S01.E08: Chapter Eight

[Pop Tart]

1 hour ago, DoctorAtomic said:

I was slightly disappointed Mason didn't put Alice on the stand because she could have clearly refuted the 'confession' in the jail that the guard woman lied about, and he could have shown that the DA (whether true or not) was willing to let witnesses purger themselves to get the conviction. 

I actually would have liked to see Alice on the stand even more than Ennis just because I think Alice would have made mincemeat of Barnes when he tried to cross-examine her. Though I didn't think the church part of the plot was a total nothing, I was kind of surprised at the way Alice as a character just kind of faded away. I get that Perry probably wouldn't call her to testify given the whole resurrection event, but still I wanted it. 

There were plot holes but I loved this ending. I thought a hung jury was the exact right response because while yes, Barnes' case was nothing but smoke and mirrors, to this jury of mostly men and righteous women of the 30s? Emily cheating on her husband with the man who was part of the kidnap plot? That is all they needed to convict. The ground shifted a little with Perry revealing the money-woes at the church, Emily's testimony, and Perry's closing argument, something I think Barnes was trying to ignore (thus his not changing his closing argument and hammering on Emily's adultery). But in reality, with the way the crime was played in the press, the ways in which everyone already had Emily convicted before the trial even began, her own waffling on her role and guilt, there is no way a jury of that time period would acquit absent a confession on the stand (which never happens, thank you very much Ham Burger!).

I didn't have as much of a problem with Perry bribing a juror as others did because this was his first case and one that would mean death by hanging for his client if he lost? Totally got his desperation to save her at any cost. And when an entire system of justice on the other side, cops and DA is corrupt? It made sense. I think this will be his first and only time doing this since he found out that his legal efforts had already changed the minds of two other jurors who weren't bribed. 

In the PM books he often skirts the law and outright breaks it when it's in service to saving an innocent client. Agreed it was never as serious as bribing a juror, but it was a thing in a lot of the books. It's been years since I read them (and I read them all), but I don't remember him being so big on the glory of the law as an institution. He was more concerned with JUSTICE for his client. It was very much about what's right vs what's legal in all of his efforts. That said he was an extremely good lawyer, so most of his efforts twisted and manipulated the law, but stayed just thisclose to legal. 

I liked the ending snippets that showed how everyone was moving on from the trial and how Mason and Associates was being formed. And now I can't wait (and it's going to be a long wait) for season two to see Perry and Della and Paul in action.

 

 

[sistermagpie]

24 minutes ago, Sir RaiderDuck OMS said:

You give compelling legal and logical points. But if Emily blurts out "My son's alive! He's sitting right there! Praise be to God Almighty!", the jury's going to hear that, no matter how much the judge admonishes them to ignore it and/or yells at Emily for saying it. He can't unring a bell. California juries are infamous for ignoring facts and law in high-profile cases and going with emotions instead, and you only need one juror who thinks the presence of a living "Charlie" constitutes reasonable doubt. Any retrial of this case is likely to be a loser for the prosecution, especially given how flimsy their case was in the first place.

Bottom line is that we'll have to agree to disagree, and I suspect we've each given considerably more thought to this than the writers did.

I just can't see it not backfiring even if it got that far. First, it actually is pretty easy to prove he's not Charlie since there were pictures of Charlie and even in b&w it seemed like you could see they were different children, especially given that Charlie's eyes were not brown. Not only that, but if they were really bringing that into a court (which I suspect they wouldn't be able to do), you could track down where that baby came from and it would probably turn out to be some poor, possibly non-white woman somewhere or something and it would be a mess. Emily herself doesn't really believe that kid is Charlie, so it would come across like a lie.

The fact that the woman was now claiming some other random kid was her own, to me, would just make her look worse. At best she'd be mentally unfit and committed. At worst she cares so little about her son she thinks replacing him is the same as him not being dead. Anybody who thought it was possible would probably be rejected at jury selection anyway, I'd imagine.

[Nampara]

1 hour ago, Sir RaiderDuck OMS said:

Any retrial of this case is likely to be a loser for the prosecution, especially given how flimsy their case was in the first place.

That much is true. But it's not because of the prosecution's concern that the alleged resurrection could somehow be brought up at trial. It's because of the probable change in the public's mood regarding the case and Emily as the defendant (outrage replaced by skepticism and sympathy), worry about wasting resources (murder trials are expensive), political calculations at the DA's office (no one wants to be associated with a losing cause), and, as you note, a clear demonstration in hand that the evidence the DA has at his disposal is insufficient to secure a conviction.

[BingeyKohan]

We have people here on the thread saying Sister Alice didn't have any foreknowledge of her mother's plan to steer the car away from the cemetery and find a baby in the street. A view I shared, in the moment, during that episode. But then at the end of the finale with Perry challenges Alice about resurrecting the baby, Alice says, "I did, didn't I?" What did she mean by that, if we think she disavowed her mother's scheme? That she is basically acquiescing to the idea that Emily accepts the new baby as hers, so on some 'spiritual' level she did bring Charlie back? Or is she just sort of facetiously saying, 'well, we both know I didn't, but a good number of my mother's new flock believes I did, so let's go with their version.'? (I found the character very compelling and unconventional but I didn't think her closing scene served her very well.) I guess her version of 'there's what's legal, and there's what's right' is 'there's what true and there's what feels true.' (and that's what faith is?) I'm just trying to spin that exchange into something more meaningful.

[cardigirl]

1 hour ago, Penman61 said:

I don't understand why every fan of this show isn't revolting against PERRY BRIBING A JUROR.

I mean...that's in a whole other league of corruption. It means Perry cares more about outcome than the process/institutions, and while those two are always in tension...BRIBING A JUROR just shortcuts all those debates to completely, corrosively, corrupt the process. Even bribing a judge is less corrupt.

(And I enjoyed the show very much. But Perry Mason BRIBED A JUROR, y'all.)

ETA: Did not see DoubleUTeeF's nearly simultaneous post before I posted this one, I swear.

There's what's legal and there's what's right. He was fighting for a woman's life y'all!

[shapeshifter]

26 minutes ago, BingeyKohan said:

We have people here on the thread saying Sister Alice didn't have any foreknowledge of her mother's plan to steer the car away from the cemetery and find a baby in the street. A view I shared, in the moment, during that episode. But then at the end of the finale with Perry challenges Alice about resurrecting the baby, Alice says, "I did, didn't I?" What did she mean by that, if we think she disavowed her mother's scheme? That she is basically acquiescing to the idea that Emily accepts the new baby as hers, so on some 'spiritual' level she did bring Charlie back? Or is she just sort of facetiously saying, 'well, we both know I didn't, but a good number of my mother's new flock believes I did, so let's go with their version.'? (I found the character very compelling and unconventional but I didn't think her closing scene served her very well.) I guess her version of 'there's what's legal, and there's what's right' is 'there's what true and there's what feels true.' (and that's what faith is?) I'm just trying to spin that exchange into something more meaningful.

