Sharing the comments from a reader to texted this to me: It’s amazing that you wrote such a long detailed analysis. It makes me interested in reading a novel as well. I couldn’t agree more “Nick is sweet and thoughtful, but not very charismatic. “ 😅 Jeff Murphy is so hot and charismatic!! I can't trust him,but it would hard to reject him. Without Jeff, the show would been so boring. I'm frustrated with Jeff! I thought "Z seems to be the ultimate CP for Ingrid" too. Z seems to like Ingrid, and he could understand Ingrid's conflicted feeling as an Asian American. M&A revenge made Ingrid and Z even closer to each other. There was a chemistry betweeen Z and Ingrid in the last couple of episodes. I can't wait season2!! And thank you for adding a link for Ingrid’s outfit! I’ve been looking for it!
On Nick, I did think that he was moving too fast (not that this is any kind of moral failure, to be clear), but I found that he was genuinely accepting of Ingrid and trying to accomodate her as best he could. Ingrid was incredibly uncommunicative, and I don't fault him for having his map not tracking the territory, so to speak (I mean, if he knew she was a liar and a cheater presumably he wouldn't have asked her to marry him, so the person he though he knew lived only in his cranium). I don't think that it would be fair to expect one to be a mind reader or have to act like Sherlock Holmes to understand their partner. When he asks her to move in with him, she agrees; she is the one to invite him to meet her family; when he asks her to marry him, she says yes. All in all, he cannot know what she doesn't tell him or what she lies about.
An perfect example of this would be the "effectively compelling her to wear a mustard yellow gown she didn’t want to wear by leaving her with no other options shortly before the evening event", which I read quite differently. First of all, she knew that she had to attend the gala, so it's not as if she wouldn't have had the option to choose another dress. She was not compelled to do so, she chose to do so. She explains that she has troubles saying no, but that doesn't mean that she couldn't have told him that she didn't like the color or went with a different dress. The scene where she says that was basically the only hint he had that there was something not quite right, and when he wanted to have a talk about it she spurned him and told him she was going home to think, and then didn't pick up his calls. Also, when she raised the point it was in the context of discussing her being unwilling to make a speech that she ended up doing, so it was not at all clear that this had to do with the marriage proposal or the dress or anything else of the sort. Bottom line, Nick cannot know what she doesn't tell him or what she lies about (like being okay with the marriage or the dress). So, in terms of communication failures, I feel that it's the responsibility of the one wanting their partner to know and understand something or say there is a problem to clearly communicate it to them, it's simply not fair to assume they ought to know without telling them, because they are neither mind readers not Sherlock Holmes. I think that verbalizing explicitly the problems and what they would like is central to clear communication and avoiding misunderstandings. In any case, the dress was a pretty minor episode (I didn't agree that she didn't look good in that), the main issue I guess was the fact that she was not honest and upfront with the Murphy situation even before sleeping with him, and about her reservations about the speed the relationship was moving at (on the contrary, besides agreeing to moving in with him -they had been living together for almost half a year, I think-, presenting him to his family, accepting his mother's earrings, and and agreeing to marry him, accepting his family ring, she clearly gave him signals that she was into him and interested in a serious relationship, and it would be crazy to expect him to Chat-GPT style hallucinate what she might or might not be thinking based on what she should have said but didn't say, rather than take her at her word and trusting she was telling him the truth).
All in all, I found it incredible that everyone, from her friends to her mother and sister, to Murphy, knew more about the status of his relationship with Ingrid than Nick himself: she ghosted him rather than talking to him, and ended up stabbing him in the back, when really she just needed to pick up one of his phone calls and tell him it was over, and it would have taken two minutes (better to have an in person meeting, but given the alternative was betraying him, it would have been more honest to take two minutes to break things off, and maybe schedule an in person meeting another day... and, while it would have not been the main point, that way they would have avoided the traumatic and unpleasant situation of him having to see her half naked at the office after sleeping with Jeff behind his back.
On the Jeff situation, I must say that I have a pretty different opinion: he raised red flags all over the place, seemed kind of stupid in that he caused most of his own problems through his relationship with Victoria, and was clearly untrustworthy and disloyal, in addition to a liar and a cheater (though in that respect, Victoria really didn't have the right to complain, given her own behavior -among other things, didn't she cheat with Jeff?-, so I am more worried about the effect on Nick, who clearly didn't deserve to be treated with zero honesty and respect... it doesn't matter that she didn't love him, that doesn't mean that she should feel inclined to treat him with no honesty and respect, and, again it would have taken two minutes to pick up one of his phone calls and clear up the situation, it wouldn't have been a massive time investment. Not that Ingrid has any room to talk, again, given her own actions -in that respect, one could say her and Murphy deserved each other- but It makes it difficult to understand why she didn't think that he would stab her in the back as well.
I must say that I found the fact that she was hung up on him after a one night stand six years prior rather strange and demeaning, as is the "dark bad boy with a troubled past" vibe... Very immature teenager wanting to rebel against her parents. Also, she says she has "history" with the guy... the history being a one night stand more than half a decade ago. Meanwhile, while half a year is not a lot, she had an actual relationship and lived together with Nick for almost six month, presented him to her family, and was engaged with him... all of which seem a more weighty "history" than a one night stand.
Honestly, given that apparently Nick didn't exist in the books, I wonder why they didn't use Zi-Xin as a love interest (in term of conflicts of interest, Victoria was a client, and Murphy was with her, so...). Though, in that case, I would have hoped for a plot line more similar to the book where she doesn't betray his trust, and maybe for them to be endgame.
On the cheating, besides being easily avoidable and pointless, I kind of found it telegraphed and banal, and would have appreciated them having her behave like a normal adult and simply talk to the guy she was engaged with. I was similarly disappointed in Tyler doing that to Anthony, and feared it would be Rachel's turn as well, but thankfully they didn't give her a similar plot line.
