supposed to be plausible, because it was his mother's fantasy.

@Leony: A beautiful illustration of the saying "On the thief and the hat is on fire".

@Adrasteya: Well, try to look at it from the other side. This is another possible interpretation, which for some reason you are very afraid of.

@g1547157: You don't have to attribute nonexistent experiences to me. Another interpretation would be possible if it were a story with an open ending, a true-edge story, or a story whose essence would be to show one event through the eyes of different people. Then all the talk about "and suddenly ", arguments about two unreliable narrators and different interpretations would be fair. But this story doesn't have a double bottom. It's about violence. There are no other interpretations here, precisely because of the genre, structure and artistic techniques with which it is all filmed.

@Adrasteya:

Yes, it seems to you that this is a story about violence and not with an open ending.

But there are people who think the opposite, including below there is a comment by N-Demitsuri - he directly points this out, and several more people support him.

And at the same time, they do not impose their version on you, do not prove that you are wrong, do not insult or call names - they share their opinion and how they saw it.

For example, my picture also does not add up to the version about violence - there are too many holes and oddities.

If a story about violence was written - such a genre, structure, and techniques were specially chosen, then why it was necessary to leave these holes and inconsistencies is unclear.

Because they violate the structure and the overall effect, the story about violence crumbles before it has really formed and, if desired, the authors could easily avoid this.


Those who do not pay attention to these holes (for various, including personal reasons) see a story about violence and it is more tragic for them.

And those who pay attention see holes and the story about violence becomes strange, the tragedy naturally recedes into the background and is questioned.


Thus, as a tragic story of this series, the book does not work to the maximum and does not impress absolutely everyone equally. Does not fully perform its task if it is done this way.

And this is not related to gender, empathy, experience or anything else - just the genre, structure, techniques were chosen, but not sustained, not all worked and did not work unambiguously.


If there is no double bottom, there are no two narrators, there are no two views - then Jonathan is a rapist, Catherine is a victim.
What is unique about it? Unfortunately, there are many such stories.


Explain what the point of telling this story was exactly like that - what it should teach and how to protect it from.

@gordeenko_dasha: >> he had a cut on his arm, which was not explained in any way in the book version, but was shown in Catherine's version.
Speaking of the cut.
Whatever (except for the version "he's just a total fucker") Did he have to cut himself? To what? Should I leave more evidence against myself? This moment looks as strange as possible in all versions, as well as the moment when he saved Nicholas (but this one is only strange in Catherine's version).

@Adrasteya: Well, regarding cologne, as for me, it can fit equally into both versions. Of course, the rapist version seems more plausible to me

@yolo1337: And what's the other one? I've already forgotten something.
But what I meant was that Catherine hit Stephen in the hospital because she caught a flashback from the smell of cologne. This perfectly explains her allegedly inadequate reaction to his appearance there. Because if there was no violence, then she behaved like a nut, because Stephen could be kicked out of there in no time, without resorting to physical abuse.

@vk718645:

A strange clarification about the unreality of the book version - it is clear that it is unreal and no one claimed otherwise.


The questions were specifically about Catherine's version, which just seems to pretend to be reality, unlike the book version.

But even the series itself presents this strangely - contrasting a completely fictional version with Catherine's version.

Not the version of another participant in the events or the detective who is investigating it, but Catherine's version, which is precisely made up.

With this approach, first of all, it seems that Catherine's version is real.


But is Catherine's version really real, and if so, to what extent?


Catherine's version is stated only in the words of Catherine herself and from Catherine's own memory.

Read more about how human memory works - it's not a photograph or a diary in which everything is written down with a pen.
That is why people keep diaries and looking at them over the years, they are surprised by what they have written down.

It's not even that not everything remains in memory, but that many details can change - it depends on dozens of factors.


Therefore, relying 100% on Catherine's memory after 20 years and taking it entirely for reality is exactly the same mistake as taking the book version for reality.


Which version is more real - the book version or Catherine's? It is clear that Catherine.

Exactly how real Catherine's version is is unknown to anyone and therefore questions arise.


Here is an example - most people easily and quickly explain the first two questions about Jonathan by saying that he is a psycho. It is certainly convenient and practical. It is suitable for both these and all other inconsistency issues at once.
Yes, he's crazy - what can I take from him.

He is just so crazy that he can threaten with a knife, rape, without thinking about the consequences at all, then carelessly go back to the beach and save the child - he is just crazy about everything.


It's amazing, then, how a psycho of this level lived to such an age - he had to put his fingers in the socket ten times a day and go out the window to check which floor.
Well, or stay in a mental hospital. But no - his exorbitant level of psychosis was revealed only at this right moment - another coincidence and inconsistency.


Therefore, once again, the version from Catherine's words about herself, for many reasons, cannot claim to be a 100% reflection of reality.


And exactly how many percentages in Catherine's version are not completely real, and we do not know exactly what details this concerns.

Well, you haven't written a single argument right now.
At least Catherine's version struggles with where he got the cut on his arm, with the fact that Sasha ran away from him and something very unpleasant happened there for her, with why her son grew up like this, because what he saw traumatized him.

I don't need to read about human memory, I studied the brain and work as a clinical psychologist, so I see the usual behavior of a psychopath here.

"People keep diaries and are surprised by what they have written"- what kind of people? There are billions of us, what percentage are we talking about? This is your subjective. This is not an argument.
I'm driving and I'm not surprised.
A person who has experienced violence, if he remembers it, then he remembers his whole life, and speaking about it, it's like he's going through it all over again (PTSD). If the memory is not initially repressed (and this usually happens in childhood), then this is too bright an emotional event, especially negative, it is remembered perfectly, this is an evolutionary mechanism that was needed by our ancestors (ate a berry - poisoned, grief, shock, fear are all around, remembered and passed on to others).

It's great that you're not familiar with this kind of behavior and it seems unrealistic to you, but if you read psycho.portraits of such people, you will understand a lot.

Psychopaths, maniacs are not imbeciles to stick their fingers in the socket, you confuse the concepts. They live to a very old age, they are very prudent.

