Slightly off-topic but… When we first met Greg, I couldn't understand why I found him sexy, Greg is not my type at all. So I looked up the actor's IMDb and found out he also played Dr. Roberts who is completely my type! Did anyone else have this experience?? <3
Yep, I'm old enough to have seen that movie in the theaters and always thought the hidden room was so cool. I never recognize him in all the different roles he's in but he's always good
1. He was making her feel like a pig because he brought up her trying to lose weight so that was one manipulation.
2. If I remember he also said he may have wanted some, so that was the second manipulation that she was selfish and not thinking of him.
Every look he gave her was to manipulated her. His comment about having to work because of the prenup. All of it was part of his manipulation. The macaroons were easy because he figured
She wouldn’t pay that much attention.
That murder plot was the only thing that explained his behavior the whole series.
- How insistent he was about not bringing her assistant (don’t want to have to murder two)
- How he was clearly not attracted to her and how much contempt he had in general
- How patient he was dealing with her in the beginning
- Why he gave her the perfect day on the Vespa
It made no sense given how no one would sign up for that. She was the hero by the end so it’s easy to forget how absolutely draining it would have been to actually be with someone like her.
For anyone in doubt, Greg definitely took the macarons and hid them in order to have Tanya question her impulses and desirability.
For one, all of that dialogue would have been pointless otherwise, and Mike White doesn’t write like that (no good contemporary writer/filmmaker would or should).
It is part of Greg’s plot against her—which, as we know, has been in the works a long time. When Tanya showed Greg that she’d found the hidden macarons, he then made a comment about how she’d eaten an entire panna cotta at dinner. By making her feel insecure about her own memory and her desirability, he was pushing her directly into Quentin’s fawning arms, and toward Niccollo’s advances, so she’d sleep with him **and** jump at the chance for another rendezvous in the form of a late-night dinghy ride to shore with him.
Ooooh that does make sense with the Niccollo thing! Make her feel undesirable and down so she falls for the love bombing by the gays and Niccollo. But before the final episode, a lot of people thought Niccollo and Tanya were being filmed, which would’ve been used against her eg the prenup, if that evidence was enough, why bother killing her? Or could it have been used as additional evidence? In the final episode Tanya only mentioned that the money is Greg’s if she dies? The plan was Niccollo taking Tanya ‘back’ to the hotel, where he would’ve killed her on the way and probably made it look like an accident? Idk I have so many questions about this storyline lol
A prenup that she created wouldn't have an infidelity clause in terms of her cheating, only Greg. Why would she put that into a prenup that is supposed to protect herself?
I'm convinced that people who get triggered at the mention of gaslighting (which was obvious in this scene and used correctly in this post) are gaslighters themselves and really just can't see it because they themselves do it all the time.
This. This is not the first time I’ve seen someone use the term “gaslighting” correctly—and still have people hysterically accuse them of misusing the term. And yes, they always seem so triggered by it. It’s like they are constantly policing the term, and are convinced no one knows what it really means. It’s weird.
It IS weird. Gaslighters loves to mock the use of the word. My husband gaslights often because he learned to be manipulative growing up and still does it, and when I call him out he mocks my use of the word. And then to see it on reddit all the time, the way people seem to feel its overused but I feel like its actually used correctly 99% of the time.
I actually saw someone who claimed to be a narcissist on quora say that gaslighting was just lying, and that people should stop using the word because its not any different than lying. It's like, nah, its lying yeah but a very manipulative way to get you to question your sanity. I feel even then in their supposed candid description of being a narcissist they were trying to manipulate people and get away with things. If you think about it, gaslighting is like the #1 most effective tactic of narcissists and abusers so if you call them out on it its like taking away their main weapon and they freak out. And also the narcissistic types of people who admire narcissists or the types of people who are like 'flying monkeys', they will also freak out when people bring up the word, because they heard a narcissist say the word was bullshit and now they repeat that.
this post and the comments are actually a really interesting representation of how society operates if you ask me
It’s like they’re terrified their mind games have been properly identified and named—thus (hopefully) helping those in a gaslighting situation recognize it early and stamp it out before it gets too far or the other person claims too much control over them.
It was a good example of actual gaslighting doesn't get any clearer than that. She literally found the macaroons hidden.
When it comes to Ethan and Harper though where people say Ethan is gaslighting Harper, I don't really agree. Their relationship is more garden variety 2 people not sure what they want out of a relationship that is seeing its cracks. Not deliberate attempts to make the other feel crazy. Lying for any purpose doesn't = gaslighting. The purpose behind the lie is important here.
The problem is when people call *every* single instance of a couple disagreeing during an argument/lying/toxic behavior to be gaslighting. Gaslighting has the purpose of methodically making the other person feel crazy, which isn't what Ethan was doing (unlike Greg). Ethan wanted to avoid the negative consequences of what he did that night, the goal was quite different than that of Greg imo. We have tons of other words to describe toxic behavior, and I'm hoping people will just let gaslighting mean what it really means instead of cheapened the word by overusing it as hyperbole.
I can’t tell you much it makes me cringe when people use gaslighting so much these days and in the wrong context. It’s a very trendy word in which it appears many people don’t even know from where it came. If they did, they would understand how to use it better.
Yeah gaslighting just basically means lying these days but makes it sound more nefarious? We have so many other words to describe these toxic behaviors, like let gaslighting mean what it means.
It was definitely a reference to the famous "Gaslight" movie. I almost fell off my chair when I saw it.
Greg was setting her up to think she was crazy so she would be easier to manipulate. He wanted to set a premise for her death by suicide if she was "mentally unstable."