@BingeyKohan, I appreciate your "more meaningful" explanation of Alice's final scene. I wish you or someone like you was in the writers' room so that Perry would have said those words to Alice ("there's what true and there's what feels true"). It would have nailed the finale for me. But I guess they were going without much meaningfulness, which I don't recall the old black & white Perry Mason episodes having. But hey, if they're shooting in color, it seems they might as well also add a little depth to the dialogue while they're at it.  

[tennisgurl]

There was a lot to like about this series, and about its ending. The acting was really great all around, even from the minor characters, I really like seeing the beginning of the Perry Mason practice (especially the return of the music) with Perry, Paul, and Della, I am really glad that Pete made it out alright and that he is going to hopefully keep showing up, and I enjoyed the mystery in general, they did a good job with the noir vibes all throughout and I was engaged for the whole run. As a Perry Mason prequel, its certainly an interesting idea to explore. 

That all being said, I think some things could have been handled better. Everything with the church ended up being kind of superfluous to the general story, both in plot and themes. They at times seemed to want to say something about the nature of faith in the face of cruelty and injustice, and there were all these hints about the corruption of the church and that having something to do with Charlie, but they never really went anywhere with discussions about faith, and the church itself was basically a red herring. Yeah the church was corrupt, but that didn't have much to do with the kidnapping and killing itself, and as much as I love Tatiana Maslany, and she was as good here as ever, Sister Alice and her whole story ended up not really having much to do with anything, and the whole church was more of a sideshow with some period piece color, plus I guess gave an ending to Emily. Speaking of Emily, that was kind of a weird ending for her, I guess she decided that she just wanted a baby, even if it was obviously a replacement (that kid didn't even look like Charlie at all) and that she was either so broken or so desperate for love that she decided to go along with Birdies new revival/obvious scam as long as she has some variation of "Charlie". That poor kid and his apparent future as a sideshow attraction/replacement child. 

I laughed at realizing that the big Perry Mason confession moment was just a hypothetical (with Berger pointing out how unrealistic it was) but I do think that the case needed a bit more of a climax. The jury was hung, Ennis was killed to tie up lose ends, and thats kind of just that. It doesn't help that Barns case ended up being absolutely terrible, and his whole argument was basically "this woman is guilty of sluttiness in the first degree!" without any real evidence or anything that she was actually involved in Charlies kidnapping or murder. By the end, he wasn't even really trying to prove that Emily was involved in the actual crime, it was like he was trying to get her arrested for having an affair. When Perry made his big speech at the end about how the jury was being emotionally manipulated instead of being presented with facts, Barns basically just agreed that that was totally what he was doing, and has he mentioned lately that Emily is a big skank lately? He was hardly even trying. I guess he was just hoping that sexism would get him a win, and considering how many jurors voted in favor of conviction on such a shaky half assed case, I guess he was right? Berger is going to eat this loser alive if they ever go head to head for the DA job. 

As far as characters, I think that Perry was the best developed (which is probably good considering he is the main character) and I thought his development from haunted hard drinking PI stuck in a massive uncaring rut to passionate and marginally responsible lawyer* who cares deeply about his clients was well done, and while I thought that there journeys were a bit less well defined, I thought that Paul and Pete has pretty solid arcs too, although I wanted to see more of how Pete decided to leave Perry and join Berger (was he mad at Perry for bribing the juror?) but I think I wanted more from Sister Alice and Della. I feel like I still dont totally get what Sister Alice's deal was, and while I glad she got away from Birdie and seems to have found peace, and I found her to be fascinating, I feel like she ended up being really underused. I really like Della, but she didn't really get any kind of arc, she started out perfect and always right and ended perfect and always right, but is now going to be a lawyer because obviously she is. She was almost too perfect, especially in a cast of realistically flawed characters, I hope that in the second season we can see more conflict with her and see some more character development. I like Hazel, I hope that she sticks around. 

Glad that Perry made peace with Lupe, I thought she was an interesting character and I would be happy to see her again. 

The case itself turned out to be pretty straightforward, and I admit I was waiting for a twist even when it was clear there wasn't one. In general, I think the writing of the mystery could have been a lot more interesting, it felt like we ended up with a lot of red herrings and plot cul-de-sacs, and while I was interested the whole time and I think the case basically all made sense, I think I just wanted more. 

Really, the writing turned out to be one of the weaker aspects of the show, while the directing, the set and costumes, and most of all the acting, really made the show as good as it turned out to be. It wasn't horrible, but I think it could have been a lot tighter, especially considering we started with so much stuff (the church, Perry's time in the war, Perry's son and ex wife, his job working on Hollywood, Paul trying to deal with the corrupt cops, Matthew in general and his father, Emily's affair, the corruption in the DAs office) that ended up not really getting resolved, or resolved really quickly and easily. I hope that, in season two, which I will certainly watch, they manage to tighten things up. 

*The only hole in his development was him apparently bribing a juror, which I think was taking him back several steps backwards, and if he did do something like that, I would have liked to see him actually talk about why he did it, and tie it into his ideas about doing what he feels needs doing for a greater justice, even if its against the rules. Like his mercy killings in the war or his questionable actions during the trail, maybe that he knew that Emily was innocent so he would do anything to keep her out of jail, even bride a jury. That would have been consistent at least. I just wanted to hear more of his thought process I think. 

Edited August 10, 2020 by tennisgurl

[LoveLeigh]

I realize many here loved this series, and I am happy because during these times a distraction is great. I too looked forward to it every week, week after week. But, if I step back and really again look at it objectively, what was so great about it? 

The plot was basic and bland. And as it moved along week after week, there were no shocks or surprises. And the final episode was dull. 

I think the viewers were played. Did I think there would be a "resurrection?" No. I understand why the whole Sister subplot had to be included: the church was the reason for the kidnapping. But all of Sister's games and nonsense was just filler. There was no big shocker regarding Sister's mother. And Emily was a liar. (Remember when she told her husband: "It wasn't like that?") I knew Emily was not guilty but I never liked her. 

Why were 8 chapters needed? This could have been done in a two hour made for HBO movie. For me, this series was like cotton candy: nothing of real substance to think about after the entire series is viewed. 

[Pike Ludwell]

23 minutes ago, DakotaLavender said:

I think the viewers were played. Did I think there would be a "resurrection?" No. I understand why the whole Sister subplot had to be included: the church was the reason for the kidnapping. But all of Sister's games and nonsense was just filler. There was no big shocker regarding Sister's mother. And Emily was a liar. (Remember when she told her husband: "It wasn't like that?") I knew Emily was not guilty but I never liked her.

I don't like the way Perry was portrayed. I haven't read the books and haven't watched the original show in decades, but I don't recall Perry being portrayed as such an unlikable character. The way he treated everyone, especially Pete and Della was terrible. At least with Della he apologized. He was such a moody guy, nearly always in a sour mood and constantly dark and brooding.