I would have liked to see more of Ingrid's sister (their conflict was interesting, wished they had drilled down more on it beyond the clash where they confronted each other about their parent's expectations, etc.), as well as Nick and Anthony... the show kind of brushed the cheating aside and pivoted away from the wreckage left in their wake by Ingrid and Tyler, to turn to the latter two's search for the meaning of their lives or whatever -which would have felt fine on its own, but in the context of the emotional devastation they wrought felt more than a little self absorbed-... okay, fine, but at least throw me a bone and show me that they are putting themselves back together.
Frankly, I didn't find the comparison to Emily in Paris out of place, I must say that it was pretty similar in terms of the depiction of the romantic relationships, friend group, etc. Other comparisons might be Sex and the City (actually, I originally thought that this was from Darren Starr as well, given that he produced both Sex in the City and Emily in Paris). I guess that for the same reasons it also reminded me of Gray's Anatomy (though the latter is more "extra" in the relationship side, not sure whether because of the length of the series of the plot line itself).
Just to clarify, I meant "immature teenager wanting to rebel against her parents vibe".
Also just to clarify, I am not really too hung up on the Ingrid + Nick ship, in fact as I said, prior to the cheating scene I would have liked her with Zi-Xin (after, not so much: I liked his character and he could do better than a cheater and a lia -which was what turned be off from Ingrid pursuing a relationship with Jeff prior to her cheating with him, because I thought she deserved so much better than someone so clearly untrustworthy and with questionable notions of loyalty, ready to walk over people, from Nick to Ingrid, to get what he wants-, I wouldn't have wanted him to go through something like what Nick went through, since he was one of the characters that was explicitly "good", not self centered and down to earth).
My point was more like, no matter how flawed her and Nick's relationship was, or Nick's personal flaws, or if she didn't love him, those all have nothing to do with the cheating, they are simply two different things. I would have been all for her breaking up the relationship amicably, which she could have easily done by behaving like a normal person and picking up the phone: it would have taken a couple of minutes, I simply don't believe that it would have been beyond her or anyone's capacity.
It doesn't even make any sense to think about what could have happened, or not happened, to the relationship in the future, had she not done what she did, because they did not. This is like saying that everyone is going to die. Okay, but if I run over with a car a nonagenarian, it's still murder ever if he would have likely soon died of natural causes. The point being that he didn't die of natural causes, I am the one responsible for his death, as I killed him by running him over. In the case of Nick and Ingrid's relationship, the car running him over was him walking in on her half naked after having sex with Jeff at the office. Again, this is a different point from talking about the flaws in their relationship and whether it would have ended anyway or not, and even if it did, it could have been an amicable ending where they treated each other with respect and remained friends. Instead, we had the emotional abuse/trauma equivalent of her running him over with a car. And he has enough self respect and self dignity to cut her out of his life, which I liked -I wish Anthony had reacted the same way with Tyler, showing that he understood that anyone willing to treat him that way didn't deserve to be in his life, though after Tyler broke up with him he behaved with remarkable dignity-.
The point, I guess, is that even if someone feels unhappy, their relationship has problems, or they don't love the other person, it doesn't mean that they would feel inclined to betray their trust, or hurt and humiliate them. If they feel inclined to do so, either because their partner is not even a consideration and doesn't come to mind, or does and it doesn't change their decision to act in a way that shows them no honesty and respect, both options being very telling of their actual priorities and values, that cannot be explained away by simply pointing to unhappiness or them not loving them, it's a non sequitur. Separating honestly, or even having an amicable parting, is a thing, and some even stay friends after breaking up, and that could have been Ingrid and Nick had she actually just acted normally and picked up one of his calls, taking two minutes to break things off honestly. And If not an amicable parting, at least a respectful one.
Bottom line, I guess, one doesn't need to be perfect, nor their relationship needs to be flawless, in order to not have their trust broken, their emotional confidence shattered, and be treated with basic dignity. Ending a relationship doesn't equate to treating the other without honesty and respect. Mixing the two together is simply muddling the waters, as is nitpicking, employing some self serving cynicism (very selectively, with a side dish of cherry picking and double standards).
In addition to everything I mentioned above in what with some embarrassment I realize has turned into a rant, there is simply the matter of sheer banality. The Anthony thing took me honestly by surprise, but as far as Ingrid was concerned, I feel that the cheating was telegraphed a mile away, and I really did hope that they would go instead for something that actually respected the character and was surprised me, such as her taking a step back and making the minuscule effort to actually talk with her boyfriend, picking up the phone and breaking things off honestly, if she couldn't be bothered to sleep with Murphy another day and couldn't have a face to face meeting with Nick before then... not as good as talking face to face, but better than the alternative, and more honest, and she could have always scheduled an in person meeting another day (while not the main point, as a side effect it would have spared Nick the trauma of walking in and seeing her half naked after sleeping with Jeff... the fact that he was apparently there with a cake, after she left him at the gala, refused to talk about the problem that was bothering her and went back home, and ghosted him, not picking up his calls, merely leaving messages telling him she was busy and generally avoiding/ghosting him/cutting him out/shutting him out, as both her sister and even Jeff picked up on, is even more heartbreaking... they guy seemed to know there was a problem, but he was understandably baffled as to what it was exactly, given her being completely uncommunicative, but he at least hoped that she would be willing to fight for their relationship, or at least break up with him honestly).
In other words, if one can see it coming from miles away, it would not be a bad idea writing wise to *not* have it happen and surprise the public, particularly in this case where the time and effort required would have been picking up the phone and having a two minute conversation where she break things off, something which I believe her or anyone else would be capable of doing. Plus, again, I remain convinced that this would have been more in line with, and respectful of, her character/characterization. And show character growth by realizing how she had been completely uncommunicative and made things clear: if she was at a point where she was ready to sleep with Jeff, then she was at a point where she could have just broke things off with Nick instead, and as I said, it would have taken two minutes.
