S01.E06: The Bloody Truth

[RealReality]

1 minute ago, DangerousMinds said:

Based on the DNA evidence, it had to be either Jonathan or Mr. Alves, so yeah she knew.

So, a week ago when I still thought it was Sylvia (shout out to the other poster because this was my law and order suspect) i was struck my the look of disgust on Hayleys face when she walked in on Jonathan and he said that he loved Elena and was quite mad about her.  

 

I had thought hayley was disgusted because grace had stood by him and he returned the favor by ruefully admitting that he loved his mistress like he was a victim.  She seemed a second away from an eye roll. 

But if she knew he did it, her look of disgust may have been for an entirely different reason. 

[Happytobehere]

14 hours ago, dmc said:

Or he did act like a sociopath and she missed it. I agree with whoever said that it was pretty obvious Jonathan did it.  The show is her coming to grips with the fact that she missed all the signs of what he was capable of....he's manipulative. She wants to believe him because if not what does that say about her.  

Very character shown to have a functioning brain, Grace’s father, the attorney (not the ambulance chaser so many seemed to like, who bought Jonathan’s BS hook, line and sinker), the co-worker, and even to  a lesser extent, Sylvia, saw Jonathan for who he was. Hell, even the son, who seems off in his own right and in need of professional help ASAP, was clear about his father being a murderer. It is only Grace, who quite frankly, is not especially bright, or aware, did not see this guy coming and going.

[Ashforth]

9 hours ago, susannot said:

Not so.  Every state has a spousal privilege exemption.

Generally, Either spouse may assert the spousal privilege. But the privilege protects only “communications.” Statements that are not communications between the spouses, such as observations by one spouse about the conduct of the other, are not privileged. The prosecution in this case would and should have called Grace as a witness in regard to what she knew of what happened and when, and of course about the call she made to 911, all of which could be totally outside of anything that Jonathan said to her. "I got home at x time and my husband got home at y time" would not be the subject of spousal privilege.

8 hours ago, nara said:

Perhaps I was’t clear. If they have been together for 17 years and met in her late 20’s while she was getting her PhD, that would put her in her mid-40’s. Since Nicole would have been 52 during filming, it’s not too, too crazy an age difference IMO. Of course, Hugh Grant is much older than her so if they want to portray him as in his 40’s that’s way off.

I understand what you're saying now. I still don't see Kidman as in her mid forties. 

7 hours ago, cardigirl said:

They weren't telling her what he was like until his deception came to light, though.  At the fundraiser when he said he had to leave, one mother made mention of his sense of humor, his being a pediatric cancer doctor, and his charm and how wonderful he was. People were looking her in the eye and him too! No one was saying BOO to her, until after he disappeared. It was when she was trying to decide if she believed whether or not he was innocent that people started to give her information. No other doctor said anything? Had she never gone to his practice before? 

So for 17 years, her father hadn't liked him, but we weren't shown good ol' dad begging her to leave Jonathon in earlier times? 

For 17 years, she hasn't spoken to his family and she's not curious about it? 

She seemed to have friends from the school, but perhaps they were more acquaintances.  I know the conversation you are speaking of, when Grace gets in the shower and is talking of living in Schenectedy because it might be a more real life. Granted, when you're surrounded by mountains of money, and have only surreal rich acquaintances, you become isolated.  I don't know if that was totally Jonathon, or just Grace's life. 

And Jonathon, as a cancer doctor, would have money in his own right. Not billions, but he would still have made decent money. 

I don't know.  I've spent far too much energy on this show.  LOL. I don't think they developed any of the characters very well for the story they wanted to tell. 

I feel the same. I'm actually a little angry that I spent six hours watching this show (and more hours thinking and posting about it). It could have been so much better.

7 hours ago, heatherchandler said:

This show was really awful.  Yes @Ashforth It is absolutely a Nicole Kidman vanity project, where she was able to prance around in fancy outfits and show off her "range" (HAHAHA)  but it would have behooved her to have found a good story, with a coherent script.

It would have behooved all of us! This is a reminder to me to never watch another David E. Kelley show.

2 hours ago, qtpye said:

This video explains some things like what happened to the Jonathan's baby girl after the trial.

Spoilers for the book...to the people who plan to read it after watching this series.

So, at the end Jonathan actually thought Grace was running to save him and that is why he did not jump off the bridge. I guess he really is THAT vain.

I tried watching the video, but I have The Undoing exhaustion. What does it say happened with baby Teresa?

[Vella]

4 hours ago, JaneDigby said:

If they'd shown Elena naked on every episode I'd be calling BS on the show. That would have been 100% unnecessary. Showing Elena being beaten seemed more like the writers reminding viewers that this was a particularly vicious, brutual crime. This wasn't an accident or a crime of passion, the murder made a choice. 

They showed it once, without explanation and because the show never took any real interest in who Elena was, her character was never developed and we never really understood her or her behavior. The nudity felt cheap and exploitative.  The violence was shown repeatedly, the pictures were shown repeatedly and the actual murder was shown every step of the way.  I have seen shows deal with violence, especially towards women, in a way that shows care and understanding. In a way that indicates the showrunners are aware of what they are putting on screen and are therefore taking consideration in how the violence is communicated. This felt entirely done for shock value, to illicit a gasp and recoil from the audience.  I'm just so tired of women characters paying the price for lazy, unoriginal writing.