 

Edited August 10, 2020 by Pike Ludwell

[BC4ME]

As others have said, I thought the writing was not up to par compared with other aspects of the show. You'd think in a production like this, they could have some objective people who would watch the entire project and say, hey, this doesn't add up, or tie in, or fit the plot or something for the many areas this applied. As much of this type of thing as there was to complain about, it would be hard to attribute it all to poor editing. They need to do a better job with the writing next season. While I was watching, there were a lot of things I didn't understand or didn't make sense. At first I thought I just missed something or wasn't paying enough attention. But reading here tells me they just didn't make some important things obvious enough. You don't have to overstate to make something clear if the viewer is paying attention.

I actually thought Pete bribed the juror by himself not because Perry asked him to but I guess I was wrong. I think the reason I thought this was it was too inconsistent with the character of Perry, even though he'd done some things not exactly by the books. This was just on another level imo. Like some others have stated, it really bothered me.

One thing I haven't seen brought up is Sister Alice's comment about Perry coming to find her because he was lonely, like they had had some sort of lead up to a personal attraction. Maybe I missed it but I thought that came out of the blue. It was kind of a weird scene in a lot of ways but by the time it happened I was worried they weren't even going to address what happened to her at all so I guess it was better than nothing. I didn't get any answers wrt her actual beliefs. I mean, she was having seizures and collapsing and such. All that just disappears as she finds a waitress job and goes to a church to pray sometimes? Again, clumsy at best.

That trial was pretty crazy. Living in this century, it can be hard to appreciate how bad some things were back then. We saw some things we were expecting, like racism and misogyny. But corruption and a skewed justice system were also worse. I was recently reading about Fatty Arbuckle, an actor from the 1920s who was charged in a woman's death. He was tried three times for this crime; twice there was a mistrial and finally he was acquitted. Despite the fact that there was very credible evidence that he committed no crime, public opinion turned against him, his career was ruined and to this day many people only remember what he was accused of, not the actual facts. I think trials back then were often driven by public opinion and emotion and not the truth.

I'm old enough to remember the original Perry Mason but I was a kid. I do remember the confessions on the stand nearly every time. His juries must've felt useless. I wonder how much they're going to stick to the original format going forward. I enjoyed the original music at the end.  I actually enjoyed the show on the whole, even though I wouldn't have understood what was going on as much without you guys' help.    

[Sir RaiderDuck OMS]

11 minutes ago, Pike Ludwell said:

I don't like the way Perry was portrayed. I haven't read the books and haven't watched the original show in decades, but I don't recall Perry being portrayed as such an unlikable character. The way he treated everyone, especially Pete and Della was terrible. At least with Della he apologized. He was such a moody guy, nearly always in a sour mood and constantly dark and brooding.

The thing that stuck with me, having read a bunch of Perry Mason novels back in the day, was Paul Drake being presented as part of Perry's firm at the end. In the books, he wasn't. He ran the Drake Detective Agency; whilst Perry used him in almost every case and the two were friends, the novels made it a point that they ran separate businesses.

[sistermagpie]

35 minutes ago, DakotaLavender said:

I realize many here loved this series, and I am happy because during these times a distraction is great. I too looked forward to it every week, week after week. But, if I step back and really again look at it objectively, what was so great about it? 

The acting and therefore the characters. Seriously, that's what I tuned in for and why I'm optimistic about a second season that has a better story. There's too much good in it to overpower the bad. YMMV.

4 minutes ago, Sir RaiderDuck OMS said:

The thing that stuck with me, having read a bunch of Perry Mason novels back in the day, was Paul Drake being presented as part of Perry's firm at the end. In the books, he wasn't. He ran the Drake Detective Agency; whilst Perry used him in almost every case and the two were friends, the novels made it a point that they ran separate businesses.

Don't they still? I thought the idea was that as a private detective Paul could work for whoever he wanted and he just knew that Perry was going to be a regular client so he could go out on his own. That's what Perry and Pete were already doing. I know Pete said he was off to work with Burger, but I figured that wasn't a case of there being one job, either for Berger or Perry. It was more just that Pete was making clear he wasn't going to be understood to be one of Perry's go-to detectives, but he would be Burger's.

[Chicago Redshirt]

13 hours ago, Cardie said:

Once Burger’s investigation showed that the ransom ended up on the church’s books, there would be way too much reasonable doubt to convict Emily. 

But I don't think Burger's investigation could show that the ransom money ended up in the church's books, nor was it designed to..

We assume that the bad guys took most of the money and did various things with it. Even assuming that the bulk of the money did bring the church back to something close to financial solvency, there would be no way to prove that it was from the ransom. And Burger doesn't really have any interest in demonstrating that the money would have been ransom-related. His only interest is a) getting convictions for the underlying financial fraud b) making himself look good so he can position himself to run to be the D.A.

6 hours ago, sacrebleu said:

Stephen Root was so slimy and hateable-- it was quite impressive. 

I didnt mind the hung jury-- because a rookie lawyer -- in his first case-- outsmarting a corrupt DA would be pretty un-noir-like. The mistrial was really the best Mason could hope for, and he knew it, ergo the bribe.

Here's the thing, though: As slimy as Barnes was, there were little that he did to break the law.

He depended on Ennis and Holcomb, who did break the law. But I don't think there was any real indication that Barnes knew about or condoned it (beyond knowing that the cops illegally tried to get a confession out of Emily).

He blackmailed E.B. and ultimately blackmailed him into suicide. But I don't think we saw anything to confirm E.B.'s suspicion that Barnes knew there were problems with the case.

He did a couple dick moves with discovery, first not turning over everything and then dumping all sorts of unrelated materials.

By contrast, Perry does break the law in bribing a juror. (In addition to his own dick moves with discovery).

If our protagonist is just as corrupt as the antagonist or more, I'm not seeing why we should root for him.

4 hours ago, Inquisitionist said:

If this were named anything other than Perry Mason, would people care as much?  

That is a question I've often asked myself. If this were Mason Perry, would I have given as much leeway to the show? Sometimes, my personal answer is yes, sometimes no. I would still watch, I think, a show about a neophyte P.I. turned attorney who bumbles his way through his first murder case, but my expectations would be a lot different.

4 hours ago, nuraman00 said:

How exactly did they track down where Sister Alice now worked? 

Paul is just that good. 🙂

4 hours ago, nuraman00 said:

Why did Hamilton Burger get back into law?  I thought when he was introduced in episode 5, he said he was retired.

 

But now he is the DA?

I don't think he said he was retired. I think he said he was a deputy district attorney, and that his office was next to/underneath Barnes's. He gave his rationale for helping as wanting to position himself to run for D.A. I am operating under the assumption that when they show his trial with the church, he is still a deputy district attorney, although Pete's saying that he was going to work for Burger might mean that he has in fact become the head D.A.

4 hours ago, Pike Ludwell said:

This season he didn't get a confession on the stand - that will come next season. Here, he had to win it through a dynamite closing. 

Dynamite is overstating things. I'd give it a C+/B- at best.