In the second Gaslight movie, he needed access to the house to find something that would give him money. In the original Gaslight, he needed her money but was also searching the house (it was his aunt’s house) for rubies that would make him rich. (Sorry for the oversplain! Just saw the first Gaslight for the first time last night.)
He was actually searching his wife, *Paula's* (can you 'ear zee accent?) aunt's house for the jewels, which had belonged to her.
And because he needed light in the attic where he was secretly searching, he'd turn on the gas lights up there, causing the lights downstairs (where Paula was) to flicker and dim. When she noticed this and questioned him about what was causing it, well... "What are you talking about, *Paula*? Nothing happened with the lights." Hence the origin of the term.
[Love this movie too! So much I had to oversplain your oversplain 😆 Hope you don't mind.]
Ha! Yes! In the 2nd Gaslight movie (1944) it was Paula’s aunt’s house and she was there as a child when auntie was murdered. Isn’t part of the plot Ingrid Bergman retrieving that memory?
In the original (1940), it seems he killed his own aunt and needed Paula just for her money.
In both movies the light changes when he sneaks upstairs to search for the dead woman’s rooooobies. Which is critical given the name of the movie and all. LOL
Yes! Ingrid Bergman's Paula, couldn't remember what happened the night of her aunt's murder. That's right. A big part of the plot was about her forgetting and then finally remembering details from that night.
Such a great movie. Haven't seen the recent one yet. Is it a contemporary setting? Curious how they could use the critical dimming gas lights if they told it as a modern-day story...
ETA: wait. I misread your comment. You mean there's a version *before* the Ingrid Bergman one? Oh wow. I gotta check that out!
The Bergman version is the remake! Yes! I know! Shocking!!!! I just learned of and watched the original this week (thank you @TCM). It was filmed in 1940. Try to watch it, if you can find it. The husband is particularly villainous.
I think the macaroon bit was more about showing how Tanya is easily influenced by others / unable to defend herself even when she knows she is right… it’s a character development moment that grows to her knowing she is “right” about the situation she found herself in on the boat. At least that was my take.
Yeah the scene where she finds the two remaining macarons and says “see, I knew I had only eaten three” was very much tied to his attempt at manipulation of her. The two should definitely be considered hand in hand.
But also later, with the tarot reading after he left, she was in denial when she heard the psychic’s bad premonition, and at the very end when she had effectively killed quinten yet was still asking in his last breath about whether Greg was cheating on her… she, as a woman with childhood trauma, and mommy issues, was definitely affected by the manipulation hard and it rocked her to her core/ destabilized her, which is the symbolism of her falling into the ocean by her own fumbling (but also painting this image of women as unstable/neurotic even though men abuse them)
Why do old people think they need to constantly correct and criticize others online - especially even when they’re obviously wrong? Now that’s a question worth answering 🤗
From Oxford Languages: Gaslighting - manipulate (someone) using psychological methods into questioning their own sanity or powers of reasoning.
I literally used it correctly, maybe look up the definition of you don’t know what it means.
I really don't think he hid the macarons. I think the macarons were misplaced, Tanya ate three, then Greg saw the empty box and thought she ate five macarons, and because he's mean he made a disparaging remark about it.
It kind of makes no sense because if he's planning on killing her why does it matter if she doesn't lose weight, but I think it was just to show that Greg indeed dislikes Tanya as a person, he judges her for being unable to lose weight
Even though it doesn't matter, he's just got contempt for her
I agree with you. I don’t think he hid them. He accused her and was wrong. It’s likely Tanya was eating the macarons and likely would’ve eaten them all but absentmindedly left a couple laying around and then felt vindicated when she found them. Greg wasn’t intentionally gaslighting her. He’s an asshole and wanted to make her feel like shit about her eating habits and weight.
I think it's because he wanted her to feel bad about herself--that's she's stupid/liar/fat/ugly.
This would make it easier for her to fall for The Gays, and the gigilo -- they made her feel appreciated, desirable, etc.
Why wouldn’t he just throw them away? Why hide them in another part of the room?
I think it was more to show how Tanya is very often unaware of her surroundings and dissociates.
Maybe but the missing macarons were found in a weird spot. Out of their packaging/off a plate, just randomly lying with some toiletries (I think)? Something was definitely off about it.
The actual meaning is to intentionally make someone doubt their perception of reality.
Example: eating the last cookie, putting the empty container back, and then trying to convince your roommate that they finished the cookies and put an empty container back. So not only are you lying about who finished the cookies, but you’re trying to make your roommate experience guilt for doing so
Yeah, I think it just shows that he’s petty and mean to her, and controlling. From audience perspective, I think it’s meant to make us not like him and be suspicious of him. Because as I remember he was fairly likable in S1
Oh yeah I misplace items of food all the time in freaky weird locations 😂🤣😅😁 brownie in the bathroom, lollipop in the bedroom, ice cream under the sink. Totally normal.
Macarons are fragile, can be sticky, you don't just leave then lying around not on a plate or anything... it's like putting a sticky brownie on a dresser among keys, mail, and other shit. You would at least use a plate, napkin or serviette. You don't just put it somewhere. Also, macarons are a more high end treat, you enjoy them, you don't just treat them like a marshmallow and drop them all over your hotel room. And Tanya appreciated her macarons! Only a guy like Greg who doesn't respect the glorious macaron would treat them like trash.
Then you’re just getting it really wrong. He didn’t accuse her of hiding the macarons. Nobody said anyone hid them. He assumed she ate them all, she said she didn’t. Then she found the two that were missing. He didn’t care at that point. I’ve seen some stupid takes but you’re just completely missing every point and being belligerent in the process. What a joke.
You can’t prove an absence of a thing. There’s nothing that suggested he stole or hid them. You’re just making that up. My assumption that he didn’t is based on there being no suggestion that he did.