[qtpye]

30 minutes ago, Ashforth said:

Generally, Either spouse may assert the spousal privilege. But the privilege protects only “communications.” Statements that are not communications between the spouses, such as observations by one spouse about the conduct of the other, are not privileged. The prosecution in this case would and should have called Grace as a witness in regard to what she knew of what happened and when, and of course about the call she made to 911, all of which could be totally outside of anything that Jonathan said to her. "I got home at x time and my husband got home at y time" would not be the subject of spousal privilege.

I understand what you're saying now. I still don't see Kidman as in her mid forties. 

I feel the same. I'm actually a little angry that I spent six hours watching this show (and more hours thinking and posting about it). It could have been so much better.

It would have behooved all of us! This is a reminder to me to never watch another David E. Kelley show.

I tried watching the video, but I have The Undoing exhaustion. What does it say happened with baby Teresa?

Spoiler

Jonathan's family adopts her to make up for some of the wrong Jonathan did in his life.

 

Edited December 1, 2020 by qtpye

[RealReality]

30 minutes ago, Vella said:

They showed it once, without explanation and because the show never took any real interest in who Elena was, her character was never developed and we never really understood her or her behavior. The nudity felt cheap and exploitative.  The violence was shown repeatedly, the pictures were shown repeatedly and the actual murder was shown every step of the way.  I have seen shows deal with violence, especially towards women, in a way that shows care and understanding. In a way that indicates the showrunners are aware of what they are putting on screen and are therefore taking consideration in how the violence is communicated. This felt entirely done for shock value, to illicit a gasp and recoil from the audience.  I'm just so tired of women characters paying the price for lazy, unoriginal writing.

 I kinda wonder if that was done with purpose.  

Elena is not really a full human being.  She is just "crazy woman" and "victim"  She is whoever someone needs her to be in their narrative.  Grace wants her to be this beautiful disrupter in her stuffy upper east side, uptown girl existence.  Jonathan wants her to be a sex kitten who is obsessed with him and made him kill her because she came after him with a hammer.  

For the prosecutor, Elena is also an object.  Every time the prosecutor got up, she turned on that screen of Elena's mutilated face so she could show the jury the horror.  She wasn't showing that Elena was a "real person" because from that face you couldn't even tell Elena was once a person.  The prosecutor turned the screen on with that face at every opportunity to show the horror show that was her face.  In front of her son.  

For hayley, Elena is also an object.  I guess she would have to be so that Hayley could defend her murderer.  But, every time Hayley got up, she turned off the screen.  She specifically didn't want people to remember the horrific way Elena died.  

Maybe I'm overthinking it because while I bitch and moan, I enjoyed the series and thought the acting was good.  But I would agree with anyone that there are some pretty big plot holes.  Did Jonathan ever even pick up the tuxedo?  Is some poor dry cleaner on the way to lake george still waiting on someone to pick that up? 

[Aqua]

23 hours ago, Irlandesa said:

I also have a question that just occurred to me.  While she was on the stand, Grace said that she and her husband met in 2002 while at Harvard University.  So just how old are we supposed to believe these people are?  I know they're probably younger than their ages but 17 years ago (or 18) Hugh Grant was 42 and Nicole Kidman was 35. Even if we're generous to assume they meant grand school, that would mean that Nicole is playing at least 10 years younger than she is and Hugh between 15 and 20 years younger.

Yes, I noticed that as well. I guess they are supposed to be in their early 40s unless each is on a second career which is unlikely.

23 hours ago, Cheezwiz said:

That did seem strange, and I was hoping they'd address it, but they never did. Like why would you go poking around in the outdoor fireplace upon immediate arrival at your family beach cottage in the dead of winter when no one would be sitting outside? The story had more dropped threads and gaping holes than one of my pitiful knitting attempts.

They showed him playing with a frisbee or something similar and he threw it and it got lodged in the bricks of the fireplace and he was trying to fish it out when he came upon the bag with the weapon.

21 hours ago, MBayGal said:

One thing did bother me.  I thought someone here said if someone is going to be a witness, they can’t be in court during the trial.  So how could they call Grace and Miguel?

I think it was me that said that. It's not that it's necessarily a steadfast rule that could be enforced, but any lawyer who plans to call a witness would not want him/her in the courtroom prior to them taking the stand because the other side is going to point that out on cross- examination that the person was sitting in court the whole time and heard the testimony and was tailoring their testimony accordingly. However this "rule" is frequently broken in TV shows and movies.

12 hours ago, DoubleUTeeEff said:

He also made up a fake dead dog story about his real dead sister so that he'd have a reason to not to get a dog.

In retrospect, I don't understand the connection between those two stories. If he didn't want a dog, he didn't need to make up a story about having accidentally let his dog get killed as a substitute for the real truth of accidentally getting his sister killed. He could have just said he was allergic or didn't like them.

[FemmyV]

On 11/29/2020 at 9:41 PM, Norma Desmond said:

I did notice the forehead wrinkle/expression line. I wonder if it's CGI? Anyway, the forehead wrinkle deserves a nod in the next Golden Globes.

This may sound kind of odd, but this was the first time in ages that she looked like the Nicole Kidman I saw in Dead Calm and Days of Thunder. Seems like in everything after that, she looked like a porcelain doll.

 

Too bad they had to go for the gotcha ending and throw in the violence. 