3 hours ago, Xantar said:

I think a large part of the disappointment for me is how little all the sleuthing and legal maneuvering really mattered. The theft of the body? Didn't really come into play. The dental retainer? Perry refused to use it and thus demonstrated that he had honor, and maybe that's what convinced Paul Drake to go work for him. But it therefore had no legal consequence. Tracing the church elder? He gave Pete the slip and got murdered, so that didn't pan out either. Figuring out that the baby died due to feeding from an addicted woman? That also didn't get introduced into the trial.

Basically, the only helpful thing Perry Mason & Associates did was uncover the church's finances, and that was genuinely significant to the case. But that's it. There was nothing clever about it. Perry failed to land any hits on the witness testimony, and arguably putting Emily on the stand didn't do much either. Fortunately, the prosecution's case was so weak that all Perry had to do was give a closing summary in which he reminds the jurors that the DA failed to meet his burden of proof. 

That's it? I realize that having Perry pull off some brilliant last minute legal stunt that saves the day on his first case would have been unrealistic, but these are highly paid writers we are talking about here. They couldn't come up with anything better than that?

That things were found out that could not get into evidence is, it seems to me, a feature and not a bug of this version of Perry Mason, which seems very cynical about trials being a search for truth or justice.

 

[cardigirl]

So, the DA, one of the most crooked people portrayed in the show, could put on a showtrial, suppress evidence, and try to get an innocent woman convicted of murder based on nothing but the fact that she had an affair with one of the kidnappers (was she actually set up?), and the DA could also trap EB and keep him from looking for the 4th man by threatening to expose him, leading to EB's suicide, but Perry, Perry disappoints us all by choosing to bribe a juror, just in case his heartfelt summation about how the DA actually proved NOTHING doesn't work?  

Okay, then. 

Edited August 10, 2020 by cardigirl

[Sir RaiderDuck OMS]

2 minutes ago, sistermagpie said:

Don't they still? I thought the idea was that as a private detective Paul could work for whoever he wanted and he just knew that Perry was going to be a regular client so he could go out on his own. That's what Perry and Pete were already doing. I know Pete said he was off to work with Burger, but I figured that wasn't a case of there being one job, either for Berger or Perry. It was more just that Pete was making clear he wasn't going to be understood to be one of Perry's go-to detectives, but he would be Burger's.

In the novels, Paul was never there when the client walked through the door. The client would come in, lay out their problems for Perry and Della, and then Perry would tell Della "I need you to call Paul Drake at the Drake Detective Agency and ask him to check out such-and-such." Paul didn't spend his time hanging around Perry's office waiting for a murder suspect to show up.

[sistermagpie]

3 minutes ago, cardigirl said:

So, the DA, one of the most crooked people portrayed in the show, could put on a showtrial, suppress evidence, and try to get an innocent woman convicted of murder based on nothing but the fact that she had an affair with one of the kidnappers (was she actually set up?) and the DA could also trap EB and keep him from looking for the 4th man by threatening to expose him leading to EB's suicide, but Perry, Perry disappoints us all by chosing to bribe a juror, just in case his heartfelt summation about how the DA actually proved NOTHING doesn't work?  

Okay, then. 

They didn't set her up, because they didn't intend for Charlie to be killed.

Re: Perry's bribing the jury I would say, well, yes! Of course it doesn't make him worse than the DA as a person. We know his intentions are better. But bribing a jury poisons the whole well. Not to mention the whole point of the series. It doesn't matter if he's a good lawyer if he's bribed someone on the jury to ensure a mistrial. I'm not bothered that Emily got off, especially since we know that wasn't the only vote so yes, Perry did his job well, but it's a really unfortunate thing to put in Perry's pocket, imo.

3 minutes ago, Sir RaiderDuck OMS said:

In the novels, Paul was never there when the client walked through the door. The client would come in, lay out their problems for Perry and Della, and then Perry would tell Della "I need you to call Paul Drake at the Drake Detective Agency and ask him to check out such-and-such." Paul didn't spend his time hanging around Perry's office waiting for a murder suspect to show up.

Sure, but on this day Paul was there giving Perry expenses for a job he did and they were all talking when the client came in. I would hope, at least that they're not planning to have Paul just hanging around Perry's office hoping somebody walks in. If nothing else, I would think you'd want Paul open to attract clients on his own, just as you'd want Della or Hazel to be able to do that. Or Pete. It would seem bizarre to me to expect a small law firm whose bread and butter is wills and mortgages, as Della said, while also supporting a detective full-time without him being an independent detective like Perry and Pete.

[cardigirl]

I meant "set her up" by George not really in love with her, but only using her as a way to get close to the money.  Emily mentions, when she's on the stand, that she now realizes that it wasn't real. 

Edited August 10, 2020 by cardigirl

[shapeshifter]

1 hour ago, tennisgurl said:

...Barns case ended up being absolutely terrible, and his whole argument was basically "this woman is guilty of sluttiness on the first degree!"...

LOL, @tennisgurl, I love that after all was said and done Emily was "guilty of sluttiness in the first degree!"

 

10 minutes ago, cardigirl said:

So, the DA, one of the most crooked people portrayed in the show, could put on a showtrial, suppress evidence, and try to get an innocent woman convicted of murder based on nothing but the fact that she had an affair with one of the kidnappers (was she actually set up?) and the DA could also trap EB and keep him from looking for the 4th man by threatening to expose him leading to EB's suicide, but Perry, Perry disappoints us all by chosing to bribe a juror, just in case his heartfelt summation about how the DA actually proved NOTHING doesn't work?  

Okay, then. 

Hey, @cardigirl, I'm on your team too. And after having my mind refreshed about some of the season details by reading @tennisgurl's "summation" 😉 I think at least you and I can agree that not only was Perry's bribe ultimately in the interest of justice in an otherwise unjust situation, but it is consistent with his character as we saw when he shot dying soldiers to end their misery. Without the bribe, I see no reason to have this version of Perry Mason shown committing mercy killings on the battlefield. 

[paigow]

Pete is jealous AND a racist AND justifiably mad at Perry. He is going to be an employee of the D.A. not a freelance P.I.

[LoveLeigh]

25 minutes ago, sistermagpie said:

The acting and therefore the characters. Seriously, that's what I tuned in for and why I'm optimistic about a second season that has a better story. There's too much good in it to overpower the bad. YMMV.

This is always a bone of contention for me. I never watch anything to analyze or admire the acting. I also never get involved in character studies. I become engaged in every show I watch because of the plot and story. That's it. If the story is good, I am in regardless of how great or poor the acting is. 

I suppose we are all different... 

[Blakeston]

3 hours ago, sistermagpie said:

I think we can assume a lot happened that we didn't see. Since the DA was harping on how her actions caused Charlie's death in his summation, which was what she was really confessing, it seems like his case wasn't resting on the matron's statement.

Barnes mentioned Emily's "confession" at the end of his closing, as though it was the clincher for the prosecution.