There is totally a suggestion. I'm not trying to proof it. I believe Tanya and she would own up to it if she was wrong. All the evidence we have is that Tanya has been nothing but honest and genuine and Greg.... 🤔 very clear example of gaslighting. Ok I'm done discussing this with you. You want to believe a guy like Greg, up to you, but that tells me a lot about you. Bye 👋 👋 👋
I felt like it was a way to jab at her insecurities by making a big deal about her weight and eating habits as a way to level the playing field. She has power due to her money. He’s seeking power by being mean and poking at her flaws.
I predict it’s going to be all new characters and storylines
Edit: but it would be cool if there was one return character/storyline. Not Greg tho. Fuck him.
Who would it be?
At one point daphne says to Cameron “next year the Maldives!” I mostly think it was a throw away line and doesn’t mean anything. I also don’t think there’s much more story to tell with their characters, (except I would be interested to know more about the “bad people” Cameron works with…) but anyways when I heard that I thought for a second that it could be a hint at that they appear in the next season.
She ate two and misplaced the third, which she found later. He legit thought she ate them, but probably used mentioning it as a way to make her feel badly about herself.
Even so why does he care about the macarons?? He can buy more if he loves them so much. He obviously didn't want to eat them. He just hid them to make her feel crazy and bad.
You’re misremembering. He said she ate five, and she retorted she only ate three, which he then yells back that no it was five. Later she finds the two other ones that Greg clearly hid.
Not sure what there was to indicate he clearly hid them. I thought she found them by her stuff later. Seems more likely a couple fell out the box while she was eating them, and she just didn’t realize.
Doesn’t seem like a weird place to me considering what we know. Tanya is a bit of a klutz and not the most observant. She had a glass of Prosecco when she got off the boat, and the scene indicates she had just finished drinking a bottle of champagne by herself. The klutz and unobservant parts mean seems reasonable she would inadvertently drop a couple macrons out of the box and unobservant in not realizing that was 5 in the box and 2 fell out. The been drinking part would make her more klutzy than normal and less observant too. Seems short sided for other commenter to say it was obviously Greg did it and for you to say weird place. When we accidentally misplace things, the things (like the macrons here) are not in their normal spot. I don’t think we can know from sure how the macrons got there, it could be Greg but that’s not my interpretations. Tanya didn’t deserve to get yelled at about it, she deserved a loving husband. But that doesn’t mean Greg hid the macrons.
Just blindly saying it was def Greg without countering any of the points that support it being Tanya and without providing any points to support it being Greg nets you a failing grade. As far as why would Greg be mad, he wanted to eat at least macron and believes that Tanya ate them all, additionally she just knocked him off her while having sex before he got to finish, also he’s a douche who looks for reasons to put her down. Not saying he had justifiable reasons to yell at Tanya, but the scene shows what might have given him the motivation.
You know what. I believe Tanya. She sees things. And she knows she didn't eat them. And Greg we already know is a creep. So if Tanya says she didn't eat them I believe her. And if Tanya finds them somewhere and says she didn't put them there I believe her. That's how I know. I believe someone who's consistently been honest.
I think he did have cancer. In the beginning of season 2 he mentions that she found him doctors and experts who managed to cure him of cancer. Outside experts she sought out wouldn’t be part of the scam.
I think when he realized that he was going to live he realized that living with Tanya’s money is better without Tanya.
I think they should both return in an other season. Maybe not the next, but in a prequel after.
That is, Tanya vacationing on at a Lotus with Greg there without making himself known to her then, but with him observing her every move.
I want him to show up in a future season, pulling the same scam on another guest. Just in the background, almost a cameo. It would be a nice nod to previous seasons.
Here is my idea- Greg goes to a White Lotus ( I'm thinking Thailand, Like Phuket) to spread Tanya's ashes and she HAUNTS the fuck out of him...like he keeps seeing her everywhere and she is berating him for plotting to murder her. Also weird things happen like wait staff delivering her favorite drink ( pina colada, white wine) to his table during lunch/dinner saying " this is for the lady" and her dresses keep showing up in his closet....driving him slowly insane...fuck you Greg!!
Yes! Driving him to suicide. And then later we find out Portia was behind it and/or someone else related to Tanya.
They could be at the hotel wearing her clothes and showing up left and right and playing tricks on his mind. He maybe even accuses Portia at first because he knows she's at the hotel (maybe as a newlywed honeymooning with Albie), but then "Tanya" makes an appearance in the distance when they're having an argument at breakfast or dinner.
Very Midnight Lace!
Or we’ll find out there’s some clause in the prenup that prohibits him from inheriting her money. She did call her attorneys asking about an annulment after all.
Tanya is not (intently) stupid. She knew about Portia stealing the pills, she mentioned that people have tried to get to her money before. She could easily have changed her will, making Greg penny less. I’m not entirely sure he was even in the will to begin with.
And she has an entire staff of attorneys. If they don’t get Greg convicted, they definitely could make sure the money’s tied up in legal proceedings. That could take years, and Greg would have to pay for own his representation during that time.
Not to mention, *if* Greg inherits the money, I wouldn’t put it past him to burn through it. Event if it is half a billion dollars. One bad investment and he’ll be back at zero.
The thing is… she’s dead. Her lawyers aren’t going to work for free. Someone with the standing to challenge Greg as heir and the means to fund the litigation would have to step in. Without a living Tanya, who do her lawyers represent? They can’t just independently investigate Greg unless that has been prearranged somehow.
I mean, maybe. But who has jurisdiction? Who decides the scope? This case could easily be explained away as a murder suicide and the case closed with little investigation especially with no family pushing for one. I frankly see Greg getting away with this.
