Jump to content

Type keyword(s) to search

S01.E07: Belly of the Beast

chitowngirl

By chitowngirl
in Matlock (2024)

  • Reply
  • Start Topic

Recommended Posts

Chicago Redshirt

Chicago Redshirt

2 hours ago, MissLucas said:

Late to the party and most things have already been said, so I'm just going to add how much I loved the Christmas Sweaters with Lady Justice in Santa get-up!

I was hoping that those sweaters were available as merch. But if they are, I haven't been able to find them.

 

1 hour ago, shapeshifter said:

Wasn't there some reason related to the divorce for Olympia and Elijah to keep it on the down low? I can't recall if it was related to the financial settlement or custody arrangements, but it's usually one of those in such situations. 

IIRC, Olympia asked Elijah to keep it on the down low for a bit because she didn't want things to get complicated/messy at work. 

 

3 hours ago, Yeah No said:

This is along the lines of what I would have said if I'd had the time the other day, and the cheater might actually be right about it doing more harm than good for the relationship, but in spite of that I think it should be revealed as keeping that secret may not be good for the future of the relationship either in other ways. Holding onto secrets can work on a person and in effect hurt things. Plus it's just not ethical, especially if they're considering reconciling. There are ways to soften the blow of such a revelation, though.

The problem as I see it is when and under what circumstances something like that is best revealed. Certainly doing it under the gun and at a holiday party are not ideal circumstances and those circumstances can contribute to damaging the relationship more than if done at a different time and location. There are ways of softening that blow if presented differently, such as doing it in the presence of a marriage counselor, or when they are alone and relaxed. I understand that he may have wanted to beat Senior to divulging that information but doing it the way he did is has the potential of hurting the relationship even more. 

Having a relationship in their circumstances is usually not considered cheating if they had a separation agreement and it's worded in the right way, but some people might still consider it cheating in spite of that. And if there's any question about whether Julian knew what was going on Olympia should tell him about it. I don't know if she's required to under the terms of a separation agreement, but ethically speaking she should.

Normally, I would think once there's any sort of separation that is clearly heading toward divorce, one spouse/SO has no right to know anything about who the other's sleeping with with basically one exception that comes to mind: if the new sex partner is going to be around their mutual kids.

What complicates things is that after the separation, Olympia and Julian have gotten back together. I'm sure there's a range of reasonable opinions on whether that obligates Olympia to tell Julian about her having had a romance with Elijah at some point.

My current take is that at some point she should tell Julian she'd been with Elijah. Elijah's their effective boss (as I understand it, he's an equity partner and they are regular partners), Julian does deserve to make sure STDs aren't something he needs to worry about, and to not be blindsided if the information that Olympia and Elijah had been together comes out from another source (Elijah, Matty and probably the Meerkat know).

  • Like 1
  • Applause 1
Nashville

Nashville

1 hour ago, shapeshifter said:

Wasn't there some reason related to the divorce for Olympia and Elijah to keep it on the down low? I can't recall if it was related to the financial settlement or custody arrangements, but it's usually one of those in such situations. 

The initial reason cited was ostensibly to avoid gossip or hard feelings in the workplace, but I could easily see a couple of more likely scenarios - both more focused on Olivia than Elijah:

  1. Blowback from public revelation of the relationship having a negative impact upon Olivia’s divorce negotiations / settlement.
  2. Olivia herself feeling uncertain about the “staying power”of this new relationship - enough so, at least, to want to avoid public scrutiny.
  • Like 3
Irlandesa

Irlandesa

(edited)

I just think she thought it'd look messy if she were public about dating a lawyer in the firm while mid-divorce from another lawyer. 

IIRC, the reason she broke up with Elijah or was happy he was going to TX is because she realized it didn't really matter whether she waited until the divorce was finalized to go public.  It was going to look messy either way.

Edited by Irlandesa
  • Like 3
Chicago Redshirt

Chicago Redshirt

(edited)
1 hour ago, AnimeMania said:

Olympia didn't want it to look like she only had relationships to advance her career.

Anybody who's going to think that is going to think that if she comes out immediately or six months after it started. 

My speculation would be that it's one or more of the following:

1. Her wanting to avoid problems with the amicable divorce she's looking to get -- she's concerned about how Julian and Senior might react. 

