so i've been thinking a lot about screenwriting lately (no kidding, another show i like is currently sucking at season 3) and looking back at the gilded age' season 3, and honestly, the major problem with writers these days is that they can't commit to the choices they make. it's such a cowardice that wrapped up gladys’ marriage that way, and they probably do the same if georgebertha’s fight to make room for his addiction (like they'll probably never address that george was screaming at her before getting shot or dismissing her work, but this is chat for another post). like gladys is happy, and it worked so they don't have to talk about it, and the conflict is over. but they barely addressed it; they barely exposed both sides cuz they knew that in the end they would make gladys find love in her marriage, so they didn't need to waste their time showing the viewers a more nuanced portrait of an arranged marriage. like they know the answer they want for this conflict, so they don't bother to actually make room for both cases being discussed. but also, they know it's bad to drag your daugther to make something against their will and they don't want to "pass the massage" that they're defending forced marrige so there's no space for bertha defend her case, it's really vague and fragile and still we as the audience have to buy bertha's intetions cuz we know how it was the social rules at the time and that's it. in end, you can see the writers pulling the strings of the characters to do what they want (and by saying this i mean the way the plot was wrapped up). instead of naturally lending arc's conclusion. it's fragile, and you're reminded that you're actually watching something instead of experiencing an event.