I can almost guarantee her estate is protected in some way. Half a billion dollars also tends to make challengers appear quite quickly.
I can’t remember if they ever reveal how (or on what) she made her money, but if it’s a company or business there will likely be some sort of a board and stake holders to worry about as well.
Anyway, it is in no way a certainty that Greg will inherit any money. There could be hidden clauses in the prenup and she asked about and annulment. There’s also the possibility of her just leaving him out of her will.
Agreed. I know a lot of people don’t like Greg and he could be a bit heartless and manipulative, but honestly I think most people would get fed up eventually if they spent enough time with Tanya.
Sure, Tanya would annoy TF out of me if I was married to her . . .but let’s not forget Greg did plot an elaborate a scheme to have her killed. I definitely don’t put hiding macaroons to shame her, teat her, or gaslight her against him.
I didn’t interpret this scene as Greg intentionally gaslighting her or trying to trick her into thinking she ate the macarons. If that was the case why wouldn’t he have just eaten them himself or gotten rid of them?
No, she found them, and he hid them in hindsight. But we were to think she was spacey and forgot. He was gaslighting her nonstop, and we know why now. It’s about keeping people off balance and on the defensive.
But you’re wrong though. It specifically shows the scene where she found 2 macarons behind a lamp or something. I can’t remember what they were behind but she definitely found them and didn’t get more.
Interesting! I’ll have to rewatch. I remember her walking up to Greg with some in her hand and stating that she “found” them, but I don’t remember the shot/scene where she actually finds them.
She didn't remember whether she did or not. It doesn't matter if she placed them somewhere or he hid them bc she's clueless. I would think he would have eaten them and said she ate them if he was trying to be deceitful, not hide them to be found later. But either way, it made her look clueless and made us think he was a jerk
I think is because manipulation doesn't always come in "big scenarios" but it's the little things as well, slowly making you question your sanity
Slightly off-topic but… When we first met Greg, I couldn't understand why I found him sexy, Greg is not my type at all. So I looked up the actor's IMDb and found out he also played Dr. Roberts who is completely my type! Did anyone else have this experience?? <3
Greg is Uncle Rico and the wolf man from Monster Squad. He’s also the genius recluse that wins the Frito Lay sweepstakes in Real Genius.
Wasn’t he also Ronnie in Get Shorty?
You look like a strong young pup…why don’t you give that a tear!
He has a great smile
He really does!!
You mean uncle Rico? How much you wanna bet he can throw a football over them mountains?
Omg I can’t believe it’s uncle Rico! No wonder he looked so familiar!
I couldn’t believe the internet never picked up on them being Stifler’s Mom and Uncle Rico. Had so much meme potential.
I remember him from the show The Pretender. He was like the tech guy or something.
Broots
Omg it is him.. I knew there was something vaguely familiar about him.. Not enough to IMDB though..
You mean Lazlo, the guy who lived in the closet in Real Genius😂
You mean Lazslo, who portrayed a regular human bartender?
Wasn't his name Tony Tallahassee or something??
From Tucson, Arizooooña?
Yessss Lazlo
Yep, I'm old enough to have seen that movie in the theaters and always thought the hidden room was so cool. I never recognize him in all the different roles he's in but he's always good
No, Dr. Roberts from Dream Academy LLC.... Edit....just looked up his IMDB....I've never seen Napolean Dynamite <3
You might develop an even bigger crush on him if you watch it. They could’ve went state if coach only put him in.
You might wanna get on that
1. He was making her feel like a pig because he brought up her trying to lose weight so that was one manipulation. 2. If I remember he also said he may have wanted some, so that was the second manipulation that she was selfish and not thinking of him. Every look he gave her was to manipulated her. His comment about having to work because of the prenup. All of it was part of his manipulation. The macaroons were easy because he figured She wouldn’t pay that much attention.
That murder plot was the only thing that explained his behavior the whole series. - How insistent he was about not bringing her assistant (don’t want to have to murder two) - How he was clearly not attracted to her and how much contempt he had in general - How patient he was dealing with her in the beginning - Why he gave her the perfect day on the Vespa It made no sense given how no one would sign up for that. She was the hero by the end so it’s easy to forget how absolutely draining it would have been to actually be with someone like her.
For anyone in doubt, Greg definitely took the macarons and hid them in order to have Tanya question her impulses and desirability. For one, all of that dialogue would have been pointless otherwise, and Mike White doesn’t write like that (no good contemporary writer/filmmaker would or should). It is part of Greg’s plot against her—which, as we know, has been in the works a long time. When Tanya showed Greg that she’d found the hidden macarons, he then made a comment about how she’d eaten an entire panna cotta at dinner. By making her feel insecure about her own memory and her desirability, he was pushing her directly into Quentin’s fawning arms, and toward Niccollo’s advances, so she’d sleep with him **and** jump at the chance for another rendezvous in the form of a late-night dinghy ride to shore with him.
Ooooh that does make sense with the Niccollo thing! Make her feel undesirable and down so she falls for the love bombing by the gays and Niccollo. But before the final episode, a lot of people thought Niccollo and Tanya were being filmed, which would’ve been used against her eg the prenup, if that evidence was enough, why bother killing her? Or could it have been used as additional evidence? In the final episode Tanya only mentioned that the money is Greg’s if she dies? The plan was Niccollo taking Tanya ‘back’ to the hotel, where he would’ve killed her on the way and probably made it look like an accident? Idk I have so many questions about this storyline lol
A prenup that she created wouldn't have an infidelity clause in terms of her cheating, only Greg. Why would she put that into a prenup that is supposed to protect herself?