And what is the discrepancy in his manifestation of psychosis? They show us how he plays with the victim and does his job. His father says that he wanted to ignore the bells, and that his wife perceived Jonathan not to be who he is. I.e., he had noticed something before and not once.
And how else could they show it to us if they had to make him look like a hero to the last?

Plus, at the end of the book, the grandfather burns himself, would he do it just from Katherine's words?

It's interesting how fiercely something inside you resists the fact that Kate may be a victim, not a cheater, and Jonathan a rapist, not a hero. And what do you think it was, what is your version?

And there was also one reference from the author, which was not voiced by Catherine in any way, but they showed it to us, they didn't seem to write about it here.

When we are shown the version of Nancy from the book, the ceiling in the room depicts lovers who sang in passionate embrace. And when Catherine recalls her attack, we are shown a ceiling with an image of a sick woman supported by angels, and the painting above her bed shows a frightened undressed woman.

@vk718645:

I didn't have any arguments-I had questions about Catherine's version.

And you, as a clinical psychologist, wrote half of the text about me personally - thank you for that, but the questions would not be about that.
Similarly, most of the other comments write about me, but the answers about me have nothing to do with the series and the fictional actions of the characters.


"with why her son grew up like this, because what he saw traumatized him." - this is another point that everyone refers to as ambiguous, but it is not so.
Nicholas is traumatized by what he saw, exactly?
Catherine herself admits that there was sex - it could have been violence, or it could not.
If the sex was violent, then the trauma is from violence.

If it was just sex with a stranger, then the trauma could be from this - children have injuries simply from seeing sex with parents or adults.
And here, mom's sex is not even with her father - it is quite a possible option.

So your interpretation of this fact is your subjective one. You just chose this option because it suits you in general - like many others here in the comments.


"an emotionally vivid event, especially a negative one, is remembered perfectly" - and this is well known.
And therefore, too vivid and emotional an event for Catherine could well be not violence, but the fact that she first changed, and then, on a momentary impulse, let Jonathan die.

And then she had already "replaced everything else" subconsciously for 20 years, so as not to remember the painful experience.

Among other things, she came up with the idea that she took photos and collected a jar and then threw them away.

In her words, it looks like the same explanation as a two-year-old in front of a teacher: "I did my homework and the dog ate it."


This version is quite possible, but you also deny it and choose another one that is subjectively closer to you.


And again, you also come up with ideas for me and about me - this is unnecessary.


I fully accept that Catherine is a victim- but it is not known whether she is a victim of violence or a victim of her wrong decisions.

Who uses only words to justify herself - she threw away all the evidence, and in Jonathan's photo, where she smiles, she was forced to do so.

Such explanations are extremely primitive and infantile, but as a clinical psychologist they do not bother you at all. Again, another subjective position you have chosen is in the way)



All this is very convenient, but you can interpret such facts in any direction.


P.S. Write more about the series and its characters and events and less about me)
It is clear that you have such a professional deformation, but still keep yourself in hand)

Um... there was only the last paragraph about you and the question, nothing more. And I didn't write this as a clinical psychologist, thank God. But you have to do with your answers, it's your reflection, a reflection of your beliefs, that's why everyone is referring to it.

I can say the same thing about her violence (which you call sex) to you, you just choose this option because it suits you in general. Then we will exchange such arguments.

Falling in love and cheating is not the same as experiencing violence. Violence is a trauma, it is a vivid impression of the moment when the body, the brain is under threat of death. This is a vivid negative emotion.
Incomparable things even at the level of biochemistry.
Just some kind of sex that was 20 years ago can be very easily forgotten, but not when you were raped.

How much have you written to me about me and yourself, thank you)) But your position is also subjective, isn't it?

Everyone was hooked by your reaction, because women are triggered by the typical reaction of society to a statement about violence, the victim is always blamed. Women associate themselves with the victim and see the realism of what is shown, that in life it happens and it happens. Men are more likely to associate themselves with a rapist, but trying to justify themselves. And all women associate such men with a rapist, which is why they write so much about you. The difference is that many women write arguments from experience, knowing how it happens, and the reaction of men is exclusively emotionally colored.

I understand that the dialogue is useless in fact, perhaps reading the book will give you a more complete picture, or foreign reviews of the book.

Well, I wish everyone that in your lives there will never be a situation where you have to be a victim.

@vk718645:

"I understand that the dialogue is useless in fact" - yes, it turns out to be useless)

Because you are substituting concepts and missing whole paragraphs:

"Falling in love and cheating is not the same as experiencing violence. "

There was no talk of Catherine falling in love anywhere at all - you've already taken that from the ceiling,
and if she wanted to change and then kill Jonathan to hide the betrayal (she admits Jonathan's death by her inaction, so this is a fact),
then evaluate and compare the levels of emotional shocks from "treason + murder" against "violence+murder" - which is brighter, I will not take it.
We'll leave it to you as a professional.


Catherine herself admits that there was sex - it could have been violence, or it could not.
If the sex was violent, then the trauma is from violence." - that's what I said here.

"About her violence (which you call sex) " - and you changed it to something else, which was not said at all.

Why would I call violence sex? There's no need-I didn't call him that.


And why did you write as if I called him that - just because you wanted to.


There is no need to simplify, change and invent for others.

Otherwise, the dialogue is really completely useless.

@vk718645: My respect, colleague, for trying.

@Adrasteya:

Yes, "a colleague" earned respect - she came up with the idea that Catherine had a crush on Jonathan.
Although there was nothing like that.

Your respect is inexpensive, right at all.

P.S. Is a colleague a fiction? You were making up stories about me, colleague - about Catherine, Catherine about violence.
Then it's clear.

