The Good Wife 2.05
Oct. 28th, 2010 08:31 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
selenakIn which there are no secular saints.
With one exception, another smart episode, uncomfortable in its conclusion, to be sure, but in the right way. The exception is that I'm not sure what the script was up to with showing Blake practically vandalizing the victim's apartment when searching it. If that's meant to show Blake as incompetent (and corrupt, what with pilfering the money), it goes against his original introduction where he searched an apartment so smoothly that Kalinda herself didn't figure out he had done so (she thought he was the landlord, after all). If it's supposed to be a reaction to Kalinda's trashing his car and sexuallymolesting fondling him last week, I would buy that if Kalinda was supposed to search that apartment and he makes it look like she screwed up the job, but he knew she was investigating elsewhere, so it can't have been to get back at Kalinda. In conclusion, what the hell? And now for the rest of the episode.
Last week,abigail_n pointed out, re: the Kalinda/Blake scene, that if a male character had fondled a female character's genitals uninvited on this show, it would have been justly classified as sexual molestation, not as the fondler being cool and tough. So this week's theme is a bit ironic in this regard. It was essentially a two-room drama - the ballroom and the Lockhart & Gardner office, with only a little sidetour to the hotel and the apartment - and yet the tension never ceased. There was no "perfect" reaction from anyone. Both Alicia and Diane were initially sceptical, though Alicia was more tactful about it. Will was initially willing to believe the masseuse but swung around when the cost of Lockkhart & Gardner taking the case became increasingly obvious. I would say the audience itself was prompted to be sceptical at the start by the masseuse not behaving in a tv coded "rape/molestation victim" manner and to question its own prejudices; but I think for the audience to be completely in the shoes of the Lockhart & Gardner team, the character of Joe Kent would have needed to be introduced earlier in a sympathetic fashion. He's just a name in this script, and so we don’t have any feelings about him one way or the other, and are aware it’s doubtful this particular show would come up with a powerless woman framing a very powerful man with this particular charge.
The way this plot was connected with the ongoing subplot about Peter's campaign was extremely clever. Again, nobody was perfect. Peter was smart enough to quickly figure out why Kent suddenly wanted to endorse him and stood by Alicia's autonomy and integrity in this matter - but at the same time, he did read her SMS and came close to listening to the voice mail. We also don't know what he would have done after Kent endorsed him anyway if the masseuse had decided to hire Lockhart & Gardner, for, as Peter again immediately figured out, by that manoeuvre Kent had made sure any scandal would be shared by Peter.
Then there's Cary, pointing the masseuse towards Alicia. At that point I was wondering whether it would turn out he was aware Kent would endorse Peter, but I can't see how; Kent's lawyer came up with that tactic only after Will had fought with him. However, I think it’s entirely possible Cary thought pointing the masseuse towards Alicia was a win/win situation from his own pov; if Lockhart & Gardner took the case, they’d have some inevitably bad publicity for going after a “secular saint”. If they didn’t, Alicia would feel bad about letting a victim down. He might also have felt actually sorry for the woman in addition to all of this. I love all the shades of grey with everyone on this show.
If the shooting of episodes wasn't long before broadcast, I'd have said the phonecall between Diane and Kent's wife was inspired by recent events re: Ginny Thomas and Anita Hill, but that was too short notice. Also they've been very careful to avoid the cliché of Kent being a powerful conservative, making him a liberal idol instead.
With one exception, another smart episode, uncomfortable in its conclusion, to be sure, but in the right way. The exception is that I'm not sure what the script was up to with showing Blake practically vandalizing the victim's apartment when searching it. If that's meant to show Blake as incompetent (and corrupt, what with pilfering the money), it goes against his original introduction where he searched an apartment so smoothly that Kalinda herself didn't figure out he had done so (she thought he was the landlord, after all). If it's supposed to be a reaction to Kalinda's trashing his car and sexually
Last week,
abigail_n pointed out, re: the Kalinda/Blake scene, that if a male character had fondled a female character's genitals uninvited on this show, it would have been justly classified as sexual molestation, not as the fondler being cool and tough. So this week's theme is a bit ironic in this regard. It was essentially a two-room drama - the ballroom and the Lockhart & Gardner office, with only a little sidetour to the hotel and the apartment - and yet the tension never ceased. There was no "perfect" reaction from anyone. Both Alicia and Diane were initially sceptical, though Alicia was more tactful about it. Will was initially willing to believe the masseuse but swung around when the cost of Lockkhart & Gardner taking the case became increasingly obvious. I would say the audience itself was prompted to be sceptical at the start by the masseuse not behaving in a tv coded "rape/molestation victim" manner and to question its own prejudices; but I think for the audience to be completely in the shoes of the Lockhart & Gardner team, the character of Joe Kent would have needed to be introduced earlier in a sympathetic fashion. He's just a name in this script, and so we don’t have any feelings about him one way or the other, and are aware it’s doubtful this particular show would come up with a powerless woman framing a very powerful man with this particular charge. The way this plot was connected with the ongoing subplot about Peter's campaign was extremely clever. Again, nobody was perfect. Peter was smart enough to quickly figure out why Kent suddenly wanted to endorse him and stood by Alicia's autonomy and integrity in this matter - but at the same time, he did read her SMS and came close to listening to the voice mail. We also don't know what he would have done after Kent endorsed him anyway if the masseuse had decided to hire Lockhart & Gardner, for, as Peter again immediately figured out, by that manoeuvre Kent had made sure any scandal would be shared by Peter.
Then there's Cary, pointing the masseuse towards Alicia. At that point I was wondering whether it would turn out he was aware Kent would endorse Peter, but I can't see how; Kent's lawyer came up with that tactic only after Will had fought with him. However, I think it’s entirely possible Cary thought pointing the masseuse towards Alicia was a win/win situation from his own pov; if Lockhart & Gardner took the case, they’d have some inevitably bad publicity for going after a “secular saint”. If they didn’t, Alicia would feel bad about letting a victim down. He might also have felt actually sorry for the woman in addition to all of this. I love all the shades of grey with everyone on this show.
If the shooting of episodes wasn't long before broadcast, I'd have said the phonecall between Diane and Kent's wife was inspired by recent events re: Ginny Thomas and Anita Hill, but that was too short notice. Also they've been very careful to avoid the cliché of Kent being a powerful conservative, making him a liberal idol instead.
no subject
Date: 2010-10-28 08:27 am (UTC)It was a beautifully complicated episode, and I particularly loved the ending. It no longer mattered whether or not the masseuse was telling the truth or even if she would be believed - it was about the damage the process does to the victim. All the regular characters were carefully manouevering and plotting and investigating, and all they did was hurt.
no subject
Date: 2010-10-28 10:03 am (UTC)it was about the damage the process does to the victim. All the regular characters were carefully manouevering and plotting and investigating, and all they did was hurt.
Yes. And she was right that it would not go away but only get worse; even on the vague chance she'd win the lawsuit, her life would be hell for months and years to come, she'd likely lose her job and not get another one - it burned because it was so true.
no subject
Date: 2010-10-28 10:31 am (UTC)Loved the rationalisation by his wife on the phone, and the power brokering.
no subject
Date: 2010-10-28 10:49 am (UTC)