Edited December 1, 2020 by FemmyV

[Ashforth]

58 minutes ago, ReviewX said:

I think it was me that said that. It's not that it's necessarily a steadfast rule that could be enforced, but any lawyer who plans to call a witness would not want him/her in the courtroom prior to them taking the stand because the other side is going to point that out on cross- examination that the person was sitting in court the whole time and heard the testimony and was tailoring their testimony accordingly. However this "rule" is frequently broken in TV shows and movies.

It actually is a rule, it's called "The Rule" and attorneys invoke it at the beginning of trials in real life and it is enforced by the Judge. In fictional TV trials, well, why let reality get in the way of drama. 

Edited December 1, 2020 by Ashforth

[Aqua]

11 minutes ago, Ashforth said:

It actually is a rule, it's called "The Rule" and attorneys invoke it at the beginning of trials in real life and it is enforced by the Judge. In fictional TV trials, well, why let reality get in the way of drama. 

Hmm, interesting. I was a criminal defense attorney for 10 years and we never called it "The Rule," we just didn't do it. But then like everything with the law, it really depends on the jurisdiction.

[RedDelicious]

7 hours ago, carrps said:

ETA: Her being Italian IRL has nothing to do with the show.

The point is they didn’t choose a Hispanic actress and the show doesn’t tell us, so referring to her as a woman of color is based on assumption. 

[Melina22]

5 hours ago, qtpye said:

I also did not get what the Hell Elena was talking about regarding Grace. It seemed like she was impressed with Grace and was suggesting some sort of sister wife situation where they both would be with Jonathan and raising their kids together happily as "brothers". I do not understand why she would suggest something like that.

What were we supposed to think about Elena? One minute she was being really creepy and inappropriate. Then she seemed moved and touched by Grace's kindness. Then she was telling Jonathan she'd never leave him, so apparently despite thinking Grace was wonderful, she was still fully prepared to continue the affair. 

So what were we supposed to think of her? Being beautiful and sad didn't compensate for the stalkery and selfish things she was doing to Grace's family and to her own. 

[Aqua]

8 hours ago, RedDelicious said:

What I intended is in real life she is a white woman. We don't know what ethnicity she is supposed to be because the show doesn't tell us specifically. Assuming she is of color is based on her married name and where she lives. 

Truthfully, she was given very few lines so it was hard to discern from her speaking whether she was Latinx or non-Latinx.

[Aqua]

7 hours ago, CarpeFelis said:

What really bugs me is that he knew all along that Jonathan did it and he even tried to cover for him by running the hammer through the dishwasher twice, and yet he was pushing so hard all along for his parents to stay together! That would have made much more sense if he’d truly believed Jonathan was innocent.
 

He never knew that his father did it, he just hoped that he didn't. I think it's reasonable for a child to want to believe his father is not a murderer, until confronted by unassailable facts.

[RedDelicious]

8 minutes ago, Melina22 said:

What were we supposed to think about Elena? 

For one, she was seriously co-dependent. That is one reason why I disliked the character. 

Edited December 1, 2020 by RedDelicious

[Corgi-ears]

Look. The show might have worked had it committed to being a psychological study. There is an interesting germ of an idea here: a story of whether the friends and family of a psychopath "should have known," or what happens after you do know. It's certainly not a new idea; the series was basically We Need to Talk About Kevin, but with a killer husband, or The Good Wife, except way more stabby.

But David Kelley tried to dress it up as a murder whodunnit, and one with terrible and nonsensical plotting that partly depends on domestic chores involving dishwashers and dry cleaners. He could even had completely subverted the murder whodunnit genre. This would have entailed, say, making Jonathan's guilt absolutely clear by Ep 2 or 3 (e.g., via an objective flashback to Jonathan actually committing the murder), and spending the rest of the series tracking how Grace and Henry struggled with this understanding, her dilemma about how best to protect her son from his monster father, etc.. In this version of the show, I might even have been able to overlook or forgive the courtroom shenanigans that Kelley has always loved ("What if the wife testifies, seemingly for the husband, and then, PLOT TWIST!?!?"). But no. Kelley had to stretch the whodunnit over five episodes, filling the story with stupid red herrings ("What if we make the entire Fraser family end up outside Elena's house?"), lots of gratuitous violence ("Let's show our embodiment of the Dead Girl Trope getting bludgeoned over and over!"), and only cramming the We Need to Talk About Jonathan denouncement into an episode. 

I guess at least I got to gaze upon Edgar Ramirez's marvellous hair. #FollicularGoals

 

 

Edited December 1, 2020 by Corgi-ears

[RealReality]

40 minutes ago, Melina22 said:

What were we supposed to think about Elena? One minute she was being really creepy and inappropriate. Then she seemed moved and touched by Grace's kindness. Then she was telling Jonathan she'd never leave him, so apparently despite thinking Grace was wonderful, she was still fully prepared to continue the affair. 

So what were we supposed to think of her? Being beautiful and sad didn't compensate for the stalkery and selfish things she was doing to Grace's family and to her own. 

But she is dead, and most of what we see are flashbacks through everyone else's eyes.  So we are mostly only seeing her through the lens of everyone else.  

[formerlyfreedom]

It’s time to drop the discussion of the ethnicity of the actors vs the characters. Everyone is entitled to their opinion, since the show did not spell it out specifically - there is no ‘right vs wrong’ there. Thank you.