Again, not saying I was hung up on the ship, but you don't have to be perfect to deserve to be treated with basic honesty and respect, and Nick, whatever his flaws, was never depicted as horrible enough that I felt he deserved this treatment (by contrast, Jeff shoved a sufficient lack of care for who hurt with his affairs and the rest of his behavior, a lack of loyalty and trustworthiness, that had something like this happened to him he wouldn't really have been in any position to complain, and it would have felt like karma or cosmic justice... for reference, I was very supportive of the betrayed FL in The Magicians sleeping with someone else after her boyfriend cheated on her: what goes around comes around). I also think that, for any flaws he might have had, he was also taken quite a bit for granted.
To be honest, from the depiction of the book, it kind of makes me wish that the TV series had been more faithful to the source material in Ingrid's characterization and more focus on the work aspects. Though I do appreciate thoughtful additions such as the focus on modern forms of racism, or the inclusion of other characters of color. Frankly, my favorite was definitely Zi.
Frankly, I am not sure I agree with the reviewer about cheating being common-place in romantic themed series, as the HuffPo reviewer Simon said, it *is* pretty disconcerting: ""I simply did not understand why everyone was so comfortable with their friends cheating on their partners. LIKE??? I was baffled! Because there was no reason for some of the things that occurred, other than to give us a messy “Emily in Paris”-esque storyline and create some faux-ambiguity for a second season. "
I tend to agree also with Eva Hekman's post "Partner Track, Nick and why the nice guy never wins" with... actually, both the pet peeves, namely that, to quote her words, "glorifying the bad boy [...] gets old pretty quickly" (and, might I add, it comes off as juvenile, superficial and immature: something one would expect from, say, a teenager in the "bad boy" phase that was trying to rebel against their parents -I must admit that the notion of someone being hung up on a one night stand more than half a decade later rings just as immature and a bit (or more than just a bit) pathetic... her friends should have really encouraged her to have a bit of dignity and self respect, or at least a shred of impulse control, and put things in perspective-), in the section of pet peeve 2 called, quote, "Cheating is a-okay", about audiences being led to root of the cheating couple "because they are true love/endgame" (I must say that in Tyler's case this is not the case, and funnily enough not even in Jeff's, and anyway from the vast majority of the commentary I saw, this has for the most part not happened with regards to Ingrid's behavior, as whatever flaws Nick might have had, he clearly didn't deserve this sort of treatment... understanding her crazy working hours and doing his best to take care of her to the extend that he knew how, even bringing her a cake at the office and heartbreakingly finding her half naked after having slept with Jeff behind his back, having never talked to Nick about her feelings or doubts (a cryptic reference to her having trouble saying no, in the context of discussing her giving a speech she despised, before spurning his offer to talk about the problem and telling him she was going back home to reflect, and then proceeding to ghost him, not answer picking up his phone calls, but sending messages even when it came to apologizing for the mess with his mother's ring, and, as noticed by both Jeff and her sister, generally avoiding the guy rather than talking to him, clearly doesn't count as communication in general, and specifically not as clear communication about her feelings and doubts) before running off to the guy that pretended he didn't know her when they met after six years.
Eva's Medium post also mentions the absurdity of not breaking things off first, when all it takes is a conversation, and generally comments that cheating is overused (and imho in many if not most cases lazy writing reaching out for a cheap trick to create engagement, when the plot could have worked just as well without it.. many times in Gray's Anatomy and here I felt that this was pretty much the case), and realistically it should have more consequences and emotional ramifications. Like her, I agree that it would have been nice to see a non banal outcome where Ingrid simply told Nick about how she felt honestly, and, if she wanted to, broke up with him.
I guess that if there is one thing that I don't agree with the above take is the notion of 1) This is a trend in romantic comedies in general... it's more of a recent trend, and frankly largely only in US shows, as far as I can tell... I don't think the same applies, or applies to the same degree, to older romcoms, or to romcoms from other countries. it's also not limited to couples that are endgame sleeping together behind their partners' back, sometimes they cheat on each other instead -or as well, depending on the case- (and I cannot say what is more distasteful... thankfully here Nick broke things off and Anthony didn't get to put up with it and stay in the relationship, which is by far the best outcome for him long term -and I would say near term as well-), and 2) it's not as if people in general and even commentators in particular are buying it wholesale, see Simon's comment in the HuffPost piece, or Eva's Medium article.
I feel that the comparison with Emily in Paris is very apt, and I recall there were some complaint about the depiction of the French as, to use the words Charles Martin wrote in Première, "individuals [...] not really attached to the concept of loyalty". I get the feeling that a similar kind of stereotypical depiction applies to NY, maybe it's the Sex and the City effect (ironically, as Emily in Paris also produced by Darren Star). I must say that a lot of time this results into rather lazy and predictable writing, particularly when it's used for shock value and doesn't have any *real* utility for the plot, and it could have been avoided or the writer could have used a different trigger or catalyst, and it would have worked just the same (and maybe been ever better). Going forward, I don't know that it will be such an overused plot device, particularly with the pressure from the Korean wave and other works from different countries. I must say that I don't know how prevalent it will be in the future, but I doubt that we will see two out of three of the main character and her close group/trio have this kid of plot line.
After reading the blog post, I am even more inclined to actually read the book... I liked the premise of the show, and it looks like the book has more of the things I appreciated and doesn't have the elements I disliked in the series. Unfortunately if I understood correctly this applies also to some characters who I enjoy, such as April... and actually, probably also Nick -I don't really agree with the take that he is not charismatic, I liked him as a character, and I don't feel that they all need to be over the top to be compelling... imho if he had more screen time and his character and the relationship with Ingrid got more development, it would have been interesting, and I would have appreciated more scenes of him with her family-. As for charisma, I don't really care much for the "dark, complicated guy with a troubled past" vibe, since messy drama is much better on TV than in one's life, and Nick's words suggesting she asks herself why she is attracted to that were really prophetic, given that Jeff, who had previously shown himself to be utterly disloyal and untrustworthy, ended up stabbing her in the back.