2 Her having on some level wanting to keep the possibility of reconciliation with Julian alive

3. Her being afraid of professional/personal blowback from Julian and/or Senior being upset that the divorce isn't signed and she's already hooking up with someone else

4. Her wanting to make sure that the thing with Elijah is solid enough to be worth potentially blowing things up for.

Edited by Chicago Redshirt
  • Like 2
  • Useful 1
shapeshifter

shapeshifter

(edited)
22 hours ago, Chicago Redshirt said:

Elijah's their effective boss (as I understand it, he's an equity partner and they are regular partners),

I had totally missed that power dynamic vis a vis a relationship.
I thought the three of them were equals.

And then there's the bonus power dynamic/complication of Olivia being the estranged wife of their boss's boss who is also her father-in-law and Julian's father.

Nothing's ever simple on this show, is it? 
I don't mind complexity, but soap operas in the middle of my crime shows is a turn-off for me, along with lack of comic relief, albeit not as much as gratuitous violence (which this show has not included).

Edited by shapeshifter
  • Like 1
  • Applause 1
Chicago Redshirt

Chicago Redshirt

29 minutes ago, shapeshifter said:

I had totally missed that power dynamic vis a vis a relationship.
I thought the three of them were equals.

In the pilot, Elijah humble-brags that he's now an equity partner and just like the rest of the partners, only richer or some such. He also was running that meeting. So I think it does potentially introduce a number of dynamics -- power within the firm, a trigger for Julian's daddy issues, the racial dynamic if TPTB are willing to go there.

I haven't ever worked for a private firm, but my understanding of their hierarchy goes something like 

1) Founding/name partners (Presumably, Senior is on this level)

2) Managing partners/equity partners/senior partners (This is where Elijah is)

3) Partners (this is where I believe Olympia, Julian and most of the other people in the meeting Matty crashed to be)

4) Junior partners (some firms have this level)

5) Partner-track associates (About 6-8 years into the practice people are considered potentially eligible for promotion)

6) Mid-level associates (3-5 years of experience)

7) 1st/2nd year associates: This is where Billy and Sarah are. Basically people at this level are there to do first drafts of work for their partners and scut work.

  • Like 1
  • Useful 3
Bastet

Bastet

4 hours ago, Chicago Redshirt said:

3) Partners (this is where I believe Olympia, Julian and most of the other people in the meeting Matty crashed to be)

Definitely for Olympia, because she's in position to be made a senior partner (but Sr. wants her back on the "regular" cases for that, and she's trying to prove to him that she can make the firm enough money with her do-good cases to be a senior partner that way).

  • Useful 2
psychfan

psychfan

This one may have been the one to lose me. I may hate watch for a little longer to see what happens, but I was so disgusted by this. Does she really not see that what she just did is the exact same thing she’s on this vendetta about to begin with? Even worse in some ways. She was off this case but went digging anyway. If she hasn’t, the common law marriage thing wouldn’t have come up to protect the drug company. So now, she knows their client is deliberately hiding information in ways that are harming patients. She’s helping them to do that. Legally she has no choice but to keep helping them do that (although I think there must be some mechanism to get at the doctor who has a greater obligation to the patients he sees than to the drug company). But isn’t that exactly the same situation she started this for in the first place, holding the law firm responsible for hiding that info? And now she’s the one helping them hide info in ways that are going to harm lots of other people, right now. Seems to me either she needs to step up, risking the consequences for doing so, or she needs to stop the whole idea of seeking revenge for her daughter’s death. Since that revenge is the premise of the whole show that doesn’t seem likely. But it’s really galling that she seems to think feeling bad about it all while doing nothing to help those being harmed is fine for her, while she’s being so self-righteous and lying to everyone to try to get at the people who acted the same way for the same client before.

  • Like 4
  • Applause 2
Chicago Redshirt

Chicago Redshirt

10 minutes ago, psychfan said:

This one may have been the one to lose me. I may hate watch for a little longer to see what happens, but I was so disgusted by this. Does she really not see that what she just did is the exact same thing she’s on this vendetta about to begin with? Even worse in some ways. She was off this case but went digging anyway. If she hasn’t, the common law marriage thing wouldn’t have come up to protect the drug company. So now, she knows their client is deliberately hiding information in ways that are harming patients. She’s helping them to do that. Legally she has no choice but to keep helping them do that (although I think there must be some mechanism to get at the doctor who has a greater obligation to the patients he sees than to the drug company). But isn’t that exactly the same situation she started this for in the first place, holding the law firm responsible for hiding that info? And now she’s the one helping them hide info in ways that are going to harm lots of other people, right now. Seems to me either she needs to step up, risking the consequences for doing so, or she needs to stop the whole idea of seeking revenge for her daughter’s death. Since that revenge is the premise of the whole show that doesn’t seem likely. But it’s really galling that she seems to think feeling bad about it all while doing nothing to help those being harmed is fine for her, while she’s being so self-righteous and lying to everyone to try to get at the people who acted the same way for the same client before.