@Gamlet: 🙄

I fly in off my feet, of course I'm not an expert, but for me personally, the behavior of your opponent resembles the behavior of a rapist, who then says, "Yes, I didn't rape her, she wanted it herself, so what if she had injuries, she likes it so much. And anyway, she didn't show them to anyone, so there was nothing. And why should a woman be trusted? And I'm young, I have my life ahead of me."
That is, in fact, it is easier for this pseudo-intellectual to believe that a basket-shaped son was slandered by an adult experienced aunt than that she was abused by her mother's angel, and the fantasies of a sick mother who hates all girlfriends and longed for intimacy with her son (and not the fact that she was not), for him more proof than the words of the victim, because the victim did not present her evidence to him personally, and therefore lies.
After all, she is such an adult, successful and alive, and an innocent nonviolent savior of children is a cold corpse, so she is certainly to blame, and he is pure and deceitful. Therefore, her life must be destroyed, because it does not fit into the picture of justice.
It is useless to cite any fact, evidence, logic there. There are peas against the wall, because such violence does not exist in the picture of the world.

@Arumi:

You fly into the discussion without reading it - everything described in detail is discussed above, there is not much text, but let's summarize:

the bottom line is that regarding the evidence, you can believe or not believe in any version. Believing in something does not mean that it actually happened.

One version is fiction, and the other is words. In the series, you were specifically told that the book version is fiction - no one argues with this and it would be stupid to argue with it.

The second version, according to the interested party, may be fiction, or it may be reality. And if she's real, then Catherine is a victim of violence.

If Catherine's version is a fiction, then no evidence, facts or discussions are needed, but then she is a victim of her own decisions, a traitor and a murderer.


And if Catherine's version is not fiction, then evidence and facts are needed that this version is reality, and if the facts are found to be convincing, without the possibility of different interpretations,
then they will leave no doubt that Catherine's version is reality.

Hence the rhetorical question - if someone demands and seeks evidence and facts that support Catherine's version - is he for Catherine or against Catherine?


P.S. You think that people who rely on logic and facts are pseudo-intellectuals.

It turns out that those who take your word for it are real intellectuals like you.

This is your right and your opinion - you can consider it so)

All I wanted to say was that I said it. I'm not going to enter into a discussion with you/you, because I don't see any point in discussing anything with people like you/you.
You don't need a discussion, but a specialist from the service is clear.
You can answer me, you can not answer - I don't care. I am leaving for this and wish you a speedy recovery.

@Arumi:

So you don't care and you left - where's the minus?) Deception)

And these deceivers diagnose me - be ashamed)

@Gamlet: well, the take about memory is generally some kind of trouble. It's like there's a difference in my memories "08/20/2001 it was sunny" and "08/20/2001 I was raped by some dick in Italy, and the next day he saved my son and drowned". As if you will forget such events, and their essence is unlikely to be distorted beyond recognition years later
. p.s. the date is conditional, for example, I gave)

@yolo1337:

It seems strange about memory, if you do not dive into the essence of the question. There is a lot about this, here is one example from the last one:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZvDWADdWD58

The material is generally good, but from the 39th minute - there are 4 minutes specifically about this, so a little bit - you can get acquainted.


That is:

1) the memory does not remain the same as it was originally when it was preserved;

2) every time a memory is accessed, it rises from the archive and the chain of events is rebuilt (not the fact that it is the same as it was);

3) during the build-up, its coherence is influenced by the current state of the one who remembers - physical and psychological (and in general, few people are constantly perfect)

4) next, when the appeal to the memory is over, it returns to the memory archive in a slightly distorted form from the last operation.

And now put it over 20 years - whether Catherine remembered it and how many times.


No one said that there was sun and a beach that day, and then this memory turned into violence - there was no such comparison, you read inattentively here.

What was the assumption from memory - read more again:


according to Catherine herself, there was sex, and according to Catherine herself, Jonathan died because she was inactive and then she felt guilty.


If there was no violence, then the guilt for inaction will be much, much stronger.


For 20 years, Catherine remembers that night and small details every time, and every time there is a "lifting from the archive", rebuilding under a strong sense of guilt (subconsciously looking for moments to justify themselves) and then - a very slightly modified version goes back to the archive.

And so it has been for 20 years, despite the fact that she does not receive any alternative options and does not discuss them with anyone. Only her own version, which she has been constantly returning to for 20 years.

For example (these are rough steps - in fact they are not so noticeable in the difference):

1st time - Well, did I just kill him like that? To hide the betrayal? What have I done? How could I? How can I live with this now?"

A year later - Well, did I just kill him like that? To hide the betrayal? Am I such a bad person? No, I'm not that kind of person. I couldn't do that. But he was a little rude during sex"

After 5 years - Well, did I just kill him like that? I'm not a bad person, but a good one, and I couldn't do that. But he was rude during sex and made me smile in photos"

After 10 years - Well, did I just kill him like that? I'm a good person- there was a reason. He was very rude during sex, made me smile in photos and he also had a knife.;

After 15 years, I killed him for a reason - he threatened me with a knife and raped me for 3 hours.


And for 20 years, under the feeling of guilt, such a transformation of memory is possible - the guilt is thus shifted from itself to Jonathan, who died and there are no witnesses - no one will refute or question.

And the desire to get rid of one's own guilt in order to justify oneself is natural for any person.


Hence, this option is quite possible.

@Gamlet: I partially watched the video, and that's exactly what I talked about in the first example - something insignificant can easily be replaced, because it's not important. That is, it doesn't matter if the weather was sunny or cloudy. Just like in the case of the hieroglyph in the video. As for Catherine, it would hardly be much more pleasant for her to distort her memories to such an extent that they turned into rape from sex.

@yolo1337:

So it was not pleasant for her to distort it, if there was such a distortion.

It is described in detail above that it was very unpleasant for her to remember this and that is why distortion is possible and why it is described in great detail above.


P.S. You did not watch the video carefully, unfortunately, as you did not read the comment carefully.

There are specific experiments: people even had the image of a figurine completely change to another one over the months - to another animal, different and they were convinced that it was him they saw.

So over time, many things can change and completely different.

@Gamlet: How cool is it for you to question the memories of a real participant in what is happening and believe the fantasies of a mentally unbalanced person who was not even close to it, did not know anything about it, so withdrawn into himself that he stopped leaving the room, all fantasies are based on photographs (about posing- oh, what kind of shots can be squeezed out of a serial shooting on a good camera, a drunken Bear, who is dragged under the handles, is still remembered?). In general, I applaud your non-turbidity of consciousness standing up.