Though, I must admit that he is not at the top of my list of characters I wished were in the book, that would be Lina: I absolutely adored the friction with Ingrid, which I also wished was explored more in the TV series -as for the review's point about Murphy being able to exploit a situation she created, I think he would have found something else to sabotage Ingrid with, as he did in the book: it was just a matter of him finding an opening, exploiting her trust when she asked for his help... plus, to be precise, it was not really about Lina creating this situation, but about Ingrid choosing not to disclose it to the law firm, so even keeping Lina's actions constant, things could have turned out quite differently for Ingrid if she had made different choices, from calling Nick instead of Jeff, to disclosing the event to the firm).
I would have liked to see even more of the relationship with the family and sister: what we got in terms of conflict, in particular with the latter, was so good. I think that with 10 episodes it was not possible to go into too much depth... this is one thing that I like about the CDrama format, where there are a lot of episodes, albeit often shorter ones.
The fight with the sister in particular was a very interesting moment, I was kind of disappointed that they left it at that. Also, while Ingrid had her reasons to be angry with her, I couldn't help but feel that she also treated her a bit like a punching bag when she essentially blamed her for something her parents are responsible for -the supposed differential treatment where she is loved even if she left Julliard-... that might be unfair, but it's also not something her sister chose, it's not as if she has any control over how their parents chose to behave.
I must say that I agree with the reviewer's comment about Murphy's and Ingrid's chemistry being unconvincing. I don't think it had to do with having read the book (I didn't, and I had the same impression).
Instead, I don't agree with him being a good love interest: in that I completely agree with the comment the reviewer posted that was sent to her as a text: the guy had red flags all over him. We know that he doesn't hesitate to walk all over other people to get what he wants, and has no concept of loyalty, as demonstrated with his affairs with a married client and then with Ingrid while she was engaged to Nick and he was with Victoria. Plus there is the questionable behavior at work, where I must say, though, that more than Machiavellian he seems kind of idiotic, with the way he, factually speaking, creates most of his issues with his own hands, i.e. by sleeping with Victoria, etc. In terms of a relationship, while after doing what she did Ingrid is not much, if any, better, one wonders why she thinks she wouldn't be next on the chopping block given how they started and what are his values or lack thereof: as untrustworthy as they come.
I must say that I also disagree with the commenter about him being hot/charismatic in terms of the character (of course, both him and Nick are physically very attractive). I found his willingness to walk all over others to get what he wants, and his disloyalty, a complete turn off. I have read a Medium post there the author talked about her biggest turn off and tired plot lines, one of them being the distasteful cheating, the other being the concept of the dark bad boy with a difficult past: I agree with her assessment that as a concept, it might have been novel the first few times, but it grows old fast. I agree with what she said there, and I must say that, to me, this sounds very, very juvenile, the kind of thing that might appeal to a rebellious teenager in the bad boy phase, trying to anger her parents: immature, and not exactly what I would expect from a career woman in her thirties, same as her pining after him over a one night stand that happened more than half a decade before... it seems both superficial and something more up the alley of an immature teenager, if even that.
I must say that, given his lack of hesitation in walking all over people who had done nothing to him, with no regards for respecting the boundaries of established relationships, including his own (not that Victoria would have any right to complain, having cheated on her own husband with Jeff, though given the trend, I must add the caveat that I don't know what the husband did, and would be very interested in learning how her outlook on men came to be, though I must say that Murphy does absolutely nothing to rise prove her wrong in her general assessment of the male gender), that if the show tried to make him "likeable for longer" it clearly failed at least with me (again, I agree with the commenter that the red flags were all there). I don't find the unfortunate upbringing very humanizing either: he has too much going for him to see him as an underdog. Not only is he very attractive, he is a lawyer in the privileged position of trying to get to partner in a very big firm, and is running around in pretty elite circles. And he exhibits some pretty repulsive behavior, such as a complete lack of loyalty or reluctance to walk over people that never did anything to him. So we are not exactly talking about a Will Hunting situation.
Frankly, throwing a sob story into the mix to justify bad behavior is kind of a cheap form of emotional manipulation that I don't find very impressive, in that respect I very much appreciated the Parasite movie for the way that, despite having a strong social message, it didn't try to draw a simplistic poor=good, rich=bad, nor did it try to absolve the poor characters or use poverty to justify them. Plus, in Murphy's case the dynamics don't exactly raise my level of respect: sleaziness to climb the ranks and then self sabotage by his own stupidity and lack of impulse control. I cannot really respect him even for the most part as a competent villain, though I must admit that him being ready to stab Ingrid in the back might be making him gain back points on the latter, because while rather simple as a plot (more taking a chance when it was available, given that she called him), it still demonstrated remarkable dedication in advancing his interests. In conclusion, I feel about the fact that Murphy's family had been poor (while now he keeps the company of a rather rarefied elite) impress me positively just as much as Nick's money impresses me negatively, that is, not at all: they are a non factor. Besides the fact that plenty of people from even worse backgrounds than Murphy do not behavior in this manner and have strong values, everyone can play the game of "something bad happened in my life", including Nick with his dead mother. What counts is who you are as a person and what are your values, and in Murphy's case let's just say that you can call me unimpressive.
In short, I didn't find him good boyfriend material (and let's not even get me started on how their relationship started... frankly, in Ingrid's place, it wouldn't have been hard to see that just like they backstabbed their partner today, some day she might end up on the receiving end of Murphy's amoral disregard for hurting other people that never hurt him, or his own partner, and as expected he was next on the block (not that Ingrid is in any position to complain about stabbing one's partner in the back).
Found the HuffPo article. I have to say that I am thankful for Simon's take, a breath of fresh air and normalcy: "I simply did not understand why everyone was so comfortable with their friends cheating on their partners. LIKE??? I was baffled! Because there was no reason for some of the things that occurred, other than to give us a messy “Emily in Paris”-esque storyline and create some faux-ambiguity for a second season. "
Agree 100% with the quote above, and I must say that contrary to the reviewer in this blog post, I do clearly see the parallels with Emily in Paris in terms of the depiction of relationships, etc. Plot wise and in terms of characterization, I feel that the show would have benefited from having a focus and characterization more similar to the books.