I think you raise an excellent point about how Matty's crusade is inherently flawed.

It will/would be interesting to see if Matty is self-aware enough to process that she is a hypocrite and she has through this action has contributed to Wellbrexa continuing to harm people and profit with minimal accountability.

I suppose there is some potential rationalization that Matty could do:

It's not proven that the trial caused Cellist's health issues;

Even assuming it did, the drug may prove a phenomenal success still where the good of it going forward outweighs the rare cases of side effects experienced by Cellist and others;

There's no chance that the drug at issue here is going to be addictive or have the obviously known side effects both on an individual basis and on broader society that opioids have had.

In this case, the info is out there, she just pulled a legal trick to prevent the plaintiff from using it in this case. That may different from the withholding in the opioid case, where we don't know exactly what was withheld or how it could have prevented the crisis from spreading (or if it could have prevented it), other than Matty says it could have..

  • Like 2
cameron

cameron

On 12/12/2024 at 9:19 PM, Irlandesa said:

Yes, I think she does realize it.  That's why she broke down.  This isn't about some overall sense of justice; this is about vengeance for her daughter.

She really needs to come to the realization that her daughter was responsible for the choices she made in her life and stop blaming other people.

  • Like 2
  • Applause 1
Bastet

Bastet

4 hours ago, cameron said:

She really needs to come to the realization that her daughter was responsible for the choices she made in her life and stop blaming other people.

Nobody chooses to be an addict.  And given what she was addicted to, she may very well have been prescribed the drug.  That's how a lot of people got addicted to it (and then resort to obtaining it illegally, or using heroin, to feed that addiction).

People's subsequent choices don't all get waved away because of the disease, but it can't all be laid at their feet, either.  The opioid crisis is a public health catastrophe for which numerous parties are to blame.  The pharmaceutical companies, in particular, have a lot to answer for.

  • Like 6
  • Applause 3
cameron

cameron

13 hours ago, Bastet said:

Nobody chooses to be an addict.  And given what she was addicted to, she may very well have been prescribed the drug.  That's how a lot of people got addicted to it (and then resort to obtaining it illegally, or using heroin, to feed that addiction).

People's subsequent choices don't all get waved away because of the disease, but it can't all be laid at their feet, either.  The opioid crisis is a public health catastrophe for which numerous parties are to blame.  The pharmaceutical companies, in particular, have a lot to answer for.

But so do the people that abuse their medications, it's on them. 

Nashville

Nashville

20 hours ago, cameron said:

But so do the people that abuse their medications, it's on them. 

Depends upon your definition of “abuse”, then; confusion on this topic is a primary reason why opioids have created such a health crisis in America.

Yes, many of the people who got addicted to opioids undoubtedly did so through abuse of legally prescribed medications; addictive personalities are a thing in the general population, and you’ll be hard-put to find ANY drug - prescribed or OTC - for which somebody at some time hasn’t evidenced some degree of addiction, be it on a physical or psychological level.

The thing about opioids, though, is this:

  1. In their pursuit for ever-increasing profits, drug manufacturers spent years - hell, decades - applying various forms of pressure on doctors to get them writing (a) more prescriptions, (b) for heavier (and more expensive) doses, and (c) to continue renewing those prescriptions for as long as possible.  The Big Pharma medical reps did their job to sell the product, downplaying the addiction numbers with a combination of cherry-picked data and financial inducements - anyone up for an all-expenses-paid deep-sea fishing junket off Cabo?
  2. The problem with opioids in this scenario, however, is that they are so addictive that ANY form of treatment extension past the initial prescription exponentially increases the likelihood of developing addiction.

So: with a significant number of providers succumbing to the blandishments of Big Pharma, an environment has been created where a patient could follow a doctor-prescribed course of medication treatment, and follow the provider’s instructions to the letter - and still come out addicted on the other side.  😕

  • Like 3
  • Thanks 3
  • Applause 2
cameron

cameron

(edited)
4 hours ago, Nashville said:

Depends upon your definition of “abuse”, then; confusion on this topic is a primary reason why opioids have created such a health crisis in America.