@Tiinsa:

Yes, you're right - I'm great at questioning the memory of a real participant, but we don't know which participant exactly.


And ask yourself - why is it so cool? It won't be so cool out of the blue and out of nowhere.

And it turns out great because there are reasons for that - the memories are not supported by anything and these words are the story of one of the participants.
And vice versa - there are obvious holes and inconsistencies in Catherine's version, which is just the first to claim reality.



But further on, you are already completely and completely wrong, because there is no such opposition and there never was.

No one has said anywhere that the invented-book version is more real - you will not find such quotes here, so there is no need to declare such a thing.

It was said that both versions are doubtful for various reasons and there are not enough facts to determine the reality - as it really was.


But the fact that there is a book version - which has nothing to do with reality at all-does not make Catherine's version any more true and probable.
The oddities in Catherine's version do not go away and do not disappear - they are there.


You are very good at seeing the obvious - that the book version is unrealistic.

And it's just as cool not to see everything else and completely believe in what Catherine just SAID.


I'm sitting here and not applauding your bias - because there's nothing to applaud.

@Gamlet: For some reason, there is no mention of the knife Jonathan used to threaten Catherine. I think this was the main argument for the father: otherwise, how could Catherine know about this knife, and his father just gave it to his son for 14 years

@Adrasteya:

I would like to see quotes, but the strange thing is that if you search on the page Ctrl+F: " lies" and "could not be ", then for some reason only your comments are found.

Or don't you understand the difference between "couldn't be" and "couldn't be"?


It seems that, as usual, you are making things up and insulting people just like that.

It's not even surprising anymore.

@Gamlet:

@cvetok: By the way, I think that there is just a hint of sexual abuse on the part of the mother. I'm in the words of Katherine's son, "Mom let go, mom let go," which the old man heard in the hospital gave that very click of understanding, and his puzzle came together. He heard it clearly, but did not see clearly that the mother was abusing her son.

@RiaNeimless: yes, there is even an emphasis on the fact that he cannot bear the thought that his wife was having fun with someone else.

Well, you finish the phrase and you will understand its logic.

- he felt better because he realized that she had not cheated on him, but she had been raped.


It turns out that for his painful ego, betrayal is more terrible than such terrible violence against a loved one.

@Leony: somehow the logic is not very logical.
Let's keep the structure of the accusation, but slightly change the actions (not applying to the series, but just an abstract analysis):
"it became easier for him because he realized that his friend did not kill his wife, but he was forced by threats."
Or turn it the other way around:
"She felt better because she realized that he wasn't cheating on her, but he was threatened (and/or blackmailed) into doing it."
The "disgusting life-threatening situation" persists both there and there.
At the same time, if you, for example, find out that it was not you who was betrayed, but the circumstances that developed, this may make it easier for you. But at the same time, this absolutely does not mean that you are like, "oh, well, poof, well, you think they threatened, forced, survived, the main thing is that they did not betray me, you can pretend that nothing happened." Most likely you will think something like "This is a disgusting situation!"But at least I wasn't betrayed, so this is my mistake and I need to work on it, try to save at least something, if possible."
Is not it so?

Well, or here's a simpler example from Sheldon's Childhood: Missy invited the boy next door to hang out, but then they invited her to hang out and she stood him up.
If you were in such a situation, you would be offended, wouldn't you? And you would try to break off a relationship with the person who did that.
But what if later you found out that the person had nothing to do with it and, let's say, he was tricked or even told that you canceled everything? Surely it would have made you feel better and you would have tried, I don't know, to make up?
The structure is also preserved here: "it became easier that "something bad" was not the fault of a person, but something bad happened to a person too." Or if it makes you feel better that you were not betrayed, no matter how terrible the circumstances might be, are you in any case a complete scum?

@Adrasteya:

Please specify exactly which minute of which episode shows exactly what Nicholas saw.

Or maybe there is a quote from the book?

"Anyway, what she saw and heard that night was erased from her child's memory. It was erased from memory, but the figure of the mother was forever stuck in the brain. A mother is a stranger who cannot be trusted, who cannot be trusted. All these years she had been trying to imagine what would have happened if he had seen what was happening to her in that hotel room in Spain. Well, he saw everything. And I heard it. And the signs of this appeared during his growth, during the transition from childhood to adolescence and beyond, only she failed to consider them.

Nick saw this negative for the first time yesterday. Catherine was afraid that she had made a mistake, regretted that she had shown him the picture.

– I don't remember… I don't remember anything. – He shook his head, looked at the unmanifested photo, but could not return to himself – the child. "

@Gamlet: Bunny, go jerk off or something, maybe he'll let go, finally.

@Adrasteya:

A reasoned objection.

At least sometimes it lets me go - nothing will help you.

"brain violence"

@Gamlet: OK, keep blazing, the glow is beautiful.

@Adrasteya:

So continue or leave - you can't decide again.

Everything is as usual.

@Adrasteya:

The other person is on fire, and you're still being encouraged.


There's something wrong with your empathy, if you've heard of it.

@Gamlet: So I suggested that you go and make yourself feel good. But instead you chose to run all the branches, advertise me. Who is the evil Pinocchio to you now? You can't get enough empathy for all the alternatively gifted.

@Adrasteya:

Something has become very bad for you and fiction.

In other branches, you made up anything and about anything.

And then they somehow ran out.

Take care of yourself.

@Adrasteya:

It is quite understandable that your empathy is selective - only for those who agree with you and for your fellow inventors)

And the main thing is that you personally consider yourself to be correctly gifted and you are completely sure of this - this is the right way, go on)

@dred124_2: the book version is somehow more thoughtful. They decided to remove the drama here, but in fact it turned out to be slightly unsaid for no reason.

@dred124_2: Yes, it's not that Catherine needed money (I think her husband left her a lot after the divorce, although he is a bad person, he still has some kind of conscience). It's not about the money. It's about honor. But in the book, everything really came out more fairly.
I keep thinking about poor little Nicholas, who saw this. And it's true that all our problems are from childhood.