Sharing the comments from a reader to texted this to me: It’s amazing that you wrote such a long detailed analysis. It makes me interested in reading a novel as well. I couldn’t agree more “Nick is sweet and thoughtful, but not very charismatic. “ 😅 Jeff Murphy is so hot and charismatic!! I can't trust him,but it would hard to reject him. Without Jeff, the show would been so boring. I'm frustrated with Jeff! I thought "Z seems to be the ultimate CP for Ingrid" too. Z seems to like Ingrid, and he could understand Ingrid's conflicted feeling as an Asian American. M&A revenge made Ingrid and Z even closer to each other. There was a chemistry betweeen Z and Ingrid in the last couple of episodes. I can't wait season2!! And thank you for adding a link for Ingrid’s outfit! I’ve been looking for it!
On Nick, I did think that he was moving too fast (not that this is any kind of moral failure, to be clear), but I found that he was genuinely accepting of Ingrid and trying to accomodate her as best he could. Ingrid was incredibly uncommunicative, and I don't fault him for having his map not tracking the territory, so to speak (I mean, if he knew she was a liar and a cheater presumably he wouldn't have asked her to marry him, so the person he though he knew lived only in his cranium). I don't think that it would be fair to expect one to be a mind reader or have to act like Sherlock Holmes to understand their partner. When he asks her to move in with him, she agrees; she is the one to invite him to meet her family; when he asks her to marry him, she says yes. All in all, he cannot know what she doesn't tell him or what she lies about.
An perfect example of this would be the "effectively compelling her to wear a mustard yellow gown she didn’t want to wear by leaving her with no other options shortly before the evening event", which I read quite differently. First of all, she knew that she had to attend the gala, so it's not as if she wouldn't have had the option to choose another dress. She was not compelled to do so, she chose to do so. She explains that she has troubles saying no, but that doesn't mean that she couldn't have told him that she didn't like the color or went with a different dress. The scene where she says that was basically the only hint he had that there was something not quite right, and when he wanted to have a talk about it she spurned him and told him she was going home to think, and then didn't pick up his calls. Also, when she raised the point it was in the context of discussing her being unwilling to make a speech that she ended up doing, so it was not at all clear that this had to do with the marriage proposal or the dress or anything else of the sort. Bottom line, Nick cannot know what she doesn't tell him or what she lies about (like being okay with the marriage or the dress). So, in terms of communication failures, I feel that it's the responsibility of the one wanting their partner to know and understand something or say there is a problem to clearly communicate it to them, it's simply not fair to assume they ought to know without telling them, because they are neither mind readers not Sherlock Holmes. I think that verbalizing explicitly the problems and what they would like is central to clear communication and avoiding misunderstandings. In any case, the dress was a pretty minor episode (I didn't agree that she didn't look good in that), the main issue I guess was the fact that she was not honest and upfront with the Murphy situation even before sleeping with him, and about her reservations about the speed the relationship was moving at (on the contrary, besides agreeing to moving in with him -they had been living together for almost half a year, I think-, presenting him to his family, accepting his mother's earrings, and and agreeing to marry him, accepting his family ring, she clearly gave him signals that she was into him and interested in a serious relationship, and it would be crazy to expect him to Chat-GPT style hallucinate what she might or might not be thinking based on what she should have said but didn't say, rather than take her at her word and trusting she was telling him the truth).
All in all, I found it incredible that everyone, from her friends to her mother and sister, to Murphy, knew more about the status of his relationship with Ingrid than Nick himself: she ghosted him rather than talking to him, and ended up stabbing him in the back, when really she just needed to pick up one of his phone calls and tell him it was over, and it would have taken two minutes (better to have an in person meeting, but given the alternative was betraying him, it would have been more honest to take two minutes to break things off, and maybe schedule an in person meeting another day... and, while it would have not been the main point, that way they would have avoided the traumatic and unpleasant situation of him having to see her half naked at the office after sleeping with Jeff behind his back.
On the Jeff situation, I must say that I have a pretty different opinion: he raised red flags all over the place, seemed kind of stupid in that he caused most of his own problems through his relationship with Victoria, and was clearly untrustworthy and disloyal, in addition to a liar and a cheater (though in that respect, Victoria really didn't have the right to complain, given her own behavior -among other things, didn't she cheat with Jeff?-, so I am more worried about the effect on Nick, who clearly didn't deserve to be treated with zero honesty and respect... it doesn't matter that she didn't love him, that doesn't mean that she should feel inclined to treat him with no honesty and respect, and, again it would have taken two minutes to pick up one of his phone calls and clear up the situation, it wouldn't have been a massive time investment. Not that Ingrid has any room to talk, again, given her own actions -in that respect, one could say her and Murphy deserved each other- but It makes it difficult to understand why she didn't think that he would stab her in the back as well.
I must say that I found the fact that she was hung up on him after a one night stand six years prior rather strange and demeaning, as is the "dark bad boy with a troubled past" vibe... Very immature teenager wanting to rebel against her parents. Also, she says she has "history" with the guy... the history being a one night stand more than half a decade ago. Meanwhile, while half a year is not a lot, she had an actual relationship and lived together with Nick for almost six month, presented him to her family, and was engaged with him... all of which seem a more weighty "history" than a one night stand.
Honestly, given that apparently Nick didn't exist in the books, I wonder why they didn't use Zi-Xin as a love interest (in term of conflicts of interest, Victoria was a client, and Murphy was with her, so...). Though, in that case, I would have hoped for a plot line more similar to the book where she doesn't betray his trust, and maybe for them to be endgame.
On the cheating, besides being easily avoidable and pointless, I kind of found it telegraphed and banal, and would have appreciated them having her behave like a normal adult and simply talk to the guy she was engaged with. I was similarly disappointed in Tyler doing that to Anthony, and feared it would be Rachel's turn as well, but thankfully they didn't give her a similar plot line.