[dmc]

6 hours ago, SourK said:

I buy that he had Narcissistic Personality Disorder. I think they portrayed that well -- in virtually every scene he's in, he's only focused on himself and on getting what he wants or needs, with no consideration for how it affects anyone else. Even at the end, when he decides to kill himself, he does it in the way that's going to be maximally traumatizing for his son, and tries to coax his son into comforting him while he does it.

I'm not 100% on him being a sociopath, and I kind of wish the show wasn't framing it as if proving Jonathan's mental health diagnosis is the same thing as proving that he killed someone. I actually think it's more interesting if he just has NPD -- if he committed an impulsive murder and then believed he should be able to get away with it, without needing to be a sociopath.

But I don't think the show is really interested in those distinctions.

I also thought that was weird, given the overall tone of the story. In real life, there are people who have a spouse or parent who's gone to prison for murder, and that's a really complex thing to deal with. But this show is a thriller, and it's made very clear to us that whoever did this is a monster, so, if everyone believes Jonathan did it... why do they want to keep living with him?

Symptom: Lack of empathy

Perhaps one of the most well-known signs of ASP is a lack of empathy, particularly an inability to feel remorse for one's actions. “Many people with ASP do seem to lack a conscience, but not all of them,” he explains. Psychopaths always have this symptom, however, which is what makes them especially dangerous. “When you don’t experience remorse, you’re kind of freed up to do anything—anything bad that comes to mind,” says Dr. Black.

Symptom: Difficult relationships

People with ASP find it hard to form emotional bonds, so their relationships are often unstable and chaotic, says Dr. Black. Rather than forge connections with the people in their lives, they might try to exploit them for their own benefit through deceit, coercion, and intimidation.

Symptom: Manipulativeness

Sociopaths tend to try to seduce and ingratiate themselves with the people around them for their own gain, or for entertainment. But this doesn’t mean they’re all exceptionally charismatic. “It may be true of some, and it is often said of the psychopath that they’re superficially charming,” says Dr. Black. “But I see plenty of antisocial men in my hospital and in our outpatient clinic and I would not use the term charming to describe them.”

 

Symptom: Deceitfulness

Sociopaths have a reputation for being dishonest and deceitful. They often feel comfortable lying to get their own way, or to get themselves out of trouble. They also have a tendency to embellish the truth when it suits them.

Symptom: Callousness

Some might be openly violent and aggressive. Others will cut you down verbally. Either way, people with ASP tend to show a cruel disregard for other people's feelings.

Symptom: Hostility

Sociopaths are not only hostile themselves, but they're more likely to interpret others' behavior as hostile, which drives them to seek revenge.

 

Symptom: Irresponsibility

Another sign that someone might have ASP is a disregard for financial and social obligations. Ignoring responsibilities is extremely common, says Dr. Black. Think, for example, not paying child support when it’s due, allowing bills to pile up, and regularly taking time off work.

Symptom: Impulsivity

We all have our impulsive moments: a last minute road trip, a drastic new hairstyle, or a new pair of shoes you just have to have. But for someone with ASP, making spur of the moment decisions with no thought for the consequences is part of everyday life, says Dr. Black. They find it extremely difficult to make a plan and stick to it.

Symptom: Risky behavior

Combine irresponsibility, impulsivity, and a need for instant gratification, and it’s not surprising that sociopaths get involved in risky behavior. They tend to have little concern for the safety of others orfor themselves. This means that excessive alcohol consumption, drug abuse, compulsive gambling, unsafe sex, and dangerous hobbies (including criminal activities) are common.

 

 

He's literary got every single attribute of a sociopath.  

[Vella]

As much as I love Donald Sutherland, Franklin's role was pointless and added nothing. Much of what he contributes could be parceled off to others. Sylvia's role could have been beefed up, Janel Moloney and Fala Chen could have lasted past the first 2 episodes.  His scenes mostly went nowhere. Lending Jonathan money? Dropped immediately. Threatening Jonathan? No impact. The confrontation with the principal? Dropped immediately. He always believed Jonathan was guilty, so nothing changed there.  None of his scenes with Grace were memorable or revealed anything and he always remained firmly in her corner.  I kept wondering what was the point of bringing Donald Sutherland on board?

[SourK]

2 hours ago, dmc said:

He's literary got every single attribute of a sociopath.  

I still don't see that, but we can agree to disagree. He was an awful person, either way.

[Rickster]

There could have been a show here, or more likely a movie, in which Grace explores her relationship and we peel back the layers of Jonathan’s personality and background, a sort of psychological detective story. We actually got only two scenes that did thus effectively - Grace’s conversations with Jonathan’s colleague and his mother. Instead, in order to keep people tuning in each week, we get a whodunit with a pointless twist at the end of each episode. Very disappointing, but I guess it worked for HBO.

[dmc]

3 hours ago, SourK said:

I still don't see that, but we can agree to disagree. He was an awful person, either way.

A lot of people do not.  His own wife didn't.  That was my point. My original comment said a lot of people would miss the signs.  The idea that they would be easy to see or that Grace would notice is a fallacy.  The story telling has flaws, this isn't one of them.  Generally sociopaths are portrayed in a very heavy handed manner in tv or film, Jonathan is what most are like.  This is less a disagreement about your perspective which you are entitled and more of an extrapolation to my original point that this was intended in the story telling.  

