One Tree Hill (4.5): I Wish You Could See My Confused-Face.

I am a bit perplexed, so this will be short.

Now let me get this straight. Haley stays with Nathan when he is a drunken, non-rehabilitating, mullet sporter, and is being an all around bad father and husband. But now she wants a divorce? Jamie did not almost drown because Carrie kissed Nathan (and call me an apologist all you want, I think there is a distinction between who kisses whom). Neither Haley nor Nathan was watching Jamie; they are equally to blame for allowing their argument to supercede the safety of their child. Haley was perfectly happy a couple episodes ago to spend her time butting into others’ lives, which naturally devalued her family. I have no sympathy for her. But the idea of Haley and Nathan not being together is so strange. I am willing to give it a chance, see what they are like separate this time around. It is always so delightfully atrocious when they are broken up. What could additionally complicate matters is this specter of a possible paternity issue; I know that if your child almost dies you are prone to be possessive, but there was something in the way Haley said “my son” that struck me as another hint that the divorce may pale in comparison to the custody battle.

This Jamie based scenario (that could very well never happen on the show) was not the only daddy-issue going on last night. We were not privileged with the information either of what Nathan said at the hearing, or if Dan received parole (have to leave some material for next week). Smart money would wager Dan is a free man, but that is not a smart choice for the show. What really irked me during Lucas’ “Keith was my true father figure” speech was the fact that he failed to mention his baby sister. Karen’s daughter by Keith lost her father before she was even born. That is a rhetorical powerful argument (even if heavy on the pathos), and Lucas, the writer, the one who is supposed to know what to say, just (I do not know) forgets to mention it? To prove someone else has a disreputable ethos you have to have an impeccable ethos, and getting up in front of correctional employees and acting like you are the only one affected by an action is not the way to go. But to be fair, I am beginning to think none of these characters have ever encountered logic before, and so it is wrong of me to expect them to be aware of it, let alone use it properly.

The most illogical of all things would be to believe you could treat another’s severe drug addiction from your beach house. Brooke, hate to be the one to tell you this, but drug addicts lie to perpetuate their habit. A truly good friend would have taken Rachel to the rehabilitation facility, but stayed in New York so he/she could visit everyday. Doing the right thing does not always make us feel like a “good” person, and if that is our main concern governing our choices then we do a great disservice to those we claim to be helping.

Finally, and possibly most puzzling of all, is how unbalanced this episode was. Peyton’s “down with the man” storyline stood out as unnecessarily juvenile when interspersed with marriage dissolution, drug overdose, and near-avoided drowning. The theme of the episode was obviously “dealing with the reappearance of a person you knew in the (relative) past.” Peyton’s former boss fit into this category, but they could not dredge up someone for Peyton’s drama-dram past to give her plot some more oomph? The difference between her plot and the other characters’ was so jarring it seemed that she was being used as filler. Why treat Peyton that way?

Again, I am a bit perplexed.

The TV Girl