I would have liked to see more of Ingrid's sister (their conflict was interesting, wished they had drilled down more on it beyond the clash where they confronted each other about their parent's expectations, etc.), as well as Nick and Anthony... the show kind of brushed the cheating aside and pivoted away from the wreckage left in their wake by Ingrid and Tyler, to turn to the latter two's search for the meaning of their lives or whatever -which would have felt fine on its own, but in the context of the emotional devastation they wrought felt more than a little self absorbed-... okay, fine, but at least throw me a bone and show me that they are putting themselves back together.
Frankly, I didn't find the comparison to Emily in Paris out of place, I must say that it was pretty similar in terms of the depiction of the romantic relationships, friend group, etc. Other comparisons might be Sex and the City (actually, I originally thought that this was from Darren Starr as well, given that he produced both Sex in the City and Emily in Paris). I guess that for the same reasons it also reminded me of Gray's Anatomy (though the latter is more "extra" in the relationship side, not sure whether because of the length of the series of the plot line itself).
Just to clarify, I meant "immature teenager wanting to rebel against her parents vibe".
Also just to clarify, I am not really too hung up on the Ingrid + Nick ship, in fact as I said, prior to the cheating scene I would have liked her with Zi-Xin (after, not so much: I liked his character and he could do better than a cheater and a lia -which was what turned be off from Ingrid pursuing a relationship with Jeff prior to her cheating with him, because I thought she deserved so much better than someone so clearly untrustworthy and with questionable notions of loyalty, ready to walk over people, from Nick to Ingrid, to get what he wants-, I wouldn't have wanted him to go through something like what Nick went through, since he was one of the characters that was explicitly "good", not self centered and down to earth).
My point was more like, no matter how flawed her and Nick's relationship was, or Nick's personal flaws, or if she didn't love him, those all have nothing to do with the cheating, they are simply two different things. I would have been all for her breaking up the relationship amicably, which she could have easily done by behaving like a normal person and picking up the phone: it would have taken a couple of minutes, I simply don't believe that it would have been beyond her or anyone's capacity.
It doesn't even make any sense to think about what could have happened, or not happened, to the relationship in the future, had she not done what she did, because they did not. This is like saying that everyone is going to die. Okay, but if I run over with a car a nonagenarian, it's still murder ever if he would have likely soon died of natural causes. The point being that he didn't die of natural causes, I am the one responsible for his death, as I killed him by running him over. In the case of Nick and Ingrid's relationship, the car running him over was him walking in on her half naked after having sex with Jeff at the office. Again, this is a different point from talking about the flaws in their relationship and whether it would have ended anyway or not, and even if it did, it could have been an amicable ending where they treated each other with respect and remained friends. Instead, we had the emotional abuse/trauma equivalent of her running him over with a car. And he has enough self respect and self dignity to cut her out of his life, which I liked -I wish Anthony had reacted the same way with Tyler, showing that he understood that anyone willing to treat him that way didn't deserve to be in his life, though after Tyler broke up with him he behaved with remarkable dignity-.
The point, I guess, is that even if someone feels unhappy, their relationship has problems, or they don't love the other person, it doesn't mean that they would feel inclined to betray their trust, or hurt and humiliate them. If they feel inclined to do so, either because their partner is not even a consideration and doesn't come to mind, or does and it doesn't change their decision to act in a way that shows them no honesty and respect, both options being very telling of their actual priorities and values, that cannot be explained away by simply pointing to unhappiness or them not loving them, it's a non sequitur. Separating honestly, or even having an amicable parting, is a thing, and some even stay friends after breaking up, and that could have been Ingrid and Nick had she actually just acted normally and picked up one of his calls, taking two minutes to break things off honestly. And If not an amicable parting, at least a respectful one.
Bottom line, I guess, one doesn't need to be perfect, nor their relationship needs to be flawless, in order to not have their trust broken, their emotional confidence shattered, and be treated with basic dignity. Ending a relationship doesn't equate to treating the other without honesty and respect. Mixing the two together is simply muddling the waters, as is nitpicking, employing some self serving cynicism (very selectively, with a side dish of cherry picking and double standards).
In addition to everything I mentioned above in what with some embarrassment I realize has turned into a rant, there is simply the matter of sheer banality. The Anthony thing took me honestly by surprise, but as far as Ingrid was concerned, I feel that the cheating was telegraphed a mile away, and I really did hope that they would go instead for something that actually respected the character and was surprised me, such as her taking a step back and making the minuscule effort to actually talk with her boyfriend, picking up the phone and breaking things off honestly, if she couldn't be bothered to sleep with Murphy another day and couldn't have a face to face meeting with Nick before then... not as good as talking face to face, but better than the alternative, and more honest, and she could have always scheduled an in person meeting another day (while not the main point, as a side effect it would have spared Nick the trauma of walking in and seeing her half naked after sleeping with Jeff... the fact that he was apparently there with a cake, after she left him at the gala, refused to talk about the problem that was bothering her and went back home, and ghosted him, not picking up his calls, merely leaving messages telling him she was busy and generally avoiding/ghosting him/cutting him out/shutting him out, as both her sister and even Jeff picked up on, is even more heartbreaking... they guy seemed to know there was a problem, but he was understandably baffled as to what it was exactly, given her being completely uncommunicative, but he at least hoped that she would be willing to fight for their relationship, or at least break up with him honestly).
In other words, if one can see it coming from miles away, it would not be a bad idea writing wise to *not* have it happen and surprise the public, particularly in this case where the time and effort required would have been picking up the phone and having a two minute conversation where she break things off, something which I believe her or anyone else would be capable of doing. Plus, again, I remain convinced that this would have been more in line with, and respectful of, her character/characterization. And show character growth by realizing how she had been completely uncommunicative and made things clear: if she was at a point where she was ready to sleep with Jeff, then she was at a point where she could have just broke things off with Nick instead, and as I said, it would have taken two minutes.