Edited December 1, 2020 by dmc

[Melina22]

6 hours ago, Corgi-ears said:

But no. Kelley had to stretch the whodunnit over five episodes, filling the story with stupid red herrings

Thank you. Your post nailed the reason I found this show so unsatisfying. 

Personally, I think what kept me watching (apart from waiting for the twist that never came) were the gorgeous visuals, especially NYC at night 

[Ashforth]

9 hours ago, ReviewX said:

Hmm, interesting. I was a criminal defense attorney for 10 years and we never called it "The Rule," we just didn't do it. But then like everything with the law, it really depends on the jurisdiction.

Maybe calling it the Rule is a Texas thing! I've only worked on the civil side, not criminal. In the trials I've worked, it's pretty much a formality to move to invoke it, and I've never seen an attorney object to it, but theoretically if you don't ask for and receive it you could end up with a courtroom full of witnesses who haven't testified yet. Like in this show.

[Jodithgrace]

if you think about it, Jonathan had the perfect job for his Narcissistic/Sociopathic personality disorder. It takes a special person to be a pediatric cancer doctor. It is so hard for them to see such suffering every day, and try to put it aside when dealing with family, etc. But what if you genuinely don't care? Jonathan could fake empathy all day, and then just forget it all when he went home. Plus, the adoration of the kids and their parents, the accolades from his bosses, etc. would feed his narcissism, so he never needed to display it at home. No wonder his wife and sons never suspected. He got everything he needed at work.  It's only when he lost his job, that his mask began to slip, and Elena paid the price. 

[fountain]

On 11/30/2020 at 7:11 AM, kay1864 said:

Grace: Oh, you’re running a cycle. I have a dirty glass I need to add.

Henry: No no no no no no

Seeing as how there was that earlier scene where Grace got annoyed at Henry for not cleaning up after himself I was thinking to myself “so you do know how to use the dishwasher!” during that whole scene Lol

I found the murder scene horrific and they did show too much but Hugh was scary as hell then. He was scary again in the car.

I was glad they showed up what happened and didn’t leave us guessing.  So I enjoyed it.

I personally think you never really know anyone fully and those who are good at the manipulation game can play people for a long time. Of course Grace had blinders on and while she was a psych professional often people are good at their job and bad at their personal stuff even in the same field. Added to that the psych field often attracts those that have personal experience with mental health issues. That part to me wasn’t surprising, life is is often do what I say not what I do. Personally I think her experience with Hugh will make her better at her job going forward as it gives her way more perspective and maybe more empathy as even she was fooled by a sociopath.

[Ashforth]

11 hours ago, qtpye said:

  Reveal spoiler

Jonathan's family adopts her to make up for some of the wrong Jonathan did in his life.

 

Oh Jesus, so the family that produced a sociopath/psychopath takes custody of an innocent infant? His 90 year old mother is going to raise her? It seemed that his only sibling "Katie the Kitten" is long dead. 

It would actually make more sense for Grace to adopt Teresa since she's Henry's sister. Either way, that poor baby is doomed. DOOMED, I TELLS YA!

Or Sylvia could adopt her. Nothing better than having another kid to alternately criticize publicly/ignore in private. Or maybe not. See "doomed" above.

[cardigirl]

8 hours ago, dmc said:

He's literary got every single attribute of a sociopath.  

Literally none of those traits were on display to us, the audience, or to his family (as shown in flashbacks) until the crime.  So how she was supposed to have known before the crime, I don't know.  All we were shown in flashbacks were Grace's observations of Jonathon with a young patient, and then her visualizations of the crime, which were surprisingly accurate for not having actually been there.  

Now, after the murder occurs, and his behavior afterwards, particularly when he accuses her and then their son of being possible suspects, then she begins to question who he really is, and so does the audience. Then we begin to wonder how someone could do something so heinous. But beforehand, no, we are not privy to how he lived his life with Grace and Henry before the crime. 

Poorly written and constructed storyline and characters. 

[dmc]

33 minutes ago, cardigirl said:

Literally none of those traits were on display to us, the audience, or to his family (as shown in flashbacks) until the crime.  So how she was supposed to have known before the crime, I don't know.  All we were shown in flashbacks were Grace's observations of Jonathon with a young patient, and then her visualizations of the crime, which were surprisingly accurate for not having actually been there.  

Now, after the murder occurs, and his behavior afterwards, particularly when he accuses her and then their son of being possible suspects, then she begins to question who he really is, and so does the audience. Then we begin to wonder how someone could do something so heinous. But beforehand, no, we are not privy to how he lived his life with Grace and Henry before the crime. 

Poorly written and constructed storyline and characters. 

The murder occurs the first episode so you mean in the remaining five episodes they were there. 🤷‍♀️ Agreed.  The flashbacks were in my opinion a poor addition but I actually stated that in a prior comment. I don’t know why they were included because they were more a red herring than anything.  But in general, I don’t like retrospective and think it’s sloppy story telling.  I thought one of them indicated Kidman had a relationship with the murder victim and to my knowledge that wasn’t even true.  I think it was pretty obvious early on Jonathan did it.  There are moments of doubt from Nicole’s character but I would have expected that.  But you are not alone, people acted like this is a murder mystery and it’s not.  It’s more of  a character study to me. 

