The Good Wife season 2 thread (1 Viewer)

[mattCR]

Michael J Fox is so compelling as an opposing attorney. What was so good here is that the played his involvement in this case completely straight, they have slowly moved his disability to the background to the point where it isn't mentioned and where as an audiene member I didn't even think about it until the very end. Instead, he was a fierce rival who put up a vigorous defense and we looked at him as a sharp attorney. I thought every scene he was in was fantastic, but I love what the root message of his character is: what winning is for me, and winning for you are two different things. In the end, his client had committed massive fraud. They had forced employees out to cover up this fraud and to give them time to pay back the pension fund while eliminating the burden on it by whittling away employees. Faced with this reality, Lockhart Gardner could have blown the whistle and got them arrested - which would have meant no money at all for their clients. Or they could accept a settlement and say nothing. They took the settlement, a large one. "We Beat you again" "Really?" Fox's character had successfully saved the company heads from facing prison time at a monetary cost probably much less then the cost of managing the pension, which they had planned anyway.

Meanwhile, the situation with Kalinda is going to hit a tipping point. The press obviously has the story, and the question is how devastating it is going to be to her. Kalinda has been Alicia's best friend since the incident, the reveal that she and Peter had a one night stand.. on the other hand, there may be part of Alicia that is already "out" of the marriage. She is "The Good Wife" as a mocking term, she's playing the part, she is already out of the marriage in her mind. This may hurt - but it won't be as devastating as the first reveal because at this point the damage is already done. Her investment in the relationship is low. Could it be the tipping point that makes her reconsider everything? Maybe.

Or would she be willing to cover for her friend - Kalinda - to prevent her from being hurt?

 

[Patrick_S]

[FONT= 'Arial'] It has been awhile since I have looked at this thread but I really need to reply to this quote. [/FONT]

[FONT= 'Arial']Quote: [/FONT]

[FONT= 'Arial']Originally Posted by [/FONT][FONT= 'Arial']Adam Lenhardt[/FONT][FONT= 'Arial'] [/FONT][FONT= 'Arial'] [/FONT][FONT= 'Arial'][/FONT]

[FONT= 'Arial']What Canning did was undeniably unethical, since it wasn't in the best interests of his real clients. But at the same time, his opinion is perfectly valid. We all pay the costs of outsized awards and settlements, in the forms of higher doctors' bills to cover astronomical malpractice insurance, higher lift tickets at ski resorts to cover liability costs, and good businesses sunk by the costs of excessive litigation.[/FONT]

What Canning was doing is and should be grounds for disbarment. Taking a case and then pretending to be an advocate for your clients all the while allowing your personal views to color how you are acting on behave of your stated clients is so far across the line there is no coming back. He is the stereotypical scum lawyer. If he wants to push his agenda then he needs to pick the side which are aligned with his views and work for them.

His speech at the end was laughable in that I’m sure if it was his wife who was left permanently sterile without children his ridiculously low settlement offer would hardly seem fair. If I recall correctly once you deducted the attorney fees and divided the money up the individual reward was far less then 50k per person.

By the way, without getting political, doctor bills are so high in the US as a result of the hard work done by the most successful trade union this nation as ever seen, the American Medical Association. A trade union that has worked tirelessly over the last 50 plus years to limit the number of doctors in the workforce those making it’s’ members services all the more valuable. We could do away with malpractice today and you wouldn’t see a decrease in your bills.

As for the comment about good businesses being sunk by litigation, name one. If given the time I can come up with thousands of bad businesses that have been sunk but I’m drawing a blank trying to think of one good company that was litigated out of existence for without cause.

 

[mattCR]

Originally Posted by Patrick_S [FONT= 'Arial'][/FONT]

[FONT= 'Arial']What Canning did was undeniably unethical, since it wasn't in the best interests of his real clients. But at the same time, his opinion is perfectly valid. We all pay the costs of outsized awards and settlements, in the forms of higher doctors' bills to cover astronomical malpractice insurance, higher lift tickets at ski resorts to cover liability costs, and good businesses sunk by the costs of excessive litigation.[/FONT]

What Canning was doing is and should be grounds for disbarment. Taking a case and then pretending to be an advocate for your clients all the while allowing your personal views to color how you are acting on behave of your stated clients is so far across the line there is no coming back. He is the stereotypical scum lawyer. If he wants to push his agenda then he needs to pick the side which are aligned with his views and work for them.

His speech at the end was laughable in that I’m sure if it was his wife who was left permanently sterile without children his ridiculously low settlement offer would hardly seem fair. If I recall correctly once you deducted the attorney fees and divided the money up the individual reward was far less then 50k per person.

It's the lie that gets us through the night. He basically wants to believe he's doing the right thing. So, he sees it the way he needs to color his worldview to get there. I don't think the show made any bones about that either or ever made an effort to portray him as a good guy. I think what it said is: this is how that character sees himself. I tend to prefer characters who rationalize their actions rather then characters who twirl their mustache and say "I AM evil!!" Because I find it all the more believable that people latch onto the lie that makes them the good guy rather then embrace themselves as evil.