As a person who is familiar with the original source, are you satisfied with the film adaptation or not? As always, the age-old question is - which is better than a book or a movie (in this case, a TV series)?

Thank you, it was very interesting to learn the book ending

@id104144445: Yes, quite. Although it seemed to me that the series was delayed, but let's put it down to the peculiarities of the format and the director's idea. There were more details in the book, but the general message was conveyed correctly.

@mixer1701:

If you have read the book, please tell me if it says exactly what Nicholas saw.

And if so, please provide a quote if possible. Thank you in advance.

@Gamlet: I haven't read the book. My comment about the ending refers to a comment by user dred124_2, who pointed out that the old man acted more fairly at the end of the book.
By the way, there are very strange reviews about the book. It seems that this is one of those rare cases when the film adaptation will become at least more famous than the book.

@typographera: and what does the sex in the booth that Nancy invented have to do with it? What does he have to do with the real story of rape?

So I wrote about it, the answers to the questions above are obvious, if you don't just look for the same logic in the actions of the rapist and the victim, But I will answer the questions above especially for you, do not thank~
1) Because he did not feel guilty for what he had done, it was a common thing for him, like for you to sleep or eat, he even said "thank you" to her, so he could calmly not run anywhere and even go to the beach.
2) It's the same here, she's not a victim for him, but a girl he wanted, maybe he even thought they had some kind of relationship now, so he wanted to help her child.
3) She also explained that she postponed going to the police because, indeed, it is not easy to be a victim of violence, either they do not believe you and condemn you for all your sins, or they begin to treat you differently, and this forever changes the victim's life. And she also has a son, she was worried about what he would have to go through.
4) And threw out the evidence because the rapist died, and in such a situation, it was easier for her to pretend that nothing had happened, she did not want to ruin her life, and by the way, she also said that.
And sex in a booth is an invention of a mother with a sick fantasy. It's simple, if you have at least a little empathy and knowledge about real cases of violence.

@typographera: By the way, please note that in the episode where sex in the booth was described, Catherine is dressed in a sexy bikini, and in this episode, when she told her side of the story, she was wearing a simple black closed swimsuit. It's just that Mommy made it up and embellished everything.

@MII: I hope you troll so much.

In my opinion, they are writing about a subjective opinion here.
Take, for example, "he thought that..." in the second paragraph: we don't know what he was thinking, he didn't say anything at all in response to Catherine's phrase. These are guesses and the opinion of the author of the comment, what he thought, it is difficult to call an objective opinion

And my opinion is that Robert didn't answer anything, but he changed his position, clamped down and hung down, as if he was feeling guilty, plus he didn't answer anything. I think he could have explained his point of view, if it had been radically different, on this situation, but this was not shown to us. We know they're divorced. So, after all, he hadn't convinced her that he was relieved by someone else. After all, what they showed us, they showed us, and assumptions about what he really is and what he was thinking at that moment - this remains an assumption

@Altay_Virgin: Thank you for your answer, I totally agree. Everyone reacted in a situation under the incessant attack of the grandfather (as it sounds, of course, absurd, but it's true) and it was impossible not to believe the photos, in which, as any professional photographer will say, the girl does not feel discomfort
, plus you really correctly noticed, he believed in rape as soon as he heard and did not he behaved like that grandfather, "my son could not do this," and asked for forgiveness

both have ego problems, but the problem, unfortunately, is very stupidly twisted results

Yes, because it's easier for him to believe some moth-eaten grandfather than to let his wife speak out. He lived with a woman for 25 years, but did not learn to trust her, always subconsciously believing that he was not enough for her and she was more experienced, so as soon as the opportunity arose to confirm his fears, he immediately seized on her, without even giving her a word. He put her out on the street, ignored her, discussed her with a stranger and reveled in self-pity.
Imagine yourself in her place at this moment. 20 years ago, she was left alone in an unfamiliar country, experienced violence, but suppressed all the horror of what she had experienced in order not to destroy her family and not put these events between them. So that after so many years, he, imbued with doubts about her only because of his wild imagination, turned what happened against her. It was easier for him to believe in treason, it was better to listen to a stranger, to believe in the nonsense of a book, than to hear his wife. At the same time, he fancied himself the father of the year, but he did not see what was happening to his son.
So you think that she is behaving illogically, but how should she behave? She said she was terrified, afraid to end up in court, where everyone would say she was lying, didn't know where to start. It was very difficult for her to talk about it. For 20 years, she has been crushing this trauma inside herself. Do you think that's how she would have gone and laid it all out? Yes, while she was gathering her strength, her life was ruined, and her husband had already decided everything for her, so that everyone around him would feel sorry for him. He kept saying, "my parents were right about you," not letting her talk.
I don't really see any excuses for him.

@Arumi:
""he lived with a woman for 25 years, but did not learn to trust her, always subconsciously believing that he was not enough for her and she was more experienced, so as soon as the opportunity arose to confirm his fears
So they told me in the course of the play that she pulled away, became colder and in fact seemed to live her life for the sake of her son. It's hard to know something when you're not being told about it in words through your mouth. And here both sides are involved.

""without even giving her a word
But this is right, yes, as dumb as possible, although it was built in such a way that it led to this.
First, she gets the book, gets scared as much as possible, does not explain anything, already BURNS it, when asked to explain, you get "I can't explain, maybe later." And then you get the book, put together the existing behavior puzzle, it clicks with your inner fears and voila, the hysterical husband is ready. Well, all this is finished off by the fact that instead of a clear showdown with the author-accuser (she is an investigative journalist, if you start an investigation, contact the police, prepare at least something!) accusations of pedophilia begin, clashes at work, tantrums and that's it. We can eventually (albeit with some creaking) put it all together into experiences and traumas from violence, but at least remember your own feelings from the first episodes, when you did not know the whole picture, multiply this by a complex hysterical husband and the fact that you do not know that this is a series and that you may be misled. And it turns out something like, "why listen, he's lying like hell, it's not just a book, here's the evidence, here's the photo!111».