Edited December 1, 2020 by dmc

[carrps]

51 minutes ago, Ashforth said:

Oh Jesus, so the family that produced a sociopath/psychopath takes custody of an innocent infant? His 90 year old mother is going to raise her? It seemed that his only sibling "Katie the Kitten" is long dead. 

It would actually make more sense for Grace to adopt Teresa since she's Henry's sister. Either way, that poor baby is doomed. DOOMED, I TELLS YA!

Or Sylvia could adopt her. Nothing better than having another kid to alternately criticize publicly/ignore in private. Or maybe not. See "doomed" above.

Plus Miguel loses his baby sister. Maybe Alves couldn't love her, but he seemed to be doing a decent job of raising her. Miguel appeared to be bonded to her --- as much as they showed us, like not a  heckuva lot --- so it would have been another loss for him.

[Ashforth]

50 minutes ago, carrps said:

Plus Miguel loses his baby sister. Maybe Alves couldn't love her, but he seemed to be doing a decent job of raising her. Miguel appeared to be bonded to her --- as much as they showed us, like not a  heckuva lot --- so it would have been another loss for him.

OMG I have the perfect solution! Grace and Fernando get married and raise the kids together! They just need to keep a close eye on Henry to prevent another "Katie the Kitten" incident. Fernando and Miguel move on up to the East Side, diversity abounds, and Daddy has another son-in-law to sneer at. Win - win - win!

[RedInk]

I'm of the minority opinion that the ending was just right (minus the asinine chase scene). In my mind, Jonathan was so obviously the murderer, I would have called it a cheap ploy if ANYONE else were revealed to be the killer - especially the sweet children or grieving husband. This is likely due to the fact that I binge-watched it in a single quarantine day, and I knew relatively nothing about it, so I wasn't viewing it as a classic whodunit; I was much more interested in the unraveling of Grace. She was shown to be a very shrewd observer who was clinical and somewhat cold when working with her clients - in short, hard to manipulate. So it follows that it would be very difficult for her and her Harvard-sized ego to accept that she could miss something so obvious in her own husband, just like she shook her head in denial when she learned the truth about her father FROM her father. I didn't see that as a plot hole, but really as the whole point of the series. In your own life, you see what you want to see.   

I do think that Nicole Kidman has a somewhat limited range and could have portrayed Grace struggling with that insecurity and doubt a little more effectively, rather than going for "shocked" and "horrified" over and over. Even Elena's gratuitous nudity and violent death scenes make more sense when you see them from Grace's perspective, which should have highlighted her insecurity and disgust with herself/her husband, respectively, but somehow just read as PTSD. 

[JaneDigby]

16 hours ago, carrps said:

And fried clams!

Fried clams in Albany. Also, there's an amazing BBQ restaurant right near the Wurst Bridge. Diners, Drive-Ins and Sociopaths!

[Penman61]

21 hours ago, carrps said:

 So much time spent on Grace's glamour walkabouts, and so little spent on character development.

 

Actual LOL, and now I want a webseries/YouTube channel of just this...

[DangerousMinds]

6 hours ago, dmc said:

A lot of people do not.  His own wife didn't.  That was my point. My original comment said a lot of people would miss the signs.  The idea that they would be easy to see or that Grace would notice is a fallacy.  The story telling has flaws, this isn't one of them.  Generally sociopaths are portrayed in a very heavy handed manner in tv or film, Jonathan is what most are like.  This is less a disagreement about your perspective which you are entitled and more of an extrapolation to my original point that this was intended in the story telling.  

I agree, and most don’t ever commit murder. More are CEOs, and power and attention loving lawyers. And DOCTORS.

4 hours ago, Jodithgrace said:

if you think about it, Jonathan had the perfect job for his Narcissistic/Sociopathic personality disorder. It takes a special person to be a pediatric cancer doctor. It is so hard for them to see such suffering every day, and try to put it aside when dealing with family, etc. But what if you genuinely don't care? Jonathan could fake empathy all day, and then just forget it all when he went home. Plus, the adoration of the kids and their parents, the accolades from his bosses, etc. would feed his narcissism, so he never needed to display it at home. No wonder his wife and sons never suspected. He got everything he needed at work.  It's only when he lost his job, that his mask began to slip, and Elena paid the price. 

Exactly. It really is the perfect job for them.

[Refresh]

Do people actually know sociopaths in real life? I don't think I know any. Or is it the expression that if you don't THINK you know any sociopaths, then YOU are the sociopath? Am I a sociopath? Because if the answer is yes, that news would really ruin 2020 for me, it's been going so great. 😉

Honestly though based on the description upthread, I'm reconsidering someone I used to work with who I am pretty sure is NPD. She could turn on the charm, or in her case it was being sweet and using a girlish giggle, but at other times it was a complete disregard for anyone but herself, in ways that were out of step with basic norms and understanding. This thread is so informative!

Back to the show. Generally, I enjoyed it. The ending was good if only to see Hugh show his acting. And I always love a good courtroom twist, even though it was obviously coming. I liked the costuming, the scenery. The actress who played Haley was great, I will seek out other things she's been in. 

If the show was called "The Undoing" I'm not sure I fully went on that journey with Grace. She seemed pretty convinced it was him until the prison visit when she decided to hire someone to defend him. And then it went away for a bit, and then came back with Katie the Kitten, and accusing Henry etc. Ok so maybe that was the journey of the undoing?