We saw Perry say that he didn't want to bother with the prison matron's testimony (because that was "what Barnes wanted," or something to that effect), so I think the writers wanted us to believe that he never addressed it.

I don't know how appeals worked back then, but nowadays I'd think that if she was convicted, she might be able to get a new trial based on lack of adequate counsel after a decision like that.

[Chicago Redshirt]

16 minutes ago, cardigirl said:

So, the DA, one of the most crooked people portrayed in the show, could put on a showtrial, suppress evidence, and try to get an innocent woman convicted of murder based on nothing but the fact that she had an affair with one of the kidnappers (was she actually set up?), and the DA could also trap EB and keep him from looking for the 4th man by threatening to expose him, leading to EB's suicide, but Perry, Perry disappoints us all by chosing to bribe a juror, just in case his heartfelt summation about how the DA actually proved NOTHING doesn't work?  

Okay, then. 

Barnes is not any more crooked than Perry is. Both played evidence games. There's no evidence that Barnes believes anything other than Emily is guilty and that he wants to get the W to fuel his aspirations for higher office. 

D.A. Barnes -- as far as we know -- truly believes that Emily is guilty. She had motive, means and opportunity. The notion that somebody could walk into her house, grab Charlie while she was there without her noticing seems a  stretch., even if it is what happened He has Emily confessing to her priest (supposedly -- we know that the matron isn't telling the truth about the confession, but we don't know a. if the matron is deliberately lying, misremembering, etc. or b. if Barnes knows). He has Emily pleading "guilty" as another quasi-confession.

Barnes's bending the rules and outright committing the crime of extorting E.B. into pleading Emily out shouldn't get excused because he thinks he is doing what's right, just like Perry's bending rules and committing the crime of bribing a juror should not be excused. Perry's supposed to be better than Barnes, and well, he's not. He's arguably  worse. 

For that matter, there is no proof that Emily is factually innocent. Yes, in our system of justice, she deserves the benefit of the doubt and there is reasonable doubt in this case. 

But we cannot say for sure that she did not know that George was going to kidnap her son and get ransom money, or that she didn't want to run away with him. We can say pretty much for sure there was a conspiracy to ransom Charlie to cover the church's debts, but nothing about that makes it impossible or even improbable that George hadn't brought Emily into the kidnapping plot and that she helped out in order to run away with him.

[Chicago Redshirt]

17 minutes ago, cardigirl said:

I meant "set her up" by George not really in love with her, but only using her as a way to get close to the money.  Emily mentions, when she's on the stand, that she now realizes that it wasn't real. 

One of the frustrating things in retrospect is that we didn't ever really have a lot of the underlying aspects of the case firmly established.

We just would be guessing if George really cared for Emily, and somewhat vice versa. We know Emily wrote mushy letters to George, but we know nothing of what George wrote to Emily. We know thanks to flashbacks that they did it in a no-tell (until subpoenaed) motel. But I don't think we know for sure how long the affair was, how much it predated the kidnapping, if George knew about the Baggerly/Dodson connection going into it or if he purely found out through Emily and then tried to leverage the affair for the church's finances, or indeed if the theory of George trying to get money so that he and Emily could run away (with or without her knowledge) was true.

George is pretty undeveloped.

[cardigirl]

21 minutes ago, Chicago Redshirt said:

Barnes is not any more crooked than Perry is. Both played evidence games. There's no evidence that Barnes believes anything other than Emily is guilty and that he wants to get the W to fuel his aspirations for higher office. 

D.A. Barnes -- as far as we know -- truly believes that Emily is guilty. She had motive, means and opportunity. The notion that somebody could walk into her house, grab Charlie while she was there without her noticing seems a  stretch., even if it is what happened He has Emily confessing to her priest (supposedly -- we know that the matron isn't telling the truth about the confession, but we don't know a. if the matron is deliberately lying, misremembering, etc. or b. if Barnes knows). He has Emily pleading "guilty" as another quasi-confession.

Barnes's bending the rules and outright committing the crime of extorting E.B. into pleading Emily out shouldn't get excused because he thinks he is doing what's right, just like Perry's bending rules and committing the crime of bribing a juror should not be excused. Perry's supposed to be better than Barnes, and well, he's not. He's arguably  worse. 

For that matter, there is no proof that Emily is factually innocent. Yes, in our system of justice, she deserves the benefit of the doubt and there is reasonable doubt in this case. 

But we cannot say for sure that she did not know that George was going to kidnap her son and get ransom money, or that she didn't want to run away with him. We can say pretty much for sure there was a conspiracy to ransom Charlie to cover the church's debts, but nothing about that makes it impossible or even improbable that George hadn't brought Emily into the kidnapping plot and that she helped out in order to run away with him.

Until Perry turned Barnes' eye upon Emily, Barnes thought Matthew Dodson was guilty. Barnes was far worse than Perry, in my opinion because Barnes was not interested in justice, only in a case he thought he could win. Truth be damned. 

And I think Perry believed Emily was guilty, initially, until Della set him straight about adultery not being equal to murder.  I liked the juxtaposition in the series of women vs. men and how little power women really had at that time. Della found a way to exert some power over the men in her life, by being smarter than they were, but the show did a great job of menacing the women.  Even in the church, the Elders were ranged in power against Mother and Sister Alice.

Edited August 10, 2020 by cardigirl

[DoctorAtomic]

4 hours ago, nuraman00 said:

When Della is reviewing which activities she will do for Mason, she says answering calls, for now, until they can "hire a girl".

But snipped at Mason saying 'lady lawyer.' 

 

4 hours ago, DoubleUTeeEff said:

I'm glad Ennis got his comeuppance but it was a little unsatisfying that his partner is still in a position of power.

I think you need the character for a second season though. You have an established corrupt cop in all sorts of crime. 

4 hours ago, Blakeston said:

I have a hard time believing that Drake would be able to righteously resign and give the dirty money back without the police trying to kill him.

That could be an ongoing plot. However, he was most concerned about Ennis, who is out of the picture. 

 

4 hours ago, sistermagpie said:

Yes, it seems like they wanted to stick with the whole "everybody has to play a little dirty" without realizing that this particular thing invalidates everything we're rooting for.

Breaking in to match the dentures or the second secret autopsy is playing dirty sometimes. I don't know why they took it to the level of bribery. 

[sistermagpie]

25 minutes ago, cardigirl said:

I meant "set her up" by George not really in love with her, but only using her as a way to get close to the money.  Emily mentions, when she's on the stand, that she now realizes that it wasn't real. 

Oh! Yes sorry. They definitely set her up. They got close to the money and he also kept her on the phone while they did the kidnapping.

14 minutes ago, DakotaLavender said:

This is always a bone of contention for me. I never watch anything to analyze or admire the acting. I also never get involved in character studies. I become engaged in every show I watch because of the plot and story. That's it. If the story is good, I am in regardless of how great or poor the acting is. 

