S01.E08: Chapter Eight

[shapeshifter]

3 hours ago, sistermagpie said:

You'd think they know it was more than possible since the Lindbergh baby was kidnapped the same way with people in the house. The house was somewhat bigger, but there were also more people there and nobody heard it. (Though Lindbergh did remember hearing a sound that sounded like the slap of slats on an orange crate.)

Actually, the Lindberg baby was kidnapped March 1, 1932, whereas this kidnapping was December 1931, right?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lindbergh_kidnapping
Anyway, I guess the ladder part of the plot in the script was based on the Lindberg case.

 

 

Edited August 12, 2020 by shapeshifter

[sistermagpie]

1 hour ago, shapeshifter said:

Actually, the Lindberg baby was kidnapped March 1, 1932, whereas this kidnapping was December 1931, right?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lindbergh_kidnapping
Anyway, I guess the ladder part of the plot in the script was based on the Lindberg case.

Good point--I assumed that by the trial it would be there since I remember New Year's happening before Perry was even a lawyer. Really, it's pretty unlikely that it never came up because it would have been on everyone's mind. Barnes probably would have made a point to link the two to point more anger at Emily.

But still, though I believe that people would dismiss it as impossible, it just seems so unfair. it's not like the kidnappers would have been making noise when sneaking into the house!

[J-Man]

On 8/10/2020 at 7:59 AM, sistermagpie said:

Yes, Prohibition = need for more airplanes. After it's over there's not as much need for tiny airstrips running shady jobs for people. Once it's legal it can be shipped in bulk by bigger planes on bigger airstrips.

Post-Prohibition, they would have gone back to shipping it by truck and rail. Flying it in would have been prohibitively expensive and unnecessarily risky.

On 8/10/2020 at 7:59 AM, sistermagpie said:

I've been thinking about Sister Alice. The thing with her was she never worked for me as the person that was supposed to be the big draw of this church. I don't know a lot about Amy Semple McPherson but from what I understand she was very theatrical--would have loved to be in theater. So she would have been really into creating that vaudevillian show with the boat and all that. She had a big personality, like not John Lithgow Broadway but Ethel Merman Broadway. Outgoing extrovert. Very big presence. Vaudevillian-like, probably.

Kathie Lee Gifford co-wrote a Broadway musical about Aimee Semple McPherson.

Quote

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.

The original Perry Mason series rarely featured a jury trial. The vast majority of cases featured were settled in preliminary hearings. I've heard this was because the producers didn't want to go to the expense of hiring extras to play jurors.

The diner where Sister Alice was working was shown to be in Carmel (on the piece of paper Paul gave to Perry.) This is not far from where Perry's ex and son were living. I hope he managed to work in a visit while he was there.

Edited August 13, 2020 by J-Man

[shapeshifter]

1 hour ago, J-Man said:

The diner where Sister Alice was working was shown to be in Carmel (on the piece of paper Paul gave to Perry.) This is not far from where Perry's ex and son were living. I hope he managed to work in a visit while he was there

Maybe they purposely had Alice living near Perry’s ex so that the door would be left open to an Alice encounter redux in season 2. 

[buckboard]

18 hours ago, J-Man said:

The diner where Sister Alice was working was shown to be in Carmel (on the piece of paper Paul gave to Perry.) This is not far from where Perry's ex and son were living. I hope he managed to work in a visit while he was there.

Remind me again where Perry's ex-wife was living.

After Della and Perry attended E.B.'s funeral in San Francisco (Colma), Perry rode with some farm workers to his ex's, but I don't recall how long that ride was.

[meep.meep]

On 8/10/2020 at 9:59 PM, nuraman00 said:

What does she do with the other 25 airstrips then?  Turn them into different businesses?

What Lupe said was that right now there were 25 airstrips operating in the great Los Angeles area, mostly flying in hooch from Mexico.  If prohibition isrepealed, there would be only enough business to maintain 5 of them.  She wants her strip to be one of those 5.  And because she is Mexican and a woman, it's much more difficult for her so she really needs Perry's farmland.

 

[J-Man]

8 hours ago, buckboard said:

Remind me again where Perry's ex-wife was living.

After Della and Perry attended E.B.'s funeral in San Francisco (Colma), Perry rode with some farm workers to his ex's, but I don't recall how long that ride was.

It seemed like it was in the Salinas Valley or nearby. 

[ALenore]

I just saw the finale last night, and noticed a nice bit at the end.  The dialog towards the end when Della talks about their new client is taken almost verbatim from The Case of the Velvet Claws, the first Perry Mason book:

"A woman, who claims to be a Mrs. Eva Griffin."