I also still don't understand the detail of Jonathan's mother correcting Grace's grammar. To me that was loaded with class/educational references and possibly a clue at the environment Jonathan grew up in. And who's to say the mother was telling it as it was, that they surrounded teen Jonathan with love. Most people I know who are estranged from their families it's because the families are awful, not that they themselves are sociopaths. 

The photography was interesting but I don't really get it. It felt very specific. There was a lot of far away shots (you see people talking but they're 1/12 of the frame). They did this outside, in the courtroom, in Franklin's house (to name a few). But then a lot of really up close shots too. Curious as to what that was doing from a storytelling perspective or if they just wanted to show cool scenery and sets. 

[Ms Blue Jay]

20 hours ago, Vella said:

As much as I love Donald Sutherland, Franklin's role was pointless and added nothing. Much of what he contributes could be parceled off to others. Sylvia's role could have been beefed up, Janel Moloney and Fala Chen could have lasted past the first 2 episodes.  His scenes mostly went nowhere. Lending Jonathan money? Dropped immediately. Threatening Jonathan? No impact. The confrontation with the principal? Dropped immediately. He always believed Jonathan was guilty, so nothing changed there.  None of his scenes with Grace were memorable or revealed anything and he always remained firmly in her corner.  I kept wondering what was the point of bringing Donald Sutherland on board?

I thought Lily Rabe was a lot more pointless than Donald!  I'd take the talented actor over the other one any day.  I know that Lily has a lot of fans but she brought nothing to this show.  Her scenes were incredibly awkward.

Like another poster said Donald's character had Jonathan's nailed from the start, so I actually think it's an interesting angle. I really enjoyed Donald's terrifying portrayal.  For me he added something.

8 hours ago, Refresh said:

Do people actually know sociopaths in real life?

Yes.  I think "sociopath" is often misused in public to mean any violent person.  When I say "sociopath" that's not what I mean.  I mean someone in my regular life who I'm forced to know that has no actual empathy for another human being and only acts to further him or herself.  Maybe I am using the term incorrectly as well.  I'd like to read more on it and understand it better.  

[DangerousMinds]

4 minutes ago, Ms Blue Jay said:

Yes.  I think "sociopath" is often misused in public to mean any violent person.  When I say "sociopath" that's not what I mean.  I mean someone in my regular life who I'm forced to know that has no actual empathy for another human being and only acts to further him or herself.  Maybe I am using the term incorrectly as well.  I'd like to read more on it and understand it better.  

We are all familiar with some. Think politicians.

[Ms Blue Jay]

7 minutes ago, DangerousMinds said:

We are all familiar with some. Think politicians.

Well that's very true, in my non personal life I can think of thousands.

[Ashforth]

34 minutes ago, DangerousMinds said:

We are all familiar with some. Think politicians.

Yes, politicians of all political persuasions may be sociopaths. So may your family members, co-workers, and neighbors. They aren't necessarily violent, but they have traits that can be devastating to you as a person and to relationships. An interesting book called "The Sociopath Next Door" was published in 2006. From the description of the book on Amazon:

Quote

Who is the devil you know?
Is it your lying, cheating ex-husband?
Your sadistic high school gym teacher?
Your boss who loves to humiliate people in meetings?
The colleague who stole your idea and passed it off as her own?
In the pages of The Sociopath Next Door, you will realize that your ex was not just misunderstood. He’s a sociopath. And your boss, teacher, and colleague? They may be sociopaths too.
We are accustomed to think of sociopaths as violent criminals, but in The Sociopath Next Door, Harvard psychologist Martha Stout reveals that a shocking 4 percent of ordinary people—one in twenty-five—has an often undetected mental disorder, the chief symptom of which is that that person possesses no conscience. He or she has no ability whatsoever to feel shame, guilt, or remorse. One in twenty-five everyday Americans, therefore, is secretly a sociopath. They could be your colleague, your neighbor, even family. And they can do literally anything at all and feel absolutely no guilt.
How do we recognize the remorseless? One of their chief characteristics is a kind of glow or charisma that makes sociopaths more charming or interesting than the other people around them. They’re more spontaneous, more intense, more complex, or even sexier than everyone else, making them tricky to identify and leaving us easily seduced. Fundamentally, sociopaths are different because they cannot love. Sociopaths learn early on to show sham emotion, but underneath they are indifferent to others’ suffering. They live to dominate and thrill to win.
The fact is, we all almost certainly know at least one or more sociopaths already. Part of the urgency in reading The Sociopath Next Door is the moment when we suddenly recognize that someone we know—someone we worked for, or were involved with, or voted for—is a sociopath. But what do we do with that knowledge? To arm us against the sociopath, Dr. Stout teaches us to question authority, suspect flattery, and beware the pity play. Above all, she writes, when a sociopath is beckoning, do not join the game.

I'm not endorsing the theories in the book and I'm not a mental health professional. Just offering this up as food for thought.

[filmfan2480]

On 11/29/2020 at 10:26 PM, cardigirl said:

So in all those years that Jonathon and Grace were married, he never acted like a sociopath until he murdered Elena? Okay. 
 I can't believe I was excited for the ending. Gah. 

This was my dad's problem.  He said the same thing.

I thought the last episode was "well done", especially the last 10 minutes.  But I echo my father in also being disappointed that it wound up being Hugh Grant, after all.  This show seemed ripe for a few wowzer twists in the end that never materialized; waster red herrings.  Having said all of that, I enjoyed the last 6 Sunday nights anyway.