 

[Adam Lenhardt]

Originally Posted by Patrick_S

His speech at the end was laughable in that I’m sure if it was his wife who was left permanently sterile without children his ridiculously low settlement offer would hardly seem fair.

I actually don't think he would. That's part of what makes him a fascinating character. Here's someone who lives with pain and suffering every day of his life. And yet his value for pain and suffering is far less than most of America's value for pain and suffering. He looks at the societal costs, and thinks they outweigh the personal costs of the individuals affected.


As for the rest of your post, it's impossible to get into it without getting political. I will say that shoehorning that American doctors (who incur large amounts of personal debt becoming doctors, in many cases work extremely long hours, and face malpractice insurance premiums that have increased at a rate far outpacing inflation) into an anti-union stereotype stretches credibility. I think Canning's larger point was that when jury awards become so cripplingly large, it incurs a legal strategy of settling even illegitimate lawsuits because the risk of losing at trial is simply too great. The balance of risks in the current system favors excessive litigation, because the risks for the defendant are far greater than the risks for the plaintiff. If the consequences of losing a lawsuit were as great for the party suing as for the party being sued, you'd see far less litigation.


None of which excuses an attorney working against the interests of his clients. As you say, if he believes in keeping settlement figures down, he should represent the parties with legitimate interests in keeping settlement figures down. Louis Canning is not a good person. But he's an interesting one, who makes for great television.

 

[DaveF]

What an interesting sequence of the last three episodes.


"Ham Sandwich", three ago, wherein Kalinda finally rid herself of Blake, was good, but felt a bit...well...ham-fisted But well performed as always.


"Jarvis Bowes" had me very confused throughout. I couldn't keep straight what version of what song was of interest and why. It was still bit muddled at the end, but fortunately focus had shifted enough for me to sort out the ending Eli's relationship with his daughter is fun TV, but I've never seen a relationship like that in the wild, so it feels very Hollywood made-up to me. Is my experience simply limited?


"Wrongful Termination" was Good Wife at its best, again. The previous Canning episode really turned me off of him, when we found out that he is despicable and traitorous. This episode redeemed him as a watchable character. His undercutting the "walk of shame" argument was infuriatingly well down. And his offer to Alicia paired with the call to the reporter on new allegations of a second mistress: What I read into Alicia's performance was a woman re-evaluating her ability to survive, comfortably and successfully, as a single mother. If she takes Canning's offer, she would all the better financially able to jettison Peter from her life and move on in building a new life.


And Wil's petulant ranting to the Judge Abernathy -- little short of "It's Not Fair!!!" when Canning brought out the previously discarded Rat video on the anti-depressant drug! Again, infuriatingly watchable TV.



And what of Cary and Kalinda? Cary is, has been, more deeply invested in his non-relationship with Kalinda than he should be. Foolish, infatuated young man. What painful lesson might he learn from damaging his own career for a woman who will give him nothing in return?

 

[Adam Lenhardt]

Originally Posted by DaveF

And what of Cary and Kalinda? Cary is, has been, more deeply invested in his non-relationship with Kalinda than he should be. Foolish, infatuated young man. What painful lesson might he learn from damaging his own career for a woman who will give him nothing in return?

And Cary's smart enough and aware enough to recognize that Kalinda is just using him. Kalinda's fond of Cary, but that's as far as it goes. One of Cary's redeeming qualities is that he is loyal to a fault to those who are loyal to him. If he'd known how far down the rabbit hole helping Kalinda would take him, he probably never would have started. But like most characters on the show, he's now too deep to do anything but sticking to his guns.

 

[DaveF]

Originally Posted by Adam Lenhardt


And Cary's smart enough and aware enough to recognize that Kalinda is just using him. Kalinda's fond of Cary, but that's as far as it goes. One of Cary's redeeming qualities is that he is loyal to a fault to those who are loyal to him. If he'd known how far down the rabbit hole helping Kalinda would take him, he probably never would have started. But like most characters on the show, he's now too deep to do anything but sticking to his guns.

Perhaps. But brilliant men are surprisingly easily blinded by their romantic desires.

 

[Adam Lenhardt]

Originally Posted by DaveF

Perhaps. But brilliant men are surprisingly easily blinded by their romantic desires.

That's what makes it so interesting; Cary isn't blinded, but he allowed himself to be sucked in anyway. He sees the cliff up ahead, but can't seem to find the brakes or turn the steering wheel.

 

[NeilO]

Repeat next week - that's frustrating. I thought Alicia was going to find out before the election, but having it happen by surprise on election night was extremely powerful.

 

[Adam Lenhardt]

Yeah, of all the ways they could have dropped that bombshell, that was about the most brutal. Alicia is always so stonefaced, so seeing her break into tears was even more powerful.


The Hugo Chavez stuff was a little too broad, though. They should have resisted the urge to have the president of Venezula pacing back and forth on the teleconference, providing all of this comedic relief. I did love Fred Thompson's send-up of himself, though.