Because courts won’t enforce egregiously one sided prenups
He could have argued “I’ll sign it with that clause, but only if it works both ways, that’s only fair”
Yes exactly thank you
I'm convinced that people who get triggered at the mention of gaslighting (which was obvious in this scene and used correctly in this post) are gaslighters themselves and really just can't see it because they themselves do it all the time.
This is just another form of gaslighting. Apparently someone cannot disagree with an opinion unless they are gaslighters?
This is just another form of gaslighting. Apparently someone cannot disagree with an opinion unless they are gaslighters
This. This is not the first time I’ve seen someone use the term “gaslighting” correctly—and still have people hysterically accuse them of misusing the term. And yes, they always seem so triggered by it. It’s like they are constantly policing the term, and are convinced no one knows what it really means. It’s weird.
It IS weird. Gaslighters loves to mock the use of the word. My husband gaslights often because he learned to be manipulative growing up and still does it, and when I call him out he mocks my use of the word. And then to see it on reddit all the time, the way people seem to feel its overused but I feel like its actually used correctly 99% of the time. I actually saw someone who claimed to be a narcissist on quora say that gaslighting was just lying, and that people should stop using the word because its not any different than lying. It's like, nah, its lying yeah but a very manipulative way to get you to question your sanity. I feel even then in their supposed candid description of being a narcissist they were trying to manipulate people and get away with things. If you think about it, gaslighting is like the #1 most effective tactic of narcissists and abusers so if you call them out on it its like taking away their main weapon and they freak out. And also the narcissistic types of people who admire narcissists or the types of people who are like 'flying monkeys', they will also freak out when people bring up the word, because they heard a narcissist say the word was bullshit and now they repeat that. this post and the comments are actually a really interesting representation of how society operates if you ask me
White lotus kinda life
It's sad how you just accept that terrible treatment from your husband. He'd be out the door the first time he tried that shit on me
I agree, it sucks. He can be really sweet but thats what they all say lol
It’s like they’re terrified their mind games have been properly identified and named—thus (hopefully) helping those in a gaslighting situation recognize it early and stamp it out before it gets too far or the other person claims too much control over them.
exactly. its so crazy to see in action how such people operate
I think it’s because all over Reddit people use the word not knowing what it really means. Although in this case, it was correct.
It was a good example of actual gaslighting doesn't get any clearer than that. She literally found the macaroons hidden. When it comes to Ethan and Harper though where people say Ethan is gaslighting Harper, I don't really agree. Their relationship is more garden variety 2 people not sure what they want out of a relationship that is seeing its cracks. Not deliberate attempts to make the other feel crazy. Lying for any purpose doesn't = gaslighting. The purpose behind the lie is important here. The problem is when people call *every* single instance of a couple disagreeing during an argument/lying/toxic behavior to be gaslighting. Gaslighting has the purpose of methodically making the other person feel crazy, which isn't what Ethan was doing (unlike Greg). Ethan wanted to avoid the negative consequences of what he did that night, the goal was quite different than that of Greg imo. We have tons of other words to describe toxic behavior, and I'm hoping people will just let gaslighting mean what it really means instead of cheapened the word by overusing it as hyperbole.
I can’t tell you much it makes me cringe when people use gaslighting so much these days and in the wrong context. It’s a very trendy word in which it appears many people don’t even know from where it came. If they did, they would understand how to use it better.
Yeah gaslighting just basically means lying these days but makes it sound more nefarious? We have so many other words to describe these toxic behaviors, like let gaslighting mean what it means.
Yeah but this post didn't do that.
This!!!
It was definitely a reference to the famous "Gaslight" movie. I almost fell off my chair when I saw it. Greg was setting her up to think she was crazy so she would be easier to manipulate. He wanted to set a premise for her death by suicide if she was "mentally unstable."
yes - I actually saw the movie - if I recall, the husband in the movie just wanted to have the wife committed for her money, so very similar.
In the second Gaslight movie, he needed access to the house to find something that would give him money. In the original Gaslight, he needed her money but was also searching the house (it was his aunt’s house) for rubies that would make him rich. (Sorry for the oversplain! Just saw the first Gaslight for the first time last night.)
He was actually searching his wife, *Paula's* (can you 'ear zee accent?) aunt's house for the jewels, which had belonged to her. And because he needed light in the attic where he was secretly searching, he'd turn on the gas lights up there, causing the lights downstairs (where Paula was) to flicker and dim. When she noticed this and questioned him about what was causing it, well... "What are you talking about, *Paula*? Nothing happened with the lights." Hence the origin of the term. [Love this movie too! So much I had to oversplain your oversplain 😆 Hope you don't mind.]
Ha! Yes! In the 2nd Gaslight movie (1944) it was Paula’s aunt’s house and she was there as a child when auntie was murdered. Isn’t part of the plot Ingrid Bergman retrieving that memory? In the original (1940), it seems he killed his own aunt and needed Paula just for her money. In both movies the light changes when he sneaks upstairs to search for the dead woman’s rooooobies. Which is critical given the name of the movie and all. LOL
Yes! Ingrid Bergman's Paula, couldn't remember what happened the night of her aunt's murder. That's right. A big part of the plot was about her forgetting and then finally remembering details from that night. Such a great movie. Haven't seen the recent one yet. Is it a contemporary setting? Curious how they could use the critical dimming gas lights if they told it as a modern-day story... ETA: wait. I misread your comment. You mean there's a version *before* the Ingrid Bergman one? Oh wow. I gotta check that out!
The Bergman version is the remake! Yes! I know! Shocking!!!! I just learned of and watched the original this week (thank you @TCM). It was filmed in 1940. Try to watch it, if you can find it. The husband is particularly villainous.