Again, not saying I was hung up on the ship, but you don't have to be perfect to deserve to be treated with basic honesty and respect, and Nick, whatever his flaws, was never depicted as horrible enough that I felt he deserved this treatment (by contrast, Jeff shoved a sufficient lack of care for who hurt with his affairs and the rest of his behavior, a lack of loyalty and trustworthiness, that had something like this happened to him he wouldn't really have been in any position to complain, and it would have felt like karma or cosmic justice... for reference, I was very supportive of the betrayed FL in The Magicians sleeping with someone else after her boyfriend cheated on her: what goes around comes around). I also think that, for any flaws he might have had, he was also taken quite a bit for granted.
To be honest, from the depiction of the book, it kind of makes me wish that the TV series had been more faithful to the source material in Ingrid's characterization and more focus on the work aspects. Though I do appreciate thoughtful additions such as the focus on modern forms of racism, or the inclusion of other characters of color. Frankly, my favorite was definitely Zi.
Frankly, I am not sure I agree with the reviewer about cheating being common-place in romantic themed series, as the HuffPo reviewer Simon said, it *is* pretty disconcerting: ""I simply did not understand why everyone was so comfortable with their friends cheating on their partners. LIKE??? I was baffled! Because there was no reason for some of the things that occurred, other than to give us a messy “Emily in Paris”-esque storyline and create some faux-ambiguity for a second season. "
I tend to agree also with Eva Hekman's post "Partner Track, Nick and why the nice guy never wins" with... actually, both the pet peeves, namely that, to quote her words, "glorifying the bad boy [...] gets old pretty quickly" (and, might I add, it comes off as juvenile, superficial and immature: something one would expect from, say, a teenager in the "bad boy" phase that was trying to rebel against their parents -I must admit that the notion of someone being hung up on a one night stand more than half a decade later rings just as immature and a bit (or more than just a bit) pathetic... her friends should have really encouraged her to have a bit of dignity and self respect, or at least a shred of impulse control, and put things in perspective-), in the section of pet peeve 2 called, quote, "Cheating is a-okay", about audiences being led to root of the cheating couple "because they are true love/endgame" (I must say that in Tyler's case this is not the case, and funnily enough not even in Jeff's, and anyway from the vast majority of the commentary I saw, this has for the most part not happened with regards to Ingrid's behavior, as whatever flaws Nick might have had, he clearly didn't deserve this sort of treatment... understanding her crazy working hours and doing his best to take care of her to the extend that he knew how, even bringing her a cake at the office and heartbreakingly finding her half naked after having slept with Jeff behind his back, having never talked to Nick about her feelings or doubts (a cryptic reference to her having trouble saying no, in the context of discussing her giving a speech she despised, before spurning his offer to talk about the problem and telling him she was going back home to reflect, and then proceeding to ghost him, not answer picking up his phone calls, but sending messages even when it came to apologizing for the mess with his mother's ring, and, as noticed by both Jeff and her sister, generally avoiding the guy rather than talking to him, clearly doesn't count as communication in general, and specifically not as clear communication about her feelings and doubts) before running off to the guy that pretended he didn't know her when they met after six years.
Eva's Medium post also mentions the absurdity of not breaking things off first, when all it takes is a conversation, and generally comments that cheating is overused (and imho in many if not most cases lazy writing reaching out for a cheap trick to create engagement, when the plot could have worked just as well without it.. many times in Gray's Anatomy and here I felt that this was pretty much the case), and realistically it should have more consequences and emotional ramifications. Like her, I agree that it would have been nice to see a non banal outcome where Ingrid simply told Nick about how she felt honestly, and, if she wanted to, broke up with him.
I guess that if there is one thing that I don't agree with the above take is the notion of 1) This is a trend in romantic comedies in general... it's more of a recent trend, and frankly largely only in US shows, as far as I can tell... I don't think the same applies, or applies to the same degree, to older romcoms, or to romcoms from other countries. it's also not limited to couples that are endgame sleeping together behind their partners' back, sometimes they cheat on each other instead -or as well, depending on the case- (and I cannot say what is more distasteful... thankfully here Nick broke things off and Anthony didn't get to put up with it and stay in the relationship, which is by far the best outcome for him long term -and I would say near term as well-), and 2) it's not as if people in general and even commentators in particular are buying it wholesale, see Simon's comment in the HuffPost piece, or Eva's Medium article.
I feel that the comparison with Emily in Paris is very apt, and I recall there were some complaint about the depiction of the French as, to use the words Charles Martin wrote in Première, "individuals [...] not really attached to the concept of loyalty". I get the feeling that a similar kind of stereotypical depiction applies to NY, maybe it's the Sex and the City effect (ironically, as Emily in Paris also produced by Darren Star). I must say that a lot of time this results into rather lazy and predictable writing, particularly when it's used for shock value and doesn't have any *real* utility for the plot, and it could have been avoided or the writer could have used a different trigger or catalyst, and it would have worked just the same (and maybe been ever better). Going forward, I don't know that it will be such an overused plot device, particularly with the pressure from the Korean wave and other works from different countries. I must say that I don't know how prevalent it will be in the future, but I doubt that we will see two out of three of the main character and her close group/trio have this kid of plot line.
After reading the blog post, I am even more inclined to actually read the book... I liked the premise of the show, and it looks like the book has more of the things I appreciated and doesn't have the elements I disliked in the series. Unfortunately if I understood correctly this applies also to some characters who I enjoy, such as April... and actually, probably also Nick -I don't really agree with the take that he is not charismatic, I liked him as a character, and I don't feel that they all need to be over the top to be compelling... imho if he had more screen time and his character and the relationship with Ingrid got more development, it would have been interesting, and I would have appreciated more scenes of him with her family-. As for charisma, I don't really care much for the "dark, complicated guy with a troubled past" vibe, since messy drama is much better on TV than in one's life, and Nick's words suggesting she asks herself why she is attracted to that were really prophetic, given that Jeff, who had previously shown himself to be utterly disloyal and untrustworthy, ended up stabbing her in the back.