Just one thing I'd correct here is to say I'm not admiring the acting--if I was admiring the acting I wouldn't be engaged with the characters! But the actors make me want to spend more time with these characters and see them in a better plot, so I'm in to see where they go. Analysis, okay it's true, I do love to analyze, but I can analyze things I think are bad too. I enjoyed this show a lot, even while thinking it was flawed.

11 minutes ago, Blakeston said:

Barnes mentioned Emily's "confession" at the end of his closing, as though it was the clincher for the prosecution.

We saw Perry say that he didn't want to bother with the prison matron's testimony (because that was "what Barnes wanted," or something to that effect), so I think the writers wanted us to believe that he never addressed it.

I don't know how appeals worked back then, but nowadays I'd think that if she was convicted, she might be able to get a new trial based on lack of adequate counsel after a decision like that.

So do you mean that he didn't put Sister Alice on the stand to refute what the matron said? Because there I would agree, yes, that's a big hole. How could you not do that when there was another witness?

I just meant it seemed clear that Emily did get a chance to say that she had never claimed to have done those things. Not only did she stand up and say it was a lie in the moment, but we know they put her on the stand later to tell her side of the story. And since the DA was telling her she was guilty because her affair led to Charlie's death rather than saying she had confessed, it would seem more weird to assume that she hadn't denied it on the stand than to assume that she had.

The first day of the trial we see a tiny snippet of the DA's speech and then Perry says he spoke for something like 2 hours so there was obviously a lot going on we weren't seeing. Another one of the problem, it seems, is that along with not making the case clear enough as we went along the show didn't really give us a sense of this being a real trial we weren't only seeing a tiny snippet of, so it was hard to imagine them going through everything bit by bit. It makes sense to me that Perry wouldn't want to go full attack on the confession because that puts the focus less on the fact that the DA doesn't have any evidence she did it.

4 minutes ago, DoctorAtomic said:

But snipped at Mason saying 'lady lawyer.' 

LOL. Yes, a real woman of that time, even a progressive one, would probably not have seen anything wrong with either!

[Chicago Redshirt]

16 minutes ago, cardigirl said:

Until Perry turned Barnes' eye upon Emily, Barnes thought Matthew Dodson was guilty. Barnes was far worse than Perry, in my opinion because Barnes was not interested in justice, only in a case he thought he could win. Truth be damned. 

The situation seemed, even from Perry's perspective, to be an inside job. 

The ask of $100k (more than $1 million in today's money) is crazy to anyone who just knows of Matthew as a rando grocer. Someone had to know that Matthew could tap Baggerly for that kind of cash. The list of that group is pretty small and includes Matthew and Emily. 

The notion that someone could sneak into the Dodson home while Emily was there is at least somewhat suspicious.

Matthew had an alibi, and otherwise had a weak motive. He could get some level of cash from Baggerly just on general principle. He had (as far as we know) no connection with the kidnappers and no motive to cut them in on the deal. 

By contrast, Emily has an excellent motive and "confessed." Looking at the evidence, it'd be perfectly reasonable to think that she was guilty.

[DoctorAtomic]

52 minutes ago, sistermagpie said:

It was more just that Pete was making clear he wasn't going to be understood to be one of Perry's go-to detectives, but he would be Burger's.

He also said he 'wanted his badge back' which I don't think Mason could have any pull there. 

22 minutes ago, sistermagpie said:

Yes, a real woman of that time, even a progressive one, would probably not have seen anything wrong with either!

He said 'lady lawyer' on the heels of her saying 'hire a girl' so I'm saying I found it a little much. Plus, they're friends. She struck me as back and forth there. 

[sistermagpie]

16 minutes ago, DoctorAtomic said:

He said 'lady lawyer' on the heels of her saying 'hire a girl' so I'm saying I found it a little much. Plus, they're friends. She struck me as back and forth there. 

I think I agree. It seemed like they self-consciously had Della speak the way she would in the 30s by saying "hire a girl" and then in the next breath react to Lady Lawyer as an insult because she didn't want the modifier, which seems anachronistic to me. (Not that I'm an expert!)

[Hootis]

Just watched it. Perry Mason's rabbit in his hat is bribing a juror? I watched the series because of Rhys, but that is just too much.

[shapeshifter]

1 hour ago, sistermagpie said:

I think I agree. It seemed like they self-consciously had Della speak the way she would in the 30s by saying "hire a girl" and then in the next breath react to Lady Lawyer as an insult because she didn't want the modifier, which seems anachronistic to me. (Not that I'm an expert!)

It doesn't sound like that much of a stretch to me. Della is just accusing Perry of being sexist in one sentence, whereas in the next she is being an intellectual snob. It just means she is as blind to her own prejudices as anyone is, and now we can put to bed concerns that the character of Della is too perfect --unless it was a slip in writing and editing-- but I don't think so, because it seems Juliet Rylance (Della) would have noticed and questioned it.
Or, maybe it was also convey to Perry that she acknowledged her own verbal habits of bias and therefore his wouldn't hold his against him.

I'd have to rewatch the series to decide whether the many instances of dialogue being open to interpretation were there on purpose or not.

Edited August 10, 2020 by shapeshifter

[UnknownK]

43 minutes ago, Hootis said:

Just watched it. Perry Mason's rabbit in his hat is bribing a juror? I watched the series because of Rhys, but that is just too much.

For the time period I think it was something that would be done. You can't judge the actions of that time period with what goes on today.

For ages during and after prohibition the police were 100% corrupt so getting a fair trial when police were covering up evidence (of their own crimes) and while judges were on the take as well was pretty much not going to happen.

If the show goes on for a few years I suspect that Perry gets better at his job (and is less moody)  getting innocent clients off the hook while also getting dirty cops removed from the force. 

 

[sistermagpie]

7 minutes ago, shapeshifter said:

It doesn't sound like that much of a stretch to me. Della is just accusing Perry of being sexist in one sentence, whereas in the next she is being an intellectual snob. It just means she is as blind to her own prejudices as anyone is, and now we can put to bed concerns that the character of Della is too perfect --unless it was a slip in writing and editing-- but I don't think so, because it seems Juliet Rylance (Della) would have noticed and questioned it.

Just to be clear, I didn't find Della's attitude inconsistent at all. She wants to hire a secretary and be a lawyer, same as Perry; those things aren't in conflict. I just thought the writing on the second line was leaning on anachronistic attitudes where the first very much wasn't. I would never say it was impossible that a woman at that time would be that sensitive to the term "Lady Lawyer" and even be able to pinpoint why, but in 2020 it would be the default reaction. Today a person probably wouldn't say either line.

[Chicago Redshirt]

1 hour ago, sistermagpie said:

I think I agree. It seemed like they self-consciously had Della speak the way she would in the 30s by saying "hire a girl" and then in the next breath react to Lady Lawyer as an insult because she didn't want the modifier, which seems anachronistic to me. (Not that I'm an expert!)

It could also be that Della thinks of a receptionist/secretary as a "girl" (as in Girl Friday) but sees herself as a full professional, no modifier necessary.