P.S. It was necessary to write with a disclaimer that I do not justify in any way and during the course of the series, the opinion about Sasha's character was only "are you completely fucked up?", he played a complex hysterical woman perfectly. But let it be a postscript.

I understand her reaction quite well, because after her story everything falls into place. A person who has experienced sexualized violence, especially so many years ago and so cruel, will experience this trauma over and over again in full. If she did not dare to say it then, she was silent for 20 years, and then it was dumped on her so unexpectedly and from the position of "brought the angel to death", then all the negative emotions that she had buried for so many years not only overwhelmed her, but could be felt as vividly as in the process. It's not easy to say that anyway, and in such a situation, few people will scream rape in response. I'm sorry, but most men really don't understand this, as can be seen from the comments here.
In the course of the story, it even says that the husband is an offended woman, he always considered her something of a libertine, but was proud that he was chosen. And he was worried about coldness, not because he was afraid that she was cheating, but because she was more experienced than him. Plus, his brain-dripping parents. That's why it was so easy for him to believe an outsider than to give her time to tell her version.

It was also written here that the series describes the cancellation culture well. So yes. It is very clear that most people do not need the version of the accused, he has already been tried. Everyone likes to savor scandalous accusations, but few people will listen to the version of the second party.

@Arumi:

We are all human beings and in many ways the same.


Are there any cases of violence - there are also in most cases a male rapist, simply because men are often stronger.

Are there cases when people cheat - there are often, and especially when there is a real reason for this and lying will make a person better in their own eyes and in the eyes of others.

Is it enough just for a woman to say that there was violence to accuse another person without any other facts and evidence? No, it's not enough.


Can women invent some facts about violence if they want to accuse someone of violence? They can - no one prevents them from doing it if they wish.

According to the comments here, it is much easier and easier for most women to invent and invent - they do it faster and logic is not important to them, which allows them to connect completely different things without any embarrassment.


As a result, each case must be considered separately, because everything is possible: both violence and deception.

And in each individual case, a man may turn out to be a rapist, and a woman may turn out to be a liar.

And in order to determine reality, concrete and non-fictional, objective and recorded facts are needed.


If there are no facts, evidence and witnesses and there is insufficient data, then until such evidence has appeared and has not been presented, either party may be entitled in absentia.

And any questions may arise to any of the parties.


And if someone, any person, insists and defends any of the parties without evidence, this does not confirm in any way and does not increase the likelihood of the veracity of any of the versions.

@Foka: For a normal healthy loving person, the news that his loved one has been raped will cause a feeling of horror, shock, compassion, impotent rage, sadness.

And not relief like a hero- well, okay, rape is rape, thank God it's not treason.

@Leony: We cannot know what a normal healthy loving person would do. There are no such things.

@Foka: Are there no people capable of empathy and compassion?
Are there only infantiles who are fixated on suffering/worrying about their loved ones?

We obviously live in some different universes.

You may not know what healthy people do, I know.

@Leony: What are you talking about, sick?
Have you thought of something about your own, perhaps? They asked questions, did not wait for answers and continued their speech as if I had already answered positively.

"Capable..." - exists.
"Infantile/fixated..." - not only.

"Show me a healthy person and I will be the first to throw a stone at him." Me too... They invented stereotypes about health, and ordinary people suffer later, thinking that something is wrong with them. If there are no healthy ones, there are underexamined ones.

Everyone has their own cockroaches available.
Of course, we live in different universes: I am in reality, and you are in fairy tales trying to put it in the framework of health.

@Foka: And without insulting, is there no way to convey your thought at all?

@Leony: Did a little insult stop you from discussing the topic? How would a healthy person respond in your place?
Would he consider your previous message, in which the answers are attributed to me, an insult?

@id104144445: For me, the one where the authors are friends with logic is not a pass-through, but not the one where the stars are filmed. They applauded the actors' acting, directing, camerawork, stylists, and so on. but not to the author of the script and the author of the book. Read other people's comments on previous episodes (for example, I couldn't stand it after 5), people don't stand on ceremony there. I wrote above this is an adaptation of another ladies' thriller in the style of Sidney Sheldon, where common sense is missing. It was interesting.. the first three episodes.

@Painio: Simply put, a silly plot in a beautiful wrapper.

@Adrasteya: The story of the rape would have been if we had been told this from the first episode. Half of the series is told to us by the erotic fantasies of a half-witted old woman (probably most of the book is devoted to this). And what we were shown in the last episode, casually, in passing - Catherine's story, does not make the necessary emotional impression at all. They didn't tell us about Jonathan and Sonya, about Jonathan and his mother, and so on. In the series Law and Order. The special corps serves similar crimes in such a way that you want to strangle the rapist. Here, there are no emotions at all - the actors play just mediocre and you don't empathize with young Catherine as you need to. The only one you want to kill is the old man, and that's because he's disgusting on the outside. For me, as I wrote before, this series is a dummy, in which a lot of money was poured. There are series with a smaller budget, without stars, but which you admire, which you review and which you save to your home collection. This series is not one of them.

@Painio: I have already written: you didn't understand this series. But just because you didn't understand him doesn't mean he's bad.

@Adrasteya: Why didn't you understand? The man develops an ingenious plan and avenges the deaths of the hero's son and wife, but in the end learns the truth and comes to his senses. Primitive to the point of impossibility. Only all the stages of revenge go smoothly: both the husband, the editorial staff, and the son, and even in the hospital everyone takes his side, everyone believes him unconditionally, without facts, arguments and evidence. With his gift, he could breed people for a lot of money, not just an unstable junkie kid. The most important thing is that the author cannot understand that this will not work in life, at every stage of revenge he could stall - his husband could ignore the book, the editorial office advised him to contact the police without going into the essence, security would be called at the hospital, and he himself would be accused of distributing pornography and slander. But the author is a woman, and she is not interested in such trifles, she has her own logic. Maybe they wanted to show us something more than crime and punishment, but I didn't see it - the actors, except Kate, play poorly, especially those who played Nick and Jonathan. And at the Venice Festival, the audience applauded, most likely, her and no one else.

