![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
selenakSee, I'm used to having the CIA presented as interfering baddies in shows centered around FBI agents, and the FBI presented as annoying interferers in shows centered around CIA agents, but I think The Good Wife has to be given pioneer credit for being the first show to make a recurring villain out of the U.S. Treasury.
First of all, Zach continues to prove he's his parents' son and puts divide et impera to good use, playing the Jackie card to Alicia for the second time in a row with great skill. You go, boy. Mind you, what I was less certain about is what the show thought it was doing with Alicia's "slow it down" advice to begin with. I mean, Jackie has always been presented as prejudiced, but if the show wanted to me to believe Alicia's "no, of course it's not about race!" then it should have given her some sensible arguments, because Nisa has to be the nicest girlfriend-of-son ever, especially given Zach's previous involvement with Amber the teenage manipulator. Otoh, maybe the point was to make Alicia see she's behaving exactly as biased as Jackie?
On to the main plots. I'm not sure why Will still hasn't told anyone what Wendy told him re: being after Peter. Surely at least Elsbeth his lawyer should know? Not to mention that I doubt Cary and Dana are aware of that, so they could use the information for leverage there. I mean, obviously the real reason is "it's not time for the season finale yet", but still. That aside, I'm unsure whether Kalinda is genuinenly delivering the file on Will to Dana because of the Alicia related blackmail, or whether she's playing a long term game and something in the file, while giving Wendy a short term advantage re: Will, will eventually collapse Wendy's case. Either way, I appreciate the continuity of Alicia's signature from last week being used this week, because I love consequences. Alicia, for understandable reasons, but still, chose to listen to Diane and not expose David Lee's little trick with the signature, and now it has become part of the leverage against Lockhart & Gardner.
I am no computer expert, but I like the eventual solution to the whole "who is Mr. Bitcoin?" question. The immediate "it's a woman, not a man" twist I had expected, but not the "it's three geeks working together" truth, which makes much more sense in terms of how laywoman me thinks softwares are written and computer business is conducted these days.
Am I supposed to know the celebrity witness, was that another real life cameo? If so, the guy's fame hasn't made it across the Atlantic.
In other news, I felt like enjoying some costume drama, so I got around to watching the first season of Downton Abbey. (Before anyone mentions it in the comments: yes, I've heard the second season wasn't good by fannish osmosis.) For some reason I had assumed the show to be a spoof, Blackadder style, but it wasn't, it was played straight, and a very enjoyable Edwardian soap it was, too. Later I found out that the creator, Jullian Fellowes, was the scriptwriter for Gosford Park, which figures. It does a reasonably good job of acknowledging this is a society on the brink of change - and that change is necessary - though you still get the benevolent patriarch, and the bark-is-worse-than-her-bite dowager duchess. Still, I appreciated such details as Violet's medical knowledge and the way it was used, or the season long subplot of Sybil supporting Gwen's effort to become a secretary instead of staying a housemaid all her life. And of course Anna and Mr. Bates were a pair of after my Anne and Captain Wentworth loving heart.
Working on a Watsonian level but annoying on a Doylist one if you let yourself think about it: yes, we do get two sympathetic progressive and left-leaning characters - the socialist chauffeur and Sybil - but it's still a fact that the two servants who keep pointing out "why should our lives revolve around people who hardly know our name?" and that all this part of the family talk is hogwash given the peope from upstairs can fire you at any moment are the two villains of the season. And one of them is the only gay character around (well, except for a one episode guest star).
All this being said: the characters all come across as three dimensional, villains included, and that's no mean thing given how formulaic a series covering such well-tread ground could get.
First of all, Zach continues to prove he's his parents' son and puts divide et impera to good use, playing the Jackie card to Alicia for the second time in a row with great skill. You go, boy. Mind you, what I was less certain about is what the show thought it was doing with Alicia's "slow it down" advice to begin with. I mean, Jackie has always been presented as prejudiced, but if the show wanted to me to believe Alicia's "no, of course it's not about race!" then it should have given her some sensible arguments, because Nisa has to be the nicest girlfriend-of-son ever, especially given Zach's previous involvement with Amber the teenage manipulator. Otoh, maybe the point was to make Alicia see she's behaving exactly as biased as Jackie?