Certainly, in this incarnation she has as much going on as Perry, other than he has the credential that allows him to stand up in court and address a judge and jury (which she basically procured for him by forging E.B.'s signature and getting Hamilton to cheat him through the Bar.)

[Door County Cherry]

8 hours ago, Chicago Redshirt said:

That there were not discussions from the beginning of the case about whether or not to have Emily take the stand was unrealistic. As others noted, the actual direct and cross for Emily didn't work as well as they could. I think this episode was the first to reveal that Emily had been on the phone with George during the kidnapping of Charlie at all, let alone for an hour.  (It's possible that it was discussed and I missed it, admittedly, but I don't think so.) That is a big deal. It would be something that would be objectively provable through phone company records that there was a call from a number for an hour to the Dodson home, right around the time the kidnapping took place. Even assuming that Emily wasn't a suspect, that is something she would have had to explain to the police. I

Would the record company even have those kind of records back then?  However, I think this was back when people could overhear other people's conversations.  Maybe the operator would have listened into a scandalous affair.

As for Emily on cross, it was a weak cross but she also seemed very unprepared for it.  So Della prepped her well for Perry's part of the questioning but I think Emily could have done better on cross.  

For instance, when Barnes was saying that the only reason George could have known about access to Baggerly's money is because she told him, couldn't it also be possible that she was targeted by George because of her husband's connection?  I guess I was confused as to what came first. 

7 hours ago, Inquisitionist said:

If this were named anything other than Perry Mason, would people care as much?  

I think this show has a great set of actors, led by Matthew Rhys.  I do think a lot of fans of The Americans would tune in just for him.  There's also the beautiful period nature of the show.  Great title cards.  

And it's a legal mystery.  In the end, it wasn't as satisfying as it could have been, especially to people who pay close attention to details but mystery shows do tend to do well, especially when people have them all available to binge. 

I think the biggest issue with this show is that it fell into what Alan Sepinwall describes as having your first season serve as a premise pilot.  In other words, we just spent eight episodes watching how Della, Perry and Paul came together from where they were as opposed to just jumping in.  Netflix does it a lot. In the past, this used to be done in the pilot episode or as a flashback episode later in the series.  But when it's a whole season, things aren't as tight as they could be. 

Hopefully, future seasons will have everyone be more comfortable with who they're supposed to be in the series. 

6 hours ago, nuraman00 said:

Why can't Hazel do this, and some of of the other non-legal work? Why did Hamilton Burger get back into law?  I thought when he was introduced in episode 5, he said he was retired. But now he is the DA?

Hazel has a job as a hand model.  I think she was helping out for Della but there's little indication she needs another job at the moment.  They probably won't need more help around the office until they start making more money and Della takes on more lawyerly work.  

I thought Burger was the assistant DA.  He wants to run for DA.  I didn't get the sense that he was retired. Maybe I missed something.

6 hours ago, Penman61 said:

I don't understand why every fan of this show isn't revolting against PERRY BRIBING A JUROR.

I mean...that's in a whole other league of corruption. It means Perry cares more about outcome than the process/institutions, and while those two are always in tension...BRIBING A JUROR just shortcuts all those debates to completely, corrosively, corrupt the process. Even bribing a judge is less corrupt.

I am not an expert on the books but the book version of Perry, in the beginning, was more law bendy than the later (and Burr version) of Perry Mason.

Everything Perry has done this season since E.B. died was out of desperation.  He was desperate because he saw the systems bending and manipulating for an Emily conviction.  There was the corrupt cop and the corrupt cops who protected the corrupt cop.  Remember, Paul Drake was made to change his report.  Ennis alone wouldn't have the power to force that change.  All of the evidence which would have cast doubt on the official version of events wasn't allowed in court.  Emily's "court appointed" lawyer was originally going to meet with the DA and share Emily's strategy.  

That last bit is what made Perry go along with Della's plan to become a lawyer.  And I think bribing the juror is the work of a man insecure in his abilities to do what he set out to do.  I'm thinking (hoping) that we might see an evolution in the character as he becomes more confident in his abilities. 

1 hour ago, Blakeston said:

We saw Perry say that he didn't want to bother with the prison matron's testimony (because that was "what Barnes wanted," or something to that effect), so I think the writers wanted us to believe that he never addressed it.

I don't know how appeals worked back then, but nowadays I'd think that if she was convicted, she might be able to get a new trial based on lack of adequate counsel after a decision like that.

Perry didn't have hard evidence that what she said was a lie.  He could put Alice on the stand to dispute it but it'd just be a she said/she said.  He could even offer deals to other women there to claim the matron was telling the truth.  

So I doubt inadequate counsel could be supported by that decision.  But Perry and Della could admit to the fraud behind him becoming a lawyer.  They'd sacrifice their careers but if inadequate counsel was a thing back then, that'd likely do it.

As for complaints that the church was extraneous.  Obviously, it played a big role in the kidnapping.  I think the mistake was putting so much focus on Sister Alice.  I feel like they hired a name actress and wanted to make her more prominent.  They gave a lot of screen time to someone who wasn't really involved with the main story other than believing in Emily's innocence.  The charismatic figure should have been rather tertiary in this show.  In fact, combing the role Alice played with the role her mother played into one character would have streamlined things a bit.  

[DoctorAtomic]

35 minutes ago, UnknownK said:

For the time period I think it was something that would be done.

Yes, but it's it something Perry Mason would have done? I think they kind of cheated and didn't take us far enough into his reasoning that it was 'his one move left'. We really didn't see much in the way of strategy. Forcing a mistrial a fair strategy. Juries don't 'prove innocence' they just determine if the burden of proof was met. It wasn't. Now, I get the point is that sometimes the system is rotten and that doesn't matter. But two other people on the jury thought so anyway. 

[dramachick]

 

21 hours ago, sistermagpie said:

That was my reaction to this too. In fact, I'll confess, I thought Pete paid off the juror on his own. I mean, if Perry told him to pay him off, why was Pete so shocked and looking dismayed when he found out there were other jurors? If it was Perry who paid him off I would think Pete would have smirked at Perry not trusting himself and probably made a joke about it. Instead I assumed that was Pete realizing that *he* dirtied up the works when Perry did it on his own. Did I just misunderstand this?

Perry told Pete to pay the juror off, which was totally in line with the character we've seen in this show. In the scene where Perry gave Pete a half-ass apology, he told Pete that he needed him to do something that only Pete could do, and then the scene ended. Perry was committed to getting justice for Emily, and he could live with a bribed juror.

Pete was shocked to discover that Perry did a legitimately good enough job to hang the jury on his own without any bribes. He and Perry could not imagine that any jurors, let alone two, would vote not guilty.

[dramachick]

20 hours ago, Vella said:

As for Pete, I would assume he was tired of being yelled at by Perry and being blamed for stuff that was out of his control. They used to be more like colleagues and buddies and that changed and Pete didn't like the change. He didn't want to work for someone he considered a friend.  I can understand Pete's desire to get a steady paycheck, but when did Burger notice Pete's talents? Did they even meet? The whole thing just feels really sloppy.