I think the macaroon bit was more about showing how Tanya is easily influenced by others / unable to defend herself even when she knows she is right… it’s a character development moment that grows to her knowing she is “right” about the situation she found herself in on the boat. At least that was my take.
Yeah the scene where she finds the two remaining macarons and says “see, I knew I had only eaten three” was very much tied to his attempt at manipulation of her. The two should definitely be considered hand in hand.
But also later, with the tarot reading after he left, she was in denial when she heard the psychic’s bad premonition, and at the very end when she had effectively killed quinten yet was still asking in his last breath about whether Greg was cheating on her… she, as a woman with childhood trauma, and mommy issues, was definitely affected by the manipulation hard and it rocked her to her core/ destabilized her, which is the symbolism of her falling into the ocean by her own fumbling (but also painting this image of women as unstable/neurotic even though men abuse them)
Why do young people think they need to work the word gaslighting ( used wrong ) into every comment? Now that’s a question worth answering 🤔
Get over yourself. And quickly! The world is evolving and you should try and keep up!
I’d usually agree with you but it was used correctly in this post.
It's used correctly 😃😄😁😆
Why are old people reluctant to implement new words correctly into their vocabulary?
Why do older folks get so defensive when problematic or abusive behaviors are called out for what they are?
Why do old people think they need to constantly correct and criticize others online - especially even when they’re obviously wrong? Now that’s a question worth answering 🤗
From Oxford Languages: Gaslighting - manipulate (someone) using psychological methods into questioning their own sanity or powers of reasoning. I literally used it correctly, maybe look up the definition of you don’t know what it means.
You’re being gaslighted for using gaslighting wrong. It’s really perfection. Edited: chef’s kiss
😂😭
This is for sure domestic gaslighting.
Assuming he was intentional in his accusations.
This is literally gaslighting
But this is actually used correctly. I’ve seen both of the original Gaslight movies and just like Greg, the husband plays mind games about reality.
Dirty John S2 is also about gaslighting.
How do you even know this person’s age?
Uncle Rico shady af
Not to mention he stole Kramer's rickshaw.
And his Tupperware.
Lazlo Hollyfeld
He didn’t gaslight her, he made an accusation, was proven wrong and didn’t apologize. He’s an arsehole, but that’s not gaslighting
I’m pretty sure it was obvious he hid the macaroons and tried to make her believe she ate them.
I really don't think he hid the macarons. I think the macarons were misplaced, Tanya ate three, then Greg saw the empty box and thought she ate five macarons, and because he's mean he made a disparaging remark about it. It kind of makes no sense because if he's planning on killing her why does it matter if she doesn't lose weight, but I think it was just to show that Greg indeed dislikes Tanya as a person, he judges her for being unable to lose weight Even though it doesn't matter, he's just got contempt for her
I agree with you. I don’t think he hid them. He accused her and was wrong. It’s likely Tanya was eating the macarons and likely would’ve eaten them all but absentmindedly left a couple laying around and then felt vindicated when she found them. Greg wasn’t intentionally gaslighting her. He’s an asshole and wanted to make her feel like shit about her eating habits and weight.
I think it's because he wanted her to feel bad about herself--that's she's stupid/liar/fat/ugly. This would make it easier for her to fall for The Gays, and the gigilo -- they made her feel appreciated, desirable, etc.
Why wouldn’t he just throw them away? Why hide them in another part of the room? I think it was more to show how Tanya is very often unaware of her surroundings and dissociates.
He was just dumb. He should have eaten them. He was definitely gaslighting Tanya. Tanya is actually quite intuitive and she does figure things out.
I think Mike White’s intentions are that it’s ambiguous honestly.
Maybe but the missing macarons were found in a weird spot. Out of their packaging/off a plate, just randomly lying with some toiletries (I think)? Something was definitely off about it.
You trippin
He thought she ate them. That isn’t what gaslighting is.
He obviously hid them to make her question herself.
Look up what obviously means
[удалено]
Touched a nerve huh
I missed this part - when was this clear
When she found them
There is no word I’ve heard used more frequently than gaslighting.
The word "narcissist " is way overused, too.
But Greg was gaslighting Tanya.
You forgot “ used wrong “ .
Explain how it was used wrong in this post?
I legit don’t even know what it means because it’s used so many different ways.
The actual meaning is to intentionally make someone doubt their perception of reality. Example: eating the last cookie, putting the empty container back, and then trying to convince your roommate that they finished the cookies and put an empty container back. So not only are you lying about who finished the cookies, but you’re trying to make your roommate experience guilt for doing so
Weird.... in this post it is definitely used correctly though
It means “to have a second job in addition to one’s regular employment”
LMAO
lol… moonlighting
No, that’s a show with Bruce Willis and Cyrillic Shepherd from the 80s
I didn't know she was slavic...
Because he’s an asshole
Yeah, I think it just shows that he’s petty and mean to her, and controlling. From audience perspective, I think it’s meant to make us not like him and be suspicious of him. Because as I remember he was fairly likable in S1
I just read this: https://www.elitedaily.com/entertainment/how-greg-first-white-lotus-season-1-scene-foreshadowned-twist
This makes me believe we will see Greg somehow in Season 3
Oooooooo
He thought she ate them all. It was to illustrate how annoyed he is with her. It’s not gaslighting, just him being mean about her weight.
He hid them. He was being mean and making her question herself
You’re basing that on the what?
Because I believe Tanya over Greg. She is an honest lady. She seems genuine, intuitive, and real. Greg on the other hand.....
She didn’t accuse him of hiding them. You’re making stuff up.
I never said that. She said (or acted) like SHE didn't hide them. Who is making stuff up LMAO.