"And you don't think she is?"

"She looks phony to me. I've looked up the Griffins in the telephone book and there isn't Griffin who has an address like the one she gave."

I think this was a nice nod to showing the beginning of Perry's "legitimate" career.

 

[shapeshifter]

1 hour ago, ALenore said:

I just saw the finale last night, and noticed a nice bit at the end.  The dialog towards the end when Della talks about their new client is taken almost verbatim from The Case of the Velvet Claws, the first Perry Mason book:

"A woman, who claims to be a Mrs. Eva Griffin."

"And you don't think she is?"

"She looks phony to me. I've looked up the Griffins in the telephone book and there isn't Griffin who has an address like the one she gave."

I think this was a nice nod to showing the beginning of Perry's "legitimate" career.

 

Cool catch! 
I've also responded to this post in the "Compare & contrast HBO with Books, Raymond Burr, and other versions" thread (https://forums.primetimer.com/topic/110111-compare-contrast-hbo-with-books-raymond-burr-and-other-versions/?do=findComment&comment=6288867) regarding how I'm getting the original books from libraries and online.

 

[Jextella]

On 8/9/2020 at 10:15 PM, Vella said:

I guess I have to believe that Perry paid off the juror but they sure did not explain it well.  I mean, I understood cheating on the bar exam, they were desperate and Emily had nobody willing to stand up for her. Plus Perry believed her and had real talent and could pull it off. If he'd had the time, he wouldn't have cheated, he would have just studied his ass off and taken the bar exam and passed the old fashioned way. 

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.

I totally missed where Perry cheated on the bar exam.  How did that happen?  I recall Della signing a document with EB's name showing Parry had been mentoring with EB and that Burger gave him tips on the test but I don't remember straight-up cheating.

[shapeshifter]

3 minutes ago, Jextella said:

I totally missed where Perry cheated on the bar exam.  How did that happen?  I recall Della signing a document with EB's name showing Parry had been mentoring with EB and that Burger gave him tips on the test but I don't remember straight-up cheating.

I didn’t see that as cheating either, but there are real life lawyers who posted upthread that Burger giving Mason the questions on the Bar exam would be considered cheating, even though the questions hadn’t changed in at least (I think) 5 years —or perhaps especially because they hadn’t changed. 
In the college library where I worked for 17+ years, there was a professor of economics who would put copies of the exam on reserve for students to check out. I’m not sure why he never took to emailing them, but maybe that was his line in the sand, so to speak, with regards to what was “giving tips” and what was “cheating.”

[sistermagpie]

3 minutes ago, shapeshifter said:

I didn’t see that as cheating either, but there are real life lawyers who posted upthread that Burger giving Mason the questions on the Bar exam would be considered cheating, even though the questions hadn’t changed in at least (I think) 5 years —or perhaps especially because they hadn’t changed. 
In the college library where I worked for 17+ years, there was a professor of economics who would put copies of the exam on reserve for students to check out. I’m not sure why he never took to emailing them, but maybe that was his line in the sand, so to speak, with regards to what was “giving tips” and what was “cheating.”

Kind of like in the movie Quiz Show where Van Doren asks them to just give him the questions and he'll look up the answers as if that makes it less cheating.

[Dev F]

12 minutes ago, sistermagpie said:

Kind of like in the movie Quiz Show where Van Doren asks them to just give him the questions and he'll look up the answers as if that makes it less cheating.

I still wonder whether we're meant to think Ham was literally giving Perry the questions, in the sense that the test has literally been exactly the same for ten years, or whether he just meant that the test has drawn from the same basic material for so long that the content is predictable. But if we are meant to believe that it's literally been the same test, the system is already so thoroughly broken that Perry's cheating is really of little consequence, because everyone would be cheating in exactly the same way, and Perry would really only be getting the same leg up he'd get if he took the test once, failed, and then took it again later. In which case it's basically just a crime of expediency, and that seems pretty easy to justify given that a woman's life was hanging in the balance and she'd be dead if he waited to take the test twice.

Edited August 16, 2020 by Dev F

[shapeshifter]

35 minutes ago, Dev F said:

the test has literally been exactly the same for ten years…

Perry would really only be getting the same leg up he'd get if he took the test once, failed, and then took it again later. In which case it's basically just a crime of expediency, and that seems pretty easy to justify given that a woman's life was hanging in the balance and she'd be dead if he waited to take the test twice.

Thank you for spelling that out much better than I. 