@Painio:

Adrasteya has already written to you that you did not understand the series! What is unclear?

Or will you still argue - what do you allow yourself?

@dimalu: Did he see exactly who he rushed to save?

@Adrasteya:

Of course he saw, because he ran past Catherine, who was standing screaming.

@Kookabara: You can't see her face in those photos.

@Adrasteya: Watch carefully. There are not all photos without a face. There is even a lot with a face and legs spread.

@Kookaburra: Not from the beach. There is no face in those photos where she shakes the sand out of her swimsuit. The face is visible only where she is in a tunic standing at the water's edge with a child.

@Adrasteya: Watch carefully. After all, these photos are not only shown in the last episode. There are many of them. Both in the room and on the beach.

@Kookabara: It would be great if you followed your own advice.

@Adrasteya: and there are also photos from the bar or restaurant. But you don't want to notice them point-blank.
Don't write to me anymore.
I've already written my opinion, I'm not interested in your vices.

@Kookabara: did she take off her panties and bra at the bar too?
What a formidable muschinka: he preemptively banned all dissenters so that they would not be hushed up 😂

@Adrasteya: I take it that the truth stings your eyes? Is that why we're going to complain and write slurs? My comment was a good trigger.

@Kookaburra: who should I write to? In a sports lottery or something? Don't flatter yourself, I don't care about you.

@Adrasteya: how much conceit. 🤣😂

@Kukabara: I'm far from you, Cho.

@Adrasteya: I've been chasing you for three days to tell you how much I don't care about you." 😂
I also connected fake accounts.

@Kookabara: I understand why you saw something in the series that is not there: you have a very rich imagination. Of course, I'm sitting here with 100,500 accounts to annoy you, the point is solely that, and not that you write nonsense that contradicts the rules of the site.

@Adrasteya:
I've been chasing you for three days to tell you how much I don't care about you." 🤣🤣🤣
I told you not to write to me anymore.
That is, I connected it anyway. You swim shallow in brown slush. You'll drown in it, like the heroine of this series.

@Gamlet: Of course, I have encountered functional illiteracy before, but your case is clinical.

@Gamlet:

The women figured out the question themselves and turned out to be right! I admit it.

Here, the clinical psychologist stated above that Catherine had a crush on Jonathan - we can't help but believe it.


Then according to the application:

"Where do women get such thoughts that they will only look at them and immediately the girl should die of desire?!"

That's right - as soon as the first guy on the beach looked at Catherine, she immediately fell in love!

It turns out that women have all the right thoughts - everything seems to be happening.

@Adrasteya:

Not a word about the series, the characters, the plot.

The comment is for deletion.

@Gamlet: I have read all the comments on the series. I admire your tenacity to convey your position to the blockheads, I used to be like that myself. However, I was convinced of the unattainability and now I'm quickly stopping.

- Nancy's version is fiction, but this does not prove the veracity of Catherine's version, she could also have made it up.
- Catch the defender of rapists!
🤨😆

@Gamlet:

That's right: put, put the cons to those who are disgusted by themselves) here we will count them)

@Gamlet: Dear Hamlet, with all due respect, you are already genuinely tired. If it's not difficult for you, please take your stool and stand on it somewhere in another branch. Please, I beg you! You're already making me sick and stuffy here...

@Shaana:

And I'm tired of people who don't discuss the series, but insult people with a different opinion just like that - let them be in another thread.

@Gamlet: you would go and touch the grass, or there, take a breath of air in the park, for example.

@scarcelyinside:

Thank you for being so concerned about me - it's nice.

Otherwise, others can only call you names.

@Shaana: This is a free forum, everyone has the right to express their views.

@Tatul: + as I wrote under another comment above, when Sasha left Jonathan before the end of her vacation, her mother called her mother and clearly talked about violence against her daughter (the beginning of episode 6), and let's add her reaction to the news of Jonathan's death, did not come to the funeral, everything is working out. Catherine wasn't the first, and Mom didn't believe it.

@Khrustalev: A very stupid question.
Cate Blanchett is an Australian, Kevin Klein is an American, Leila George is an Australian and further down the list are Korea, Pakistan.
Whoever pays for the girl, he dances her. Apple pays for the girl. The series was released on the Apple TV+ platform. This is an American streaming service.
Now do you understand what market the series was filmed for?

@Kookaburra: for what? For all countries where you can buy an Apple TV subscription?

@Khrustalev: iPhones are assembled in China and India, and sold all over the world. But for some reason, no one calls them Chinese, Canadian or Indian phones. And they call them American. Why would that be?

@Kookabara: In cinema, it's called international production.

@Kookabara: I wonder if when Russian TV series were released on Netflix, they weren't Russian because they were on the American platform? Wut.
And there is not even any pronounced country here.

@raziel2011: The USA- UK production is clearly written.
There are regional sections on netflix. Or were. I don't know how it is now. There is no such thing on Apple TV. But I could be wrong.

"Who knows what he would do if he swam out of the sea."
Exactly. Therefore, it is very strange that she went to the beach at all covered in impressive bruises (since she took them off as evidence) and moral trauma. She lay down there (in a dangerous place for her and Nick, those where Jonathan could be) and fell asleep. But the most important thing. She's not afraid that Jonathan will come back and generally kill her or Nick at any moment. CARL, he threatened to kill your child and you, raped you for 3 hours at night, and you calmly go to the beach with the child instead of the police or instead grab the child under the armpits and take the first possible flight to London so that the child is safe. Along the way, she completely lacks self-preservation instincts (they did not turn on because of the normality of what happened). Or, since she is so relaxed, there is no state of injury and security threat, because she has nothing to worry about due to another scenario (lack of violence)

I said I thought so.
We see two subjective points of view, not the truth.
So the question is what did you read)

