Dear Glen and Phil,
PRINT
DISCUSS
E-MAIL
RSS
RECOMMEND...
Facebook
MySpace
Mixx
Digg
Reddit
del.icio.us
Furl
Ma.gnolia
Sphere
StumbleUponI agree with both of you that while the couples therapy made for great entertainment--there were some fine moments in it--it didn't make any sense therapeutically. We are given no reason why Dr. Melfi decides to bring Carmela in at this point, and it is difficult to think of a good therapeutic rationale. Furthermore, I think you are both right when you say it was bound to be a disaster. Introducing a spouse into an individual treatment that had been ongoing for three years has to backfire. But this brings us to the question of Jennifer's motives. If they aren't therapeutic, they must have been personal--countertransferrential, if you will. So let me venture a hypothesis. Last week, we were given many indications that the one-on-one work with Tony was becoming too intense and disturbing for Jennifer to handle. Her consultant already recognizes this early in the episode and suggests that she refer Tony to another therapist. But she is unable to see it through. And by the end of the episode, after she has returned to work from the rape, the intensity of her feelings toward Tony have even intensified further, to an altogether new level. This is clear in the dream and her last hour with him. Now, there undoubtedly many complicated and even contradictory reasons why Jennifer invites Carmela into the therapy. But I would say primary among them is the wish to dilute the intensity of the one-to-one relationship with Tony. It's simply too much for her.
One further comment. Although I may not win much favor with our colleagues for saying this, we therapists frequently suffer from a common déformation professionnelle: We talk and behave like shrinks outside of our offices in our everyday lives. This often represents an attempt to control the "slings and arrows" that spouses, children, lovers, colleagues, and friends dish out to us like everyone else in life. Now I'm afraid that Jennifer suffers from this professional malady; that's one of the reasons there are such strong reactions against her. She has the same formal, brittle, and overly intellectualized attitude when she interacts with her husband as she does when she's with her patients. In this respect, Carmela is her exact opposite. She is spontaneous and visceral in her reactions, not frightened of feelings of the most intense sort, and she is remarkably honest with herself. When she allowed herself to be deluded with the priest, she made a quick intervention and corrected the situation. Now that they've met, the contrast and conflict between these two women is bound to become one of the dramatic centers of the show. And I'm not certain that Carmela doesn't have the upper hand.
Joel
What It Will Cost You To Deny Illegal Immigrants Health Insurance
Stupid Drug Story of the Week: NBC's Today Show Discovers Huffing
Can the Government Call God Jesus? What About Allah?
How Twilight Made Goth Fashion Mainstream
Is Disney's The Suite Life Making Your Child Into an Evil Lothario?
What Sarah Palin Wrote in Obama's Facebook Feed
Reader Comments From The Fray:
Margaret Crastnopol hit it right on the head: we are being too easy on Melfi (or at least the portrayal of Melfi). Fact is, Tony Soprano is an idiot and she's physically intimidated by him. She's also turned on by him--which is a revolting possibility. Thing is, thousands of women are, in fact, turned on by Tony and his merry band of thugs. Crastnopol's suggestion that the doctor-patient and doctor-doctor power positioning does little to counter stereotypes of weak women being pushed around by angry, stupid men--this is all correct, too. Actually, the whole program is misogynistic and ought not be watched by anyone....yet, I'm strangely attracted to it, bad writing/acting and all. Is it that I'm that desperate for entertainment or is this representative of some deep misogyny within? Doctors, tell me: what drives us (me) to watch this thing, even when I know it's negative TV? There are too many men and women out there watching this and thinking that this is an acceptable way of life. What's wrong with us? A diagnosis, please.
--Phil H.
(To reply, click here.)
To Phil H:
There is nothing wrong with "us." But there is a problem with your formulation of the problem. To enjoy this well-written and well-acted drama, we are not obligated to find that the fictional characters pursue "an acceptable way of life." On the contrary, I would guess that 99.9% of viewers strenuously object to the way Tony puts bread on the Sopranos' table.
We enjoy the bravura plot twists, the odd contrasts, the marvelous characterizations, and the Machiavellian tactics--and the occasionally absurd results of the characters' efforts. The monstrous is combined with the mundane in a striking and amusing way. Consider Tony strangling a mafia traitor as his beloved daughter is interviewed for admission to a genteel New England college.
Millions of people have read and admired Crime and Punishment. Do you suppose they accepted the grotesque reasoning that drove Dostoyevsky's main character? Must we approve of step-patricide to enjoy Hamlet?
Relax and enjoy the series. If you feel the urge to emulate the main characters, call your therapist (or your local sheriff).
--Gary
(To reply, click here.)
On the question of the Mafia don who approved of Tony's therapy: Remember that this was a leader of the Manhattan mob. Probably they are a little more sophisticated than the Jersey crowd. Remember, it was only Junior and Tony's assumption that seeing a shrink was taboo. The New York family was probably way ahead of them.
--Aurora Duane
(To reply, click here.)
(3/15)