Douglas is cancelled: Discussion Thread for those who've binged it SPOILERS!

[FailBetter]

As Alex Kingston would say in mode: SPOILERS!!!

So...that joke:

"How did you know Madeline was going to be a huge star?"
"When I saw her coming out of my boss's hotel room."

Oof.

It was an interesting premise but struggling with the idea that Madeline would have been successful and not insisted on a change of producer at some point.
Or that Douglas's wife/daughter wouldn't have heard the "punchline" before.
Or that he'd never mentioned the sleazy producer and what happened to Madeline at any point to her afterward, even if he was ashamed of his (lack of) response. Or that he'd have kept on the agent, even if /especially if the latter had used emotional blackmail.
But it was a decent enough drama with the switch from cancel culture to me too.
And from feeling some sympathy for Douglas to him being complicit, even if he might have thought she was okay with the casting couch.
Wasn't so keen on the portrayal of the daughter.

It was originally written as a play and I can see that. It would have worked very well on stage.

Nick Mohammed tried for the producer role but was knocked back gently for being too young for it. Ben Miles nailed that part as Pervy Wankstain material.

i thought it was mis-marketed as a comedy

i also thought it was a great dissection of the "good guys"! i loved that the focus wasnt on the actual nob-head producer, because she didnt expect any better from him. She did expect better from Douglas, as should we all.
That bit when he says "you looked terrified" was very powerful, and Hugh Bonneville played it very well, i think. He realised he was complicit and therefore not a "good guy"

Yes, Littlepinkstarsbyradish

"You looked terrified" was an awful moment! I desperately wanted him to say how sorry he was but he didn't.

I don’t often watch ITVX and won’t in future as Ads are terrible.
It is good though -am 2/3 way through ep4

Ha! Good ending.
interesting - well done Steven Moffat not the ending I expected….

yes i was pleased with the ending

I've watched ep 3 and haven't rtft as I am not dying to get any spoilers, but I have a question for those who have watched it all: the end of ep 2 and ep 3 are the same "cliffhanger". I am guessing that the "joke" or "story" that Douglas told was something mocking Madeline being in the hotel room with the producer, when a young aspirant. I don't want to watch any more unless ep 4 takes us forward to a different place - I am feeling strung along and manipulated by the same "real time" point (as opposed to flashbacks) at the end of two eps and if that's the schtick - if we aren't going to move on yet - I don't want to watch any more. Can anyone tell me if ep 4 takes the real time action forward?

Overall I think it's too drawn out. I think we spent far too long in the hotel room with the creepy producer and I think Madeline was unconvincing through most of this meeting, because I think most women would spend less time unsuccessfully trying to hold an assertive line without leaving or bluntly telling him to pack it in. I think most women, after a few goes at "come on, I'm not having a drink in your hotel room", would either be more apparently compliant or would have said something more direct like "look you are having a bath and that's weird and I am leaving", which she does, but she doesn't go - I don't think you can sit on that line unsuccessfully for that long. Or maybe that's just me. I can see why she wanted to stay (wanted the job) but I think most women would see that she couldn't set the professional vibe she wanted against his will, and she either had to go his way (not necessarily fuck him, but be a bit cute and charming and not openly disapproving) or leave.

I like the idea - flipping from "these young women are judgemental fascists" to "these old men are terrible creeps" - but it's too long and I am bored and feeling manipulated
Also I think Alex Kingston is wasted just shouting her head off like a mad woman all the time. I think it would be a better show if she was allowed to be more measured

oh do watch the final part, it does move on @achipandachair

@achipandachair

The viewer and all the characters are manipulated. I think that is what makes it so brilliant. Do watch to the end. It is worthwhile.

Sexism is the last acceptable "ism" here.
If Douglas had told a slightly racist story or a slightly homophobic joke where he couldn't remember it, but didn't deny making it, we'd have been far quicker to the finish line.
Because it was "only" sexism, the other guests laughed and no one had a real problem with sexism as they hadn't heard what was said, hadn't heard anything sufficiently offensive, Madalene suffered and had to use her not inconsiderable savvy to "win".
It was clever in that it almost made me feel sorry for Douglas.

Because in taking out Douglas, she gets the top job.

We’ve just finished it. Team Douglas all the way!

Didn't like it.

Episodes 1 and 2 were well-written and funny, but episodes 3 and 4 just awful.

Yes, all of this. And I thought it was clever to have HB - someone we all know for playing generally affable men- and Madeleine be so dislikeable. It showed our own prejudices are often more in play than we realise too.

I felt sorry for Douglas right up until he said "You looked terrified!"

I'm not sure what the point was of the wife's useless PA.
Contrasting the 'be nice' culture with the real cut and thrust competition in show business?

Not sure what the point of the whole series was to be honest. It didn't seem to have any message and every character was unlikeable

The message was clear - if you see bad behaviour, call it out.
Don't leave someone in the lurch / tell yourself it has nothing to do with you.
Don't gossip / throw colleagues under the bus.
Don't make assumptions.
Don't enable predators.

When you think of Weinstein's assistants and how they must have known what they were sending actresses into, it beggars belief.

So although the me too movement began seven years ago (2017) and the script was first written as a play a year later (2018), its message is still pertinent.
Bad behaviour happens when others turn a blind eye or choose to ignore it.
Just look at the current Strictly furore.

*FailBetter excellent post. *

Like others I found episodes 1 & 2 not very interesting and "too theatrical" not knowing it had orginally been a play.