Catherine, as a journalist, was working on versions that could help her better understand how to get out of the shit. She put her theories in a notebook, for example, she wrote "pedophile". Very often, victims of violence become rapists/aggressors themselves, so perhaps she might have thought that Jonathan was abused by his father, so he himself committed violence against a weaker person than he was at the time. Perhaps she was looking for strings to protect herself. Maybe it was just an attempt to find dirt to cover up in response to the accusations. Like "Father Knows," there was most likely a theory that Jonathan's father knew what had happened to her.
Regarding the mother's story, I don't know how closely you looked, but her mother has dementia. In this state, it's a miracle that she even knows her daughter. It is quite possible that she could perceive her daughter's night story as the story of an outsider, so she did not react in a motherly way. I think Catherine told her everything not for any reaction, but because it was tearing her apart from the inside and she understood that there was no one else to talk, and at least her mother would not condemn and just listen. If he hears.
The bikini correction was BEFORE the rape. Because in Catherine's version, after the rape, she was in a different swimsuit, covered up.
She saw that she was being looked at and photographed after she corrected him. Anyone can move a bikini unsuccessfully absolutely and completely by accident, correcting it. I think at least half of them had something flying off or peeking out somewhere on the beach, it just didn't get on the pervert's camera. Again, at the wrong moment, the son who threw sand at her was more concerned. Moreover, it is not known what the order of the photos actually was. The mother watched the developed pictures, not the film. And in the book she outlined her fantasies, because, unlike Catherine, she was not there, but based solely on her unhealthy relationship with her son.

What Catherine wrote in her notebook absolutely does not prove the version of the book. These freezes may also be proof of her version. Moreover, they are sketchy, she was just looking for information that she could work with later, but she never did.
And anyway, what makes you think that she touched herself in the bar and even sat at the same table with Jonathan? All that is known is that they were in the bar at the same time. And everything else is bookish fantasies, as well as just pictures that may not reflect reality. It's like saying from a picture of a horse with wings that Pegasus exists.

The police did not know about any affair, otherwise she would not have been released so easily after the interrogation. And they certainly wouldn't have told their mother that Catherine didn't know Jonathan.
She did not "put forward a rape theory," she told about the events in the first person to a man trying to ruin her life. It was his right to believe her or not. If you were watching, she was more concerned about her son's fate than her job or her husband. If she had been as cold-blooded as you describe her here, she would have screamed back from the very beginning. But she was silent and told only one person who might not believe her, but believed her because he doubted himself.
Her mother is not a beggar. She lived in her house in the suburbs of London, which quite suggests that they have enough money for basic needs.
You're confusing the narrator's words with Catherine's. The narrator's voice initially confused the stories. Honestly, I would like to see how, after such a physical and psychological trauma, you were happy to get into bed with anyone

What does her relationship with her boss have to do with events in the past and her family life? Moreover, in the beginning it says that they can't stand each other, and he envies her for her success. Moreover, he deliberately shames her in front of employees, clarifying the relationship in public, provoking her. But you didn't notice that, did you?
It's even funny about my husband's family. They got married against the wishes of his parents, because she was not their circle. He, an insecure virgin, has always lived with doubts about his wife. And a little bit - he immediately believed everyone, but not her. And he managed the fund with unclean transactions. She doesn't talk about love to heaven, she talks about affection, about family planning, which was destroyed by rape. She treated her husband well and loved her son. The money issue was not particularly discussed there. I don't think she, being an award winner, would have lived on the street after the divorce.

I'm sorry, were you raped? What do you know so well, what the victim should do and how to behave after a traumatic event? You probably don't know that everyone's psyche is different and not everyone climbs into a corner and cries, and many generally continue to behave as if nothing happened so that no one knows about what happened. Surely everyone in the environment has a survivor of violence, but he does not talk about it. And not everyone applies at once. Or they don't serve at all. And someone gets up the next morning in any condition and goes to work.
It's just easier for you to believe in the ravings of a crazy mother who had an unhealthy attraction to her son and fantasized about his sex life, but was not present at the scene, than in a woman's story about what happened to her. Although there is no direct evidence either there or there.
But Jonathan's father believed her, because he knew his son, but ignored the manifestations of cruelty because of his love for his wife. But I could, like you, roam around and shout that everything is a lie.

@eternity888: I still don't understand how Jonathan planned to get out of it if Catherine screamed. This is a hotel, not a villa. If a woman screams, the room is guaranteed to be checked, and most importantly, even if he had seriously wounded her with a knife, her blood would have remained on him and he would not have been able to leave unnoticed - after all, the hotel. Attacking a woman like that is not the smartest thing to do. Especially for a mother with a child. She may well try to sacrifice herself in order to attract attention and save her son, than she will allow herself to be abused when the rapist can kill them both as witnesses. The chance of getting caught is many times higher than to carry out the plan. But it can be attributed to age, of course.

Catherine prioritized her son, his rest. That's why I went to the beach with him. Go explain to a 5-year-old child why she doesn't want to go to the beach, but wants to stay in a room in the summer on a sunny day. The child will not understand. This is how many women live for years - after being beaten, they get up in the morning and continue to live, work, and raise children.
Moreover, the bruises were most likely not on the face, as well as the injuries. The belly, the hips, what she covered with a closed swimsuit in her story.
And the police cannot force a person to open a case without the victim's desire, if she does not file a statement. Catherine said that after Jonathan's death, she destroyed everything and left as soon as possible to get away from it. Like his mother, she didn't say anything-what's the point of a dying woman telling this about her son?

@Adrasteya:
Didn't Jonathan run past her when he rushed to save her? You can say that you didn't find out, but again guesses and guesses.

Catherine writes, who knows. The police and the waiter, she said, could not have known anything.

I've already written what I don't like - the details contradict my life experience. And I'm not the only one, that's why there are so many discussions and searches for a double bottom.

@Lotra: so he jumped out from behind her. Do you think you've seen it? The fact that he targeted her child and rushed to save exactly the same guesses. Why are they more significant? Moreover, if he did not recognize her, the situation becomes somewhat more logical.
Once again: Catherine automatically starts throwing up versions. Her job is to check versions and leads.
And I already wrote, swap the stories and the double bottom will disappear.

@Adrasteya: Let's stay with our views. Yes, I think I could have seen and recognized the woman I had been following for almost a day and raped for three hours at night, otherwise it's strange. And you think not. There is no point in arguing about this either, so I will not continue.