Pete used to be a cop. He said he was going to get his shield back by working as an investigator for Burger.

[sistermagpie]

3 minutes ago, dramachick said:

Pete used to be a cop. He said he was going to get his shield back by working as an investigator for Burger.

Does this sound like Pete's moving towards the bad guy side? Like why does he want to become a cop at the very time Paul's realizing there are no good cops?

Quote

Perry told Pete to pay the juror off, which was totally in line with the character we've seen in this show. In the scene where Perry gave Pete a half-ass apology, he told Pete that he needed him to do something that only Pete could do, and then the scene ended. Perry was committed to getting justice for Emily, and he could live with a bribed juror.

Oh, I see the connection to other things this Perry does, but it undercuts the courtroom drama people can just bribe the jury.

Edited August 11, 2020 by sistermagpie

[UnknownK]

1 minute ago, sistermagpie said:

Does this sound like Pete's moving towards the bad guy side? Like why does he want to become a cop at the very time Paul's realizing there are no good cops?

To know what is going on inside the force and put an end to it?

[sistermagpie]

1 minute ago, UnknownK said:

To know what is going on inside the force and put an end to it?

To paraphrase Hamilton Burger in this ep, that literally never happens. There's no one good apple.

[Door County Cherry]

4 minutes ago, sistermagpie said:

Does this sound like Pete's moving towards the bad guy side? Like why does he want to become a cop at the very time Paul's realizing there are no good cops?

The investigator for the DA might technically be a cop but it sounds like the position is to serve the DA's office and not the police station.  He reports to the prosecutor. That role might be more palatable to Pete than what goes on in the police station.  

So if Burger is overall a decent guy with good intentions, then I think Pete will be fine.  I don't think Burger is going to be the antagonist that Barnes was. 

[Netfoot]

Well, that was horribly disappointing. Both the episode and the series as a whole. Perry bribes a juror. (Jurors?) The case is declared a mistrial and everybody is behaving like they won, when Emily is one whim of the DA's from getting her ass dragged back into court.  Chekhov's Eye-Thread was a complete waste of time, 

There is a modern tendency to acquire the rights to a piece of IP, preferably one with a large amount of historical goodwill, and completely fuck up the remake, sometimes retaining only the names of a few characters and very little else. Example Offhand: "I, Robot" (Will Smith). Supposedly the 're-imagining" is to show the creativity and vision of the new production team, but far too often, it shows that they are completely inept in comparison to the original team.

This series is a case study in how to take a classic and ruin it, despite good performances by several actors. Hard to believe this got renewed, but make no matter: I very much doubt I'll be back.

18 hours ago, thuganomics85 said:

Loved the formation of "Perry and Associates."  Especially his "negotiations" with Della, which was obvious to everyone in the room (including Perry himself) that Della was going to get everything she wanted.  And she deserves it!

Why is she bothering with law school?  She just has to wait a suitable interval, have Perry sign a bogus apprenticeship letter and rote-learn the answers to the known bar exam questions.

21 hours ago, Cardie said:

A finale whose biggest thrill was hearing the original theme song is not doing its job  

It was almost a desecration of the theme, to apply it to this trash.

[dramachick]

20 hours ago, Door County Cherry said:

The Della "lady lawyer" thing did feel a bit anachronistic but I'll be interested in seeing how Della and Perry develop as associates as this goes on.  

Clara Shortridge Foltz was appointed to the Los Angeles District Attorney's Office in 1910, becoming the first female deputy district attorney in the United States.  The Los Angeles County courthouse downtown is named after her.

[Door County Cherry]

2 minutes ago, dramachick said:

Clara Shortridge Foltz was appointed to the Los Angeles District Attorney's Office in 1910, becoming the first female deputy district attorney in the United States.  The Los Angeles County courthouse downtown is named after her.

Sorry. I didn't mean her being a lawyer was anachronistic, I meant her pique at being referred to as  "lady lawyer."  

[DoubleUTeeEff]

Regarding the girl/lady lawyer discussion, I think we have to take the full context into account. Given the realities of the time, a young unmarried woman would probably fill a secretarial position so Della was most likely calling a young woman a "girl." I don't think calling a young person in their late teens or early 20's a "girl" or a "boy" (taking race out of the equation) is necessarily demeaning. However, Perry told Della that she "would make a great lady lawyer." That's akin to saying "you're really smart for a woman" or "you're really attractive for your age." Those are really insulting backhanded "compliments." That's what Della was objecting to. Not just that she would be a "lady lawyer" but that as woman she wouldn't be in the same league as men when it came to lawyering even if she were a great lawyer (yes, I just made up a word). Whether people were making that argument in that time, I don't know. But Perry just calling her a "lady lawyer" wasn't the whole picture.

 

[dramachick]

19 hours ago, nuraman00 said:

She says "There are 30 airstrips in Los Angeles.  I'm a wetback and a woman.  When I'm done, there will be 5".

 

She wants to reduce the number of airstrips?

She's saying that she has to work twice as hard to compete and position herself in preparation for the oncoming development of metro Los Angeles. When the music stops, she's going to own all 5 airstrips.

[dramachick]

37 minutes ago, Door County Cherry said:

Sorry. I didn't mean her being a lawyer was anachronistic, I meant her pique at being referred to as  "lady lawyer."  

Oops, my bad.😉

[DoctorAtomic]

51 minutes ago, Door County Cherry said:

That role might be more palatable to Pete than what goes on in the police station.  

It also may have a pension. Perry promised a $600 job and got a single dollar out of it. 

I don't have that much of a huge issue with girl/lady lawyer since I brought it up. I just thought Della was coming on a little too modern. Also they're friends; if it was just some lawyer or random cop. He was being kind of jokey. 

[dramachick]

59 minutes ago, sistermagpie said:

1 hour ago, dramachick said:

Pete used to be a cop. He said he was going to get his shield back by working as an investigator for Burger.

Does this sound like Pete's moving towards the bad guy side? Like why does he want to become a cop at the very time Paul's realizing there are no good cops?

I think Pete was really affected by the depth of police corruption in this case. Remember the scene of Pete and Ennis at the brothel where Ennis blamed all the problems with the case on Holcomb? Pete was disgusted that Ennis threw his partner under the bus and then tried to buy Pete off with a whore.

Pete's a racist and probably turns a blind eye to a certain level of police corruption, but he still has a code. Hamilton Burger is a good guy, and being an investigator for the DA allows Pete a certain amount of autonomy, which would allow him to still be friends with Perry without taking his crap.

1 hour ago, sistermagpie said:

Oh, I see the connection to other things this Perry does, but it undercuts the courtroom drama people can just bribe the jury.

But we didn't know he bribed the juror until after the courtroom drama. Of course, we don't want to see this as a regular occurrence because it would make for bad television. However, I'm of the belief that a fictional courtroom drama will not surpass real life in terms of "things you just can't make up" in the criminal justice system -- and not good things.