Many of the characters seemed to be "types" eg the agent.

And was thinking if this is meant to be satire of current society / media world, its pretty childish.

But for whatever reason I watch episode 3 and it was like a different play. I think, as many of the testimonies from actresses etc. have testified, the scenario of a woman knowing that the man sexually harrassing her is the person who could or could not give her the dream job is very real. ie the pressure to "comply" with the demands of the man in charge.

At the end of that episode I was left convinced she had given in.

So was really glad when they showed in the last episode what she actually did, which was far more effective than just slipping out the door, ie not just rejecting him but also took photographic evidence so she then had power over him.

But I think for Madalene it wasn't just that she suspected that Douglas had told a joke about her, but that at the time he saw her looking terrified at the bedroom door, he not only did nothing but implied it would be worth scarificing herself to get the job.

So when she tricked him into admitting the joke he told had been about her getting the job because he had seen her in the producer's bedroom, it was just a double betrayal.

Because the other part of this was she (for some reason) had idolised him from childhood. He as a hero(?) for her, but turned out to he was anything but that.

The part I couldn't quite accept was that Douglas was so completely clueless. I realise that many presenters are chosen not for their inteligence and knowledge, but because of how they come over on screen.

But given the work his wife did, his daughters tirades, his agent's agitation about perceived behaviour, how could he still be simply gliding through life as though none of this was happening. or if it was his complete belief in himself as being untouchable.

So whilst I agree with a lot of @FailBetter wrote this will only work if enough people recognise it.

For instance in the Strickly examples, it is almost as though everyone sort of assumed that if you are a perfectionist and one of the best in your art, you can behave like an absolutely shit. Dont forget people like this get promoted, and even have tv documentaries made about them. All those shouting chefs.

I thought she simply used it to get the top job!

I wouldn't have watched it if I'd known what it was about so I thought it was very clever because it made people like me watch it!

I found the first two episodes really light.

I found episode 3 a really tough watch and especially the amount of time in the hotel room but I think it's so important to see because even bright women can be manipulated and worn down and just how full on and unrelenting the producer was made me feel so sad and angry.

I also felt quite sorry for Douglas till he said 'You looked terrified'!!! I mean, as he walked away he said 'It's worth it whatever shit you have to go through!' Was he telling her to comply?!?!?!?!

yes to all of this.

I'm not sure how to verbalise this opinion... but I thought the mirroring in the treatment of Madeline by Douglas in the doorway, with the later treatment of Douglas by Madeline in the interview was very clever. I.e. they're friends, they like each other, they want to trust each other. At the doorway she was unsure whether he was good/bad/just acting/whether to trust him given his actions, in the interview he then wasn't sure if she was good/bad/being genuine/actions based on her being Fiona vs herself.

This makes sense in my brain but probably haven't explained it well.

Either way I thought it was very captivating tv. Alex Kingston and Karen Gillan back together on my screen made me very happy.

I took the 'it's worth it' comment not as telling her to comply but accepting that that was how the world worked. It stood up with the 'if there are so many of you (nice men) then where the hell are you?'. He had an assumption of what was going to happen in that hotel room, but did nothing. On the one hand he left her looking terrified in the doorway, said that, and walked away, on the other hand...feels a lot more complicated. I watched this with DH who said something along the lines of.... 'what, in your opinion, should Douglas have done in that situation? He invited her for a drink, she turned him down. Yes she looked terrified, but if he'd pressed the issue isn't there a chance he's belittling her autonomy and therefore that's also not the right pathway? How do you get the woman out of that situation? How are you certain that she 100% does not want to be in there? People do things when they're scared. In that situation I'd have been assuming she didn't want to be there, I'd have offered for her to come with me, but if she says no...what then? Surely the only option I have is to leave as otherwise am I not 'being the patriarchy' just as badly?'

Honestly wasn't sure how to respond to that one. Rock and a hard place.

But he knows she doesn’t want to, otherwise he wouldn’t say that it will be worth it as he walks away.

"If you were raped, phone the police. If you slept with someone to get a job and now you're feeling bad about it, phone your mum or your best friend or someone who can give a shit long enough to listen. But first, explain to me, why this was my fault?"
"Who said I slept with him?"
"Oh stop it, I know you did."
"How, because I got the job?"
"You were in his room."
"And, so? What did that tell you? You walked away. You left us alone. How do you know what happened next?"
"I knew what was gonna happen. I saw it in your face."
"Saw what in my face?"
"Anyone would have known it. You looked terrified."

He knew at best, she was going to be casting couch fodder and at worst, she was going to be raped. It was going to be coercive either way.
She turned down the drink.
His options then are:
insisting she came with him - giving her an "out" like discussing the job
getting a chaperone into the room - his wife or an assistant
telling her he'd vouch for her and explicitly asking if she needed help
entering the room himself and telling his boss he was acting unprofessionally

Why would he believe - if he was casting her as someone ambitious enough to sleep her way to the top - that she was terrified of making that quid pro quo? He knew from her face that she had no autonomy and therefore this wasn't sexual empowerment; she had no power.

If he truly thought it was sexual favours in return for advancement to which he should turn a blind eye, he'd never have used the word "terrified" as that implies a reason to be afraid (predator) rather than just "nerves."

My resounding thought at the end was, "I hope my husband/ father/ son/ brother wouldn't leave a scared woman in that situation" so I think it achieved what it set out to.