On to the main plots. I'm not sure why Will still hasn't told anyone what Wendy told him re: being after Peter. Surely at least Elsbeth his lawyer should know? Not to mention that I doubt Cary and Dana are aware of that, so they could use the information for leverage there. I mean, obviously the real reason is "it's not time for the season finale yet", but still. That aside, I'm unsure whether Kalinda is genuinenly delivering the file on Will to Dana because of the Alicia related blackmail, or whether she's playing a long term game and something in the file, while giving Wendy a short term advantage re: Will, will eventually collapse Wendy's case. Either way, I appreciate the continuity of Alicia's signature from last week being used this week, because I love consequences. Alicia, for understandable reasons, but still, chose to listen to Diane and not expose David Lee's little trick with the signature, and now it has become part of the leverage against Lockhart & Gardner.
I am no computer expert, but I like the eventual solution to the whole "who is Mr. Bitcoin?" question. The immediate "it's a woman, not a man" twist I had expected, but not the "it's three geeks working together" truth, which makes much more sense in terms of how laywoman me thinks softwares are written and computer business is conducted these days.
Am I supposed to know the celebrity witness, was that another real life cameo? If so, the guy's fame hasn't made it across the Atlantic.
In other news, I felt like enjoying some costume drama, so I got around to watching the first season of Downton Abbey. (Before anyone mentions it in the comments: yes, I've heard the second season wasn't good by fannish osmosis.) For some reason I had assumed the show to be a spoof, Blackadder style, but it wasn't, it was played straight, and a very enjoyable Edwardian soap it was, too. Later I found out that the creator, Jullian Fellowes, was the scriptwriter for Gosford Park, which figures. It does a reasonably good job of acknowledging this is a society on the brink of change - and that change is necessary - though you still get the benevolent patriarch, and the bark-is-worse-than-her-bite dowager duchess. Still, I appreciated such details as Violet's medical knowledge and the way it was used, or the season long subplot of Sybil supporting Gwen's effort to become a secretary instead of staying a housemaid all her life. And of course Anna and Mr. Bates were a pair of after my Anne and Captain Wentworth loving heart.
Working on a Watsonian level but annoying on a Doylist one if you let yourself think about it: yes, we do get two sympathetic progressive and left-leaning characters - the socialist chauffeur and Sybil - but it's still a fact that the two servants who keep pointing out "why should our lives revolve around people who hardly know our name?" and that all this part of the family talk is hogwash given the peope from upstairs can fire you at any moment are the two villains of the season. And one of them is the only gay character around (well, except for a one episode guest star).
All this being said: the characters all come across as three dimensional, villains included, and that's no mean thing given how formulaic a series covering such well-tread ground could get.
no subject
Date: 2012-01-16 02:53 pm (UTC)It came out of left field but I thought that was intentional; Alicia's usually more sensible about rules for her kids.
no subject
Date: 2012-01-16 06:39 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2012-01-16 10:48 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2012-01-17 02:17 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2012-01-17 02:20 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2012-01-17 02:23 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2012-01-17 11:17 pm (UTC)Otoh, maybe the point was to make Alicia see she's behaving exactly as biased as Jackie?
That was my take on Alicia and internalised views. I do not believe she thought she was racist, and I'd concede her worry is not the only reason. But when is it ever? Talk about a 3pm wake-up call...
no subject
Date: 2012-01-18 12:36 am (UTC)I haven't watched s2, primarily because I feel like I already know what will happen.
However, Julian Fellowes has recently said his inspiration for television is 'The West Wing' - which, heh, I can see that, especially in the Anna/Bates relationship. (I find Bates entirely simpering though, which makes me wonder what I'd think of Josh and Donna were I to see the show with fresh eyes now.)
no subject
Date: 2012-01-18 03:26 pm (UTC)Hm, if we're to equate Anna and Bates to WW characters, I'd see Bates more as a Leo than as a Josh?
no subject
Date: 2012-01-18 11:54 pm (UTC)Speaking of Downton, one thing I did note was that this was Yet Another Period Drama that felt the need to include a male character of color, of at least some sympathy, who seduces a daughter and then dies at the end of the episode. (Both the Borgias and Downton have done this. The reboot!Upstairs, Downstairs had a twist by making the visiting character a Jewish refugee of the Holocaust who falls in love with the Indian manservant of the Dowager and then dies.) Very close to becoming a trope, if only I can find a proper third example.
no subject
Date: 2012-01-18 04:36 pm (UTC)/driveby, linked by Mona. :))