Booth at the end on Hulu

My wife and I watched booth at the end. I was wondering if anyone else saw it and what they thought. I don't see how the nun could heard God again while sinning.

I need to watch season one, as it's on the page at hulu that season 2 premiers 8.6.12

orvette1 wrote:I don't see how the nun could heard God again while sinning.

The rules that govern this fictional universe are different from the rules that govern our universe. It is a fictional construct extrapolated from our own reality, but with the creators/writers' own purposes residing at the heart of it. A fictional construct such as this is only restricted by the limits of what it's creators are willing to imagine or suggest, the extent to which they are going to deviate from what is accepted or told to us (or is actually real) about our own reality. They might well say that The Man is the Devil, and that conventional understandings about his nature are true, false, skewed, or incomplete. They might well present the idea that God speaks. They might further present that in the fictional construct's "reality" God speaks, and especially to one who needs him most; ie, a woman that He spoke to, then stopped, and then resumed to do when she went to extraordinary length to show that she needed him to continue to speak.

There isn't really a logic behind this, beyond the producer and writers' personal understanding of the world, God and religion, and the what-if they want to explore in the show. The scenario detailed in the story suggests a couple of possibilities to me, some might be rationalized to keep consistency with what is said about God, other possibilities that suggest themselves are "blasphemous"/blasphemous in nature. The core idea of the show revolves around what are basically Faustian bargains. Does the devil keep his bargains in a straightforward manner, are the prizes twisted in some way, or are the results comparatively generous from what might have been expected?

I suppose some of the more simpler explanations might be: She is crazy and hearing voices. Or: God is talking to her, and is confusing the issue by the context in which He talks to her, stops talking to her, and resumes talking to her.

It sounds to me like something has gone wrong.

What is your reading on it? In what way do you want to interpret this thing? What would you rather not believe about the set-up?

I didn't think anyone would get so philosophical about a show. Of course it is a construct of a writers brain and ideas about life and the world. My question was, once you suspend disbelief do you think the man was from God? Did you think the actions of the people would constitute sin? Stuff like that.

orvette1 wrote:I didn't think anyone would get so philosophical about a show. Of course it is a construct of a writers brain and ideas about life and the world. My question was, once you suspend disbelief do you think the man was from God? Did you think the actions of the people would constitute sin? Stuff like that.

Depends on which aspects you'll be suspending disbelief to allow for.

I can relate to Desert Kris' "philosophical" perspective on this one and pondered some of the same things myself while watching. It's always interesting to me to try and figure out the worldview of a story's creator.

I think the authors, if cornered with armed weapons trained on them, would say that the nun actually did hear from God, and in some kind of positive, affirming way. I'd also wager that their concept of God for this story does not conform to what the Bible reveals about him.

So I either have to suspend disbelief and be willing to go along with the idea of God speaking encouragingly to this nun in response to her sinful action, or suspend disbelief and be willing to believe that the nun was not really hearing from God (an idea which I think the execution of the story leans against).

In the end, I think I became detached from the story too much because of my understanding of God's nature, and so didn't actually get around to truly suspending disbelief and "entering into the experience" like the creators hoped I would.

If I had to lean in one direction, I'd say the messenger is not from God, but is studying human nature as a fallen angel doing research. However, the execution of the story strongly leads me to believe the writers didn't intend this to be the conclusion. (In fact, they are likely post-modern enough in their thinking that they didn't intend ANY definitive conclusions to be drawn.)

Uh...yeah...it's interesting that Paeter put the word philosophical inside quotation marks, because I don't think I was responding from a philosophical perspective. On any given day, I have no way of knowing how I will react about any given show. The concept of this show and the specific question you ask trouble me. It is one thing for the creators to develop a thought experiment to play with how far different characters will go to get what they want; it is another to show that the actions required of them seem to be uniformly unethical, immoral, and/or illegal.

As an alternative approach, what if the show devoted enough time to a character, developing their parameters, establishing their comfort zone, and then setting a task that is far outside of what they're accustomed to that is neutral or positive or constructive, that they can't initially understand how it connects to their desire, but their target goal is gradually shown to be connected as they go about their appointed task.

It might be more interesting, more ambiguous, and perhaps more responsibly written if the writers played with that balance a bit more. So, a shy person has to take an acting class, a rooted person with a stable job has to quit and go travelling and risk their finances, a blabber-mouth has to take a vow of silence for a period of time. The show is not like that, though, all the tasks are highly mercenary! The scenario with the nun, and God hypothetically talking to her, frankly sounds like irresponsibility on the part of God as he is depicted within the confines of this fictional reality-construct. In my previous post, that's what I held back from saying.

This man in the booth facilitates a one-to-one, do this task and this outcome will happen cause-and-effect chain of events. All outcomes, good or bad, predicated on tasks with predominantly negative connotations. And God allows himself to conform within this pattern; or he allows the appearance of his compliance within the pattern. Seems to set a bad precedent. It feels a bit dispiriting to me, personally, but that's just my own reaction.

But if you get a kick out of the show, don't let me stop you. Yet...will you weigh in for me: what do you make of God suddenly talking to the nun, after she sins in an effort to get him to talk to her again? How does it make you feel about the show and its creative team? Do you see alternative explanations that rationalize the situation?

So I just recently watched both seasons and I absolutely LOVE it!!! LOVE IT!!! If you haven't seen the second season yet check it out; it is just as good as the first. This is a 5 out of 5 type of show to me! It is all about people, what they believe, and the choices they are making and their emotions. I was surprised at much I cared for some of these characters, especially since you're just watching them talk in a booth the whole time, and the acting is amazing! I wasn't expecting something this good especially from a Hulu produced show.

Cool! I had no idea it was all done! I didn't want to start watching the second season until it was completely released. Thanks for the heads up!

We just posted my interview with the creator over at Strangers and Aliens . . .

Cool! Listening to it now!