[Jextella]

59 minutes ago, shapeshifter said:

I didn’t see that as cheating either, but there are real life lawyers who posted upthread that Burger giving Mason the questions on the Bar exam would be considered cheating, even though the questions hadn’t changed in at least (I think) 5 years —or perhaps especially because they hadn’t changed. 
In the college library where I worked for 17+ years, there was a professor of economics who would put copies of the exam on reserve for students to check out. I’m not sure why he never took to emailing them, but maybe that was his line in the sand, so to speak, with regards to what was “giving tips” and what was “cheating.”

Thank you!

[sistermagpie]

1 hour ago, Dev F said:

I still wonder whether we're meant to think Ham was literally giving Perry the questions, in the sense that the test has literally been exactly the same for ten years, or whether he just meant that the test has drawn from the same basic material for so long that the content is predictable. But if we are meant to believe that it's literally been the same test, the system is already so thoroughly broken that Perry's cheating is really of little consequence, because everyone would be cheating in exactly the same way, and Perry would really only be getting the same leg up he'd get if he took the test once, failed, and then took it again later. In which case it's basically just a crime of expediency, and that seems pretty easy to justify given that a woman's life was hanging in the balance and she'd be dead if he waited to take the test twice.

That's exactly what I thought. If they're giving the same test every year it doesn't seem like the examiners themselves think not knowing the answers much matters.

Which goes along with the approach of the show in general. It's not just here that the idea seems to be that if everyone is cheating, clinging to this sort of thing on principle can be unethical. In this case, not because everybody should be cheating (Della is planning to go to actual law school, after all but because it would be wrong to leave Emily without a lawyer because you refuse to put yourself on the same level as the guy taking the test to your right, who already took it and failed, or the guy taking the test to your left, whose teacher told everyone in the class to be sure to study these questions.

[Enigma X]

I am currently studying for the AICP (American Institute of Certified Planners) exam. Yes, my study group is using old tests as one of the tools to get a passing grade on the exam. We also drew upon those who have taken the test before to ask questions. I don't think it is unethical or any different from what Ham and Perry did.

[Chicago Redshirt]

6 minutes ago, Enigma X said:

I am currently studying for the AICP (American Institute of Certified Planners) exam. Yes, my study group is using old tests as one of the tools to get a passing grade on the exam. We also drew upon those who have taken the test before to ask questions. I don't think it is unethical or any different from what Ham and Perry did.

What you are doing is studying for a new exam, using old exams as a guide to figure out what generally to expect in terms of the new questions that will be on it.

What Perry did was study the past exam questions with the expectation that the exact same past exam questions would be on the exam would be on it, since the exam itself had not changed for years. 

It should go without saying that there is a big difference between the first thing and the second thing.

[Enigma X]

I am pretty sure that many of the questions about the history of planning, ethics of planning, and planning theories will be on the new exam that were on old exams. I fully expect it to be. 

With that said, I believe the writers dug themselves in a hole with that line about the exam being exactly the same or however they put it. 

[shapeshifter]

4 hours ago, Enigma X said:

With that said, I believe the writers dug themselves in a hole with that line about the exam being exactly the same or however they put it

OTOH, I think the writers thought that revealing the historical fact of the Bar exam having not changed in 10 or so years would make Perry’s method of studying for the exam seem typical, the only difference being that Perry wasn’t a wealthy younger man whose father had “hired” a lawyer “friend” (who likely owed the father a favor) to “tutor” his son to pass the Bar. 

I suspect they started changing the exam from year to year to level the playing field a bit and break up the Good Ol’ (rich) Boys’ Club. But I might be way off base. 

Edited August 16, 2020 by shapeshifter

[ruby24]

Okay, I finally watched the finale. I still have my issues overall, because I see the potential here and I really want it to come together.

1) I still think it's a huge mistake to make Della gay, because Rhys and Rylance have GREAT chemistry and it's a wasted opportunity to do what the old show never got to do (and what WAS in the old books, given that she was based on Gardner's wife and they get married in one of them). Plus, it just adds another layer of investment and tension, perhaps romantic suspense to the show- this is an example of something that actually could go the old "will they, won't they" route and with their sparkling back and forth, that would work in an old-fashioned good way, in a His Girl Friday style (although making Della a lawyer in this version stretched belief for me, because it is still 1932. Seriously, how many female lawyers were in 1932? And yet another example recently that I've seen of period characters being completely and totally fine with someone being gay- this is the early 1930's, I just cannot believe that).

2) I don't understand why Tatiana Maslany's character existed in this season and I feel like a lot of screen time was spent on something that was just totally irrelevant.

3) Paul Drake is great and that's an updated take that works really well, even in, and especially for, the period setting.

4) They have to let Perry make someone confess on the stand eventually, because that's his signature move.