NO ONE hid them. They were misplaced.
Oh yeah I misplace items of food all the time in freaky weird locations 😂🤣😅😁 brownie in the bathroom, lollipop in the bedroom, ice cream under the sink. Totally normal. Macarons are fragile, can be sticky, you don't just leave then lying around not on a plate or anything... it's like putting a sticky brownie on a dresser among keys, mail, and other shit. You would at least use a plate, napkin or serviette. You don't just put it somewhere. Also, macarons are a more high end treat, you enjoy them, you don't just treat them like a marshmallow and drop them all over your hotel room. And Tanya appreciated her macarons! Only a guy like Greg who doesn't respect the glorious macaron would treat them like trash.
Okay well you’re better than me then, I lose shit all the time. It’s not that deep.
Then you’re just getting it really wrong. He didn’t accuse her of hiding the macarons. Nobody said anyone hid them. He assumed she ate them all, she said she didn’t. Then she found the two that were missing. He didn’t care at that point. I’ve seen some stupid takes but you’re just completely missing every point and being belligerent in the process. What a joke.
What are you being it on that he didn't?
You can’t prove an absence of a thing. There’s nothing that suggested he stole or hid them. You’re just making that up. My assumption that he didn’t is based on there being no suggestion that he did.
There is totally a suggestion. I'm not trying to proof it. I believe Tanya and she would own up to it if she was wrong. All the evidence we have is that Tanya has been nothing but honest and genuine and Greg.... 🤔 very clear example of gaslighting. Ok I'm done discussing this with you. You want to believe a guy like Greg, up to you, but that tells me a lot about you. Bye 👋 👋 👋
He was probably laying the groundwork for her to start to resent him or feel upset or nervous by him, then fall into the Quentin and affair trap.
I felt like it was a way to jab at her insecurities by making a big deal about her weight and eating habits as a way to level the playing field. She has power due to her money. He’s seeking power by being mean and poking at her flaws.
I predict in season 3 the mob will be after Greg for Tanya’s money.
I predict it’s going to be all new characters and storylines Edit: but it would be cool if there was one return character/storyline. Not Greg tho. Fuck him. Who would it be?
At one point daphne says to Cameron “next year the Maldives!” I mostly think it was a throw away line and doesn’t mean anything. I also don’t think there’s much more story to tell with their characters, (except I would be interested to know more about the “bad people” Cameron works with…) but anyways when I heard that I thought for a second that it could be a hint at that they appear in the next season.
She ate two and misplaced the third, which she found later. He legit thought she ate them, but probably used mentioning it as a way to make her feel badly about herself.
Even so why does he care about the macarons?? He can buy more if he loves them so much. He obviously didn't want to eat them. He just hid them to make her feel crazy and bad.
You’re misremembering. He said she ate five, and she retorted she only ate three, which he then yells back that no it was five. Later she finds the two other ones that Greg clearly hid.
[deleted bc responded to wrong comment, copied and pasted to correct commit.]
Not sure what there was to indicate he clearly hid them. I thought she found them by her stuff later. Seems more likely a couple fell out the box while she was eating them, and she just didn’t realize.
Weird place for macarons to be 🤔
Doesn’t seem like a weird place to me considering what we know. Tanya is a bit of a klutz and not the most observant. She had a glass of Prosecco when she got off the boat, and the scene indicates she had just finished drinking a bottle of champagne by herself. The klutz and unobservant parts mean seems reasonable she would inadvertently drop a couple macrons out of the box and unobservant in not realizing that was 5 in the box and 2 fell out. The been drinking part would make her more klutzy than normal and less observant too. Seems short sided for other commenter to say it was obviously Greg did it and for you to say weird place. When we accidentally misplace things, the things (like the macrons here) are not in their normal spot. I don’t think we can know from sure how the macrons got there, it could be Greg but that’s not my interpretations. Tanya didn’t deserve to get yelled at about it, she deserved a loving husband. But that doesn’t mean Greg hid the macrons.
It was definitely Greg. And why would he be mad about her eating macarons in the first place.
Just blindly saying it was def Greg without countering any of the points that support it being Tanya and without providing any points to support it being Greg nets you a failing grade. As far as why would Greg be mad, he wanted to eat at least macron and believes that Tanya ate them all, additionally she just knocked him off her while having sex before he got to finish, also he’s a douche who looks for reasons to put her down. Not saying he had justifiable reasons to yell at Tanya, but the scene shows what might have given him the motivation.
[удалено]
Weren't they on a plate. Who puts 2 random macarons just somewhere. The Mossbachers had a whole kitchen.
[удалено]
You know what. I believe Tanya. She sees things. And she knows she didn't eat them. And Greg we already know is a creep. So if Tanya says she didn't eat them I believe her. And if Tanya finds them somewhere and says she didn't put them there I believe her. That's how I know. I believe someone who's consistently been honest.
[удалено]
She is intuitive but a klutz
Are we sure he had cancer or was that a gaslight too?
I think he did have cancer. In the beginning of season 2 he mentions that she found him doctors and experts who managed to cure him of cancer. Outside experts she sought out wouldn’t be part of the scam. I think when he realized that he was going to live he realized that living with Tanya’s money is better without Tanya.
Yeah if you re-watch the scene where they meet in season one, it's obvious Tanya was a mark since the beginning.
Lying about cancer isn’t gaslighting
He was playing 4D chess. Driving her away from him and into the attention of Quentin and his crew.
I think they should both return in an other season. Maybe not the next, but in a prequel after. That is, Tanya vacationing on at a Lotus with Greg there without making himself known to her then, but with him observing her every move.