 

[Adam Lenhardt]

Wrong thread.

 

[mattCR]

Sometimes, betrayal is a bit close to home. The previous affairs by Peter were the kind of thing that no matter how she denies it, Alicia was able to partially put behind her by saying to herself: "She was a bad person who went after a married man" which was affirmed with how the girl kept trying to sell her story, etc. She was able to view Peter as some big dolt who got roped in by a hot girl and couldn't let it go. Forgiveness is a difficult coin to earn, but she was hoping to put it behind her. But she knows exactly who Kalinda is. She can't easily put the card on her that Kalinda is a "bad person". Kalinda is her friend. She'll feel hurt and betrayed. Even though it happened before they became friends. At first, she'll feel betrayed and hurt by both of them, maybe Kalinda most. But where this ends up (my guess) is her realizing that the problem really never was the first girl, or Kalinda.. it was that Peter was actively chasing these girls. He wasn't some fawned upon guy who just stumbled into a bad situation. In the last season, there was talk that he had used pressure from his office to keep the relationship with the one girl going; that he had offered to clear her, protect her or do favors for her boss.. which Alicia blew off. Now, it's Kalinda. And she's going to hear much the same story.


And this is when we get into "what makes a marriage"... her trust with Peter is over. I think that's a big part of the tears; this is a private humiliation, it won't go any farther, but it tells her that he is a leopard who is likely to never change his spots.

The Venezuela thing was too broad, and it provided too easy of an exit for characters. It was the first real case that they've had that I thought was more for lark and entertainment then actually following a case through that was first line interesting.

 

[DaveF]

Interesting episode. Not as tight as usual, but the incredible characters and performances cover many sins. The ending... It kept us waiting. The interview I thought would be a disaster, but it was great! The election, maybe there will be an unexpected reversal, but it's a landslide! Where's Peter; what dies "indisposed" mean? Ah he's just out of the room, not repeating past hotel transgressions. Everything is going so well. Until Wylie shows up to explain there's no such person as Leela. I'm ready for S3.

 

[Adam Lenhardt]

Originally Posted by DaveF /forum/thread/304439/the-good-wife-season-2-thread/90#post_3803607

 

[NeilO]

Originally Posted by Adam Lenhardt

It felt like it could have been a season finale and quite a few people apparently thought it was. Most of us know that they are holding things for May sweeps.

 

[DaveF]

I get confused on what's got shows remaining. My wife and Tivo manage the viewing schedules now But each episode is so strongly done, I think each would be a masterful end to a season.

 

[Patrick Sun]

Most returning shows will air the final episodes of the season into the 3rd week of May due to sweeps.

 

[mattCR]

This show sometimes stuns me with how brilliantly layered the storylines are. Every story tonight really clicked; and there are few moments in a movie quite like the scene between Alicia and Peter's mom... that was classic material. Longer post later.

 

[Adam Lenhardt]

As fantastic as Martha Plimpton is on Raising Hope, one of my very favorite new shows of the season, the downside of her full-time gig there is that we get far less of the delightful Patti Nyholm here. She fulfills basically the same role as Louis Canning -- the brilliant lawyer of detestable people -- but Patti is an entirely different personality. She doesn't take anything any more seriously that she needs to, and she enjoys the game of law. I think she genuinely likes her foes at Lockhart & Gardner, and I think they like her. She breaks the rules, but she's upfront about breaking the rules and she admires the lawyer who's able to catch her. Even when her firm fires her, she looks at it as just another escalation of the game.


I was practically cheering Alicia cutting Peter off at the knees. It's something that I've been looking for basically since the pilot. Watching them move forward from there will be interesting. Is Peter going to go scorched earth against Alicia, even if it sacrifices his ambitions for higher office, or will he do what it takes to remain an active co-parent in his children's lives? I admired the heck out of the way Eli navigated it. His job is to put Peter's interests first and foremost, but he likes Alicia and trusts her more. He didn't push her because he knew that if she took such a drastic step, it had to have been warranted.

 

[mattCR]

I think what was bold about the whole moment with her and Peter was that they open up a huge door for the future. But I think this really paints Peter as a self-centered douche. The moment he was beaten, he dropped the charade of wanting to reconcile. He immediately started casting blame on her, making it out as though she had checked out of the marriage, even though she wasn't the one engaged in affairs. His entire attitude walking into the elevator was scorched earth. But could he politically survive going scorched earth against a wife who was wronged? I mean, would people blame her for walking out? And if she came out and said "I learned on election night he had another affair.." his political career would be doomed. Ask several senators how that works out.


I think the impact of that really was in the moment of her explaining to her kids. It wasn't a meeting we could just write off. Those kids are fully realized characters for the show, and when you had that scene, you knew how this would play with her daughters drive toward a more religious life; and how her son would react as well. We know enough about those characters that we care about how it makes them feel. I thought everything about that was a fantastic payoff. Very well done.