Though, I must admit that he is not at the top of my list of characters I wished were in the book, that would be Lina: I absolutely adored the friction with Ingrid, which I also wished was explored more in the TV series -as for the review's point about Murphy being able to exploit a situation she created, I think he would have found something else to sabotage Ingrid with, as he did in the book: it was just a matter of him finding an opening, exploiting her trust when she asked for his help... plus, to be precise, it was not really about Lina creating this situation, but about Ingrid choosing not to disclose it to the law firm, so even keeping Lina's actions constant, things could have turned out quite differently for Ingrid if she had made different choices, from calling Nick instead of Jeff, to disclosing the event to the firm).
I would have liked to see even more of the relationship with the family and sister: what we got in terms of conflict, in particular with the latter, was so good. I think that with 10 episodes it was not possible to go into too much depth... this is one thing that I like about the CDrama format, where there are a lot of episodes, albeit often shorter ones.
The fight with the sister in particular was a very interesting moment, I was kind of disappointed that they left it at that. Also, while Ingrid had her reasons to be angry with her, I couldn't help but feel that she also treated her a bit like a punching bag when she essentially blamed her for something her parents are responsible for -the supposed differential treatment where she is loved even if she left Julliard-... that might be unfair, but it's also not something her sister chose, it's not as if she has any control over how their parents chose to behave.
I must say that I agree with the reviewer's comment about Murphy's and Ingrid's chemistry being unconvincing. I don't think it had to do with having read the book (I didn't, and I had the same impression).
Instead, I don't agree with him being a good love interest: in that I completely agree with the comment the reviewer posted that was sent to her as a text: the guy had red flags all over him. We know that he doesn't hesitate to walk all over other people to get what he wants, and has no concept of loyalty, as demonstrated with his affairs with a married client and then with Ingrid while she was engaged to Nick and he was with Victoria. Plus there is the questionable behavior at work, where I must say, though, that more than Machiavellian he seems kind of idiotic, with the way he, factually speaking, creates most of his issues with his own hands, i.e. by sleeping with Victoria, etc. In terms of a relationship, while after doing what she did Ingrid is not much, if any, better, one wonders why she thinks she wouldn't be next on the chopping block given how they started and what are his values or lack thereof: as untrustworthy as they come.
I must say that I also disagree with the commenter about him being hot/charismatic in terms of the character (of course, both him and Nick are physically very attractive). I found his willingness to walk all over others to get what he wants, and his disloyalty, a complete turn off. I have read a Medium post there the author talked about her biggest turn off and tired plot lines, one of them being the distasteful cheating, the other being the concept of the dark bad boy with a difficult past: I agree with her assessment that as a concept, it might have been novel the first few times, but it grows old fast. I agree with what she said there, and I must say that, to me, this sounds very, very juvenile, the kind of thing that might appeal to a rebellious teenager in the bad boy phase, trying to anger her parents: immature, and not exactly what I would expect from a career woman in her thirties, same as her pining after him over a one night stand that happened more than half a decade before... it seems both superficial and something more up the alley of an immature teenager, if even that.
I must say that, given his lack of hesitation in walking all over people who had done nothing to him, with no regards for respecting the boundaries of established relationships, including his own (not that Victoria would have any right to complain, having cheated on her own husband with Jeff, though given the trend, I must add the caveat that I don't know what the husband did, and would be very interested in learning how her outlook on men came to be, though I must say that Murphy does absolutely nothing to rise prove her wrong in her general assessment of the male gender), that if the show tried to make him "likeable for longer" it clearly failed at least with me (again, I agree with the commenter that the red flags were all there). I don't find the unfortunate upbringing very humanizing either: he has too much going for him to see him as an underdog. Not only is he very attractive, he is a lawyer in the privileged position of trying to get to partner in a very big firm, and is running around in pretty elite circles. And he exhibits some pretty repulsive behavior, such as a complete lack of loyalty or reluctance to walk over people that never did anything to him. So we are not exactly talking about a Will Hunting situation.
Frankly, throwing a sob story into the mix to justify bad behavior is kind of a cheap form of emotional manipulation that I don't find very impressive, in that respect I very much appreciated the Parasite movie for the way that, despite having a strong social message, it didn't try to draw a simplistic poor=good, rich=bad, nor did it try to absolve the poor characters or use poverty to justify them. Plus, in Murphy's case the dynamics don't exactly raise my level of respect: sleaziness to climb the ranks and then self sabotage by his own stupidity and lack of impulse control. I cannot really respect him even for the most part as a competent villain, though I must admit that him being ready to stab Ingrid in the back might be making him gain back points on the latter, because while rather simple as a plot (more taking a chance when it was available, given that she called him), it still demonstrated remarkable dedication in advancing his interests. In conclusion, I feel about the fact that Murphy's family had been poor (while now he keeps the company of a rather rarefied elite) impress me positively just as much as Nick's money impresses me negatively, that is, not at all: they are a non factor. Besides the fact that plenty of people from even worse backgrounds than Murphy do not behavior in this manner and have strong values, everyone can play the game of "something bad happened in my life", including Nick with his dead mother. What counts is who you are as a person and what are your values, and in Murphy's case let's just say that you can call me unimpressive.
In short, I didn't find him good boyfriend material (and let's not even get me started on how their relationship started... frankly, in Ingrid's place, it wouldn't have been hard to see that just like they backstabbed their partner today, some day she might end up on the receiving end of Murphy's amoral disregard for hurting other people that never hurt him, or his own partner, and as expected he was next on the block (not that Ingrid is in any position to complain about stabbing one's partner in the back).
Found the HuffPo article. I have to say that I am thankful for Simon's take, a breath of fresh air and normalcy: "I simply did not understand why everyone was so comfortable with their friends cheating on their partners. LIKE??? I was baffled! Because there was no reason for some of the things that occurred, other than to give us a messy “Emily in Paris”-esque storyline and create some faux-ambiguity for a second season. "
Agree 100% with the quote above, and I must say that contrary to the reviewer in this blog post, I do clearly see the parallels with Emily in Paris in terms of the depiction of relationships, etc. Plot wise and in terms of characterization, I feel that the show would have benefited from having a focus and characterization more similar to the books.