Edited December 1, 2020 by filmfan2480

[Ms Blue Jay]

I absolutely loved the first 4 episodes.  These last two episodes, focusing way too much on the kids, and showing Elena's mashed up face over and over again, blech.  The show had a lot of potential but it just kind of came crashing down.

I thought that Hugh, Donald, and Noma Dumezweni who played Haley Fitzgerald were just fantastic.

Noah Jupe is pretty famous - he starred in Shia LaBeouf's biopic so I honestly thought he'd have more of a role in the murder but I'm SO glad that he didn't!

Ismael Cruz Córdova who played Fernando Alves is so beautiful.  Hugh Grant even said that his wife IRL is in love with him too.  He reminded me of Dale Scott, the guy from the latest season of The Bachelorette.  Both guys are gorgeous.

[loki310]

I have a strange problem. My husband and I started watching this show on On Demand... episode 1. A couple of minutes goes by Hugh Grant is having sex with this short haired woman, takes his curly haired son on a high speed police chase, and Nicole Kidman yells at him on a bridge...he kills the short haired woman.  super intense. Through it all, I’m like - is this the first episode? This feels like we were dropped in the middle of something - are you sure it’s the first episode. He shows me that it’s indeed the first episode according to On Demand. About 15 min in, it fades to black and the credits roll. Whaaaaa?
 

Did On Demand screw me by showing me the ending of a 6 episode series in the 1st episode?? 😡 I don’t want to read through the thread and spoil myself haha if that’s even possible now. 

[Maysie]

I learned a few things by sticking it out:

• Skip David E. Kelley shows. Between this and the second season of Big Little Lies, I'm done.
• Just because you can pull together a potentially good cast doesn't mean you can coast on the writing. Even great acting can't make up for a poorly conceived, uneven and inconsistent plot.
• I have absolutely nothing against Nicole Kidman (and I was really happy for her when she escaped Tom Cruise because I loath him) but I don't think I need to hear her breathy whisper voice again or sit through trying to interpret what her open mouthed, expressionless face is trying to convey.
• When the first episode or two of a multi-episode series isn't working for me, just stop. Don't waste time on it.
• Don't assume it's going to be good if it's on HBO.

I really had no problem with Jonathan being the killer because it made more sense than anything else. I do resent all the ridiculous red herrings (the long, knowing looks between him and Sylvia; Franklin's cryptic comments; Grace's bizarre visions). I read an interview and David Kelley said something along the lines of it was never meant to be a mystery but was supposed to focus on Grace's perspective of finding out who her husband is/was. However, he still wanted to throw in some twists and turns because things aren't always what they seem. Which, maybe if he was a great writer/storyteller that would have worked, but he doesn't seem to be able to handle that kind of nuance. And when your lead's face isn't able to emote sufficiently to help us along, it doesn't bode well.

By the last episode, everyone's native accents were slipping out. We spent a good portion of the episode trying to figure out where the actor portraying the prosecutor was from (Ireland? French Canadian?). Nicole Kidman did it throughout the series and at one point in the finale, even Donald Sutherland seemed to slip a bit. Guess it's a good thing they kept Hugh Grant's ethnicity for his character.

My husband used to fly helicopters and was laughing throughout the final scene that they were literally chasing Jonathan's car. Perhaps that's what Grace was smiling at when she walked off the bridge with her son, who had just been through a life changing, PTSD-inducing event.

 

[carrps]

47 minutes ago, Maysie said:

I learned a few things by sticking it out:

• Skip David E. Kelley shows. Between this and the second season of Big Little Lies, I'm done.
•  

 

By the last episode, everyone's native accents were slipping out. We spent a good portion of the episode trying to figure out where the actor portraying the prosecutor was from (Ireland? French Canadian?).

 

I didn't watch the second season but I've been considering it. I'm no longer considering it. I hated at the very end of the last episode of the first season Kelley showed the police detective watching the moms on the beach and clicking her cigarette lighter (something he added), because he thought they needed closure or something?***

Denmark.

*** Edited to add: he didn't think their should be closure. I remember saying at the time: In Lianne Moriarity's world, there damn well is closure.

Edited December 1, 2020 by carrps
Added comment

[bannana]

On 11/29/2020 at 8:53 PM, Jodithgrace said:

Nicole Kidman's hair bothered me more than her face, though I did get a chuckle when Haley told her not to show any emotion. 

That hair was making me crazy throughout the entire series. I actually cheered the one or two times she tied it back.

[Ms Blue Jay]

1 hour ago, Maysie said:

Guess it's a good thing they kept Hugh Grant's ethnicity for his character.

I don't think Hugh agrees to projects unless he can be British.

[Aqua]

23 hours ago, stacyasp said:

I love the way Donald Sutherland says monster!

He said "Munster" and the image of Fred Gwynne appeared.

[Jodithgrace]

  1 HOUR AGO, MAYSIE SAID:

Quote

 

Guess it's a good thing they kept Hugh Grant's ethnicity for his character.

I don't think Hugh agrees to projects unless he can be British.

 

That's not true. I've seen him do American, pretty well, and in Impromptu, he played Frederich Chopin with a Polish accent. In his latest, The Gentlemen, he's British but with an incredible cockney type accent that sounds unlike any Hugh Grant I've even seen. Am I a Hugh Grant fan? I guess you could say so. LOL