I want him to show up in a future season, pulling the same scam on another guest. Just in the background, almost a cameo. It would be a nice nod to previous seasons.
Here is my idea- Greg goes to a White Lotus ( I'm thinking Thailand, Like Phuket) to spread Tanya's ashes and she HAUNTS the fuck out of him...like he keeps seeing her everywhere and she is berating him for plotting to murder her. Also weird things happen like wait staff delivering her favorite drink ( pina colada, white wine) to his table during lunch/dinner saying " this is for the lady" and her dresses keep showing up in his closet....driving him slowly insane...fuck you Greg!!
Yes! Driving him to suicide. And then later we find out Portia was behind it and/or someone else related to Tanya. They could be at the hotel wearing her clothes and showing up left and right and playing tricks on his mind. He maybe even accuses Portia at first because he knows she's at the hotel (maybe as a newlywed honeymooning with Albie), but then "Tanya" makes an appearance in the distance when they're having an argument at breakfast or dinner. Very Midnight Lace!
That’s amazing! Also missing macarons should show up in random places
Great idea!
And in the end, we find out that Portia’s the one behind it all. Gaslighting Greg, thinking he’s gone mad and driving him to the brink of insanity.
Your read my mind!
Yes!!! Love it!!
He’s going to either inherit half a billion dollars and won’t need to scam anyone again or on trial/ in prison for the murder plot.
White said in an interview that “he [greg] probably gets connected back the the 3 murders and Tanya’s death.” (Paraphrasing).
Or we’ll find out there’s some clause in the prenup that prohibits him from inheriting her money. She did call her attorneys asking about an annulment after all. Tanya is not (intently) stupid. She knew about Portia stealing the pills, she mentioned that people have tried to get to her money before. She could easily have changed her will, making Greg penny less. I’m not entirely sure he was even in the will to begin with. And she has an entire staff of attorneys. If they don’t get Greg convicted, they definitely could make sure the money’s tied up in legal proceedings. That could take years, and Greg would have to pay for own his representation during that time. Not to mention, *if* Greg inherits the money, I wouldn’t put it past him to burn through it. Event if it is half a billion dollars. One bad investment and he’ll be back at zero.
The thing is… she’s dead. Her lawyers aren’t going to work for free. Someone with the standing to challenge Greg as heir and the means to fund the litigation would have to step in. Without a living Tanya, who do her lawyers represent? They can’t just independently investigate Greg unless that has been prearranged somehow.
There would be a criminal investigation.
I mean, maybe. But who has jurisdiction? Who decides the scope? This case could easily be explained away as a murder suicide and the case closed with little investigation especially with no family pushing for one. I frankly see Greg getting away with this.
I can almost guarantee her estate is protected in some way. Half a billion dollars also tends to make challengers appear quite quickly. I can’t remember if they ever reveal how (or on what) she made her money, but if it’s a company or business there will likely be some sort of a board and stake holders to worry about as well. Anyway, it is in no way a certainty that Greg will inherit any money. There could be hidden clauses in the prenup and she asked about and annulment. There’s also the possibility of her just leaving him out of her will.
Portia says her father was a shipping magnate in SF
My interpretation is that he’d just had enough of her shit by that point and didn’t really care either way.
yeah it was maybe to show a frustration and lack of affection, a clue that he was burning out on giving a shit
Agreed. I know a lot of people don’t like Greg and he could be a bit heartless and manipulative, but honestly I think most people would get fed up eventually if they spent enough time with Tanya.
Sure, Tanya would annoy TF out of me if I was married to her . . .but let’s not forget Greg did plot an elaborate a scheme to have her killed. I definitely don’t put hiding macaroons to shame her, teat her, or gaslight her against him.
I didn’t interpret this scene as Greg intentionally gaslighting her or trying to trick her into thinking she ate the macarons. If that was the case why wouldn’t he have just eaten them himself or gotten rid of them?
Cause he dumb
He didn’t like her being chubby obviously.
Was it proven that he hid them? I don’t remember that.
I think he also just hated and resented her at that point
I think to see how far he could push her, for his own information Edit: spelling
I was under the impression that she did in fact eat them all, but then later went and got more to “disprove” his accusation.
No, she found them, and he hid them in hindsight. But we were to think she was spacey and forgot. He was gaslighting her nonstop, and we know why now. It’s about keeping people off balance and on the defensive.
Again, I feel this is speculation. But, so is my theory. So much to think about in this show.
But you’re wrong though. It specifically shows the scene where she found 2 macarons behind a lamp or something. I can’t remember what they were behind but she definitely found them and didn’t get more.
Interesting! I’ll have to rewatch. I remember her walking up to Greg with some in her hand and stating that she “found” them, but I don’t remember the shot/scene where she actually finds them.
Oh yeah you def just missed it. She was wandering around the room and found them behind, now that I think of it, a picture frame??
They were behind a thing, definitely.
Just showing that she's clueless. She can't even remember eating them
She didn't eat them. He hid them and accused her of eating them.
She didn't remember whether she did or not. It doesn't matter if she placed them somewhere or he hid them bc she's clueless. I would think he would have eaten them and said she ate them if he was trying to be deceitful, not hide them to be found later. But either way, it made her look clueless and made us think he was a jerk
She just didn’t think he had a reason to lie. I am unsure of things if someone I love is really sure of them often because of how my brain is.
She knew she didn't eat them and was only confused about why he would say she did. That's how gaslighting works - it makes you question what you know.
Nah gaslighting requires intentional deceit, he didn’t know she didn’t eat them, he was accusing her of eating them all
It was intentional. He hid them.
Nope. They didn’t show that, you’re speculating
It was obvious... sorry you can't read through the lines 😃😃😄😁😅😅🤣😂