Yes, many of the people who got addicted to opioids undoubtedly did so through abuse of legally prescribed medications; addictive personalities are a thing in the general population, and you’ll be hard-put to find ANY drug - prescribed or OTC - for which somebody at some time hasn’t evidenced some degree of addiction, be it on a physical or psychological level.

The thing about opioids, though, is this:

  1. In their pursuit for ever-increasing profits, drug manufacturers spent years - hell, decades - applying various forms of pressure on doctors to get them writing (a) more prescriptions, (b) for heavier (and more expensive) doses, and (c) to continue renewing those prescriptions for as long as possible.  The Big Pharma medical reps did their job to sell the product, downplaying the addiction numbers with a combination of cherry-picked data and financial inducements - anyone up for an all-expenses-paid deep-sea fishing junket off Cabo?
  2. The problem with opioids in this scenario, however, is that they are so addictive that ANY form of treatment extension past the initial prescription exponentially increases the likelihood of developing addiction.

So: with a significant number of providers succumbing to the blandishments of Big Pharma, an environment has been created where a patient could follow a doctor-prescribed course of medication treatment, and follow the provider’s instructions to the letter - and still come out addicted on the other side.  😕

Guess you don't believe that doctors standby the hippocratic oath that they take.

 

 

Edited by cameron
shapeshifter

shapeshifter

5 hours ago, Nashville said:

Depends upon your definition of “abuse”, then; confusion on this topic is a primary reason why opioids have created such a health crisis in America.

Yes, many of the people who got addicted to opioids undoubtedly did so through abuse of legally prescribed medications; addictive personalities are a thing in the general population, and you’ll be hard-put to find ANY drug - prescribed or OTC - for which somebody at some time hasn’t evidenced some degree of addiction, be it on a physical or psychological level.

The thing about opioids, though, is this:

  1. In their pursuit for ever-increasing profits, drug manufacturers spent years - hell, decades - applying various forms of pressure on doctors to get them writing (a) more prescriptions, (b) for heavier (and more expensive) doses, and (c) to continue renewing those prescriptions for as long as possible.  The Big Pharma medical reps did their job to sell the product, downplaying the addiction numbers with a combination of cherry-picked data and financial inducements - anyone up for an all-expenses-paid deep-sea fishing junket off Cabo?
  2. The problem with opioids in this scenario, however, is that they are so addictive that ANY form of treatment extension past the initial prescription exponentially increases the likelihood of developing addiction.

So: with a significant number of providers succumbing to the blandishments of Big Pharma, an environment has been created where a patient could follow a doctor-prescribed course of medication treatment, and follow the provider’s instructions to the letter - and still come out addicted on the other side.  😕

…and die. Like my cousin.

  • Hugs 3
  • Sad 2
jah1986

jah1986

I think some people just have a kind of blind faith in doctors. When I suffered an injury, my doctor prescribed Prednisone, to be taken three times a day, 20 mg each. I didn't know anything about the drug but a few days later I thought I was losing my mind, I was irrationally angry all the time and couldn't explain it. When I asked a nurse friend about the drug he told me the possible side effects. I decided to stop taking the drug a week later, my doctor was unconcerned with my symptoms. It took another week before I noticed relief.

All that to say, I wish the show would give more information about how the daughter became an addict and why Mattie is targeting Well Brexa. Surely there are other big pharma companies out there.

  • Like 6
shapeshifter

shapeshifter

4 minutes ago, Yeah No said:

if someone just wants to get high and seeks out those drugs, I'd consider that a different situation and wouldn't be as sympathetic to them as a result.

Do we know that Matty's daughter originally got addicted through a doctor's prescription?
Even if her daughter sought opioids on her own, likely she was self-medicating for pain, depression, etc., which might explain some of Matty's feelings of guilt. People who want to get "high" are generally seeking relief from being "down."

It's easy to confuse and entangle the manipulative behaviors and constant lies of an addict with their own uncontrollable, physical compulsion to medicate.

  • Like 4
Percysowner

Percysowner

43 minutes ago, jah1986 said:

All that to say, I wish the show would give more information about how the daughter became an addict and why Mattie is targeting Well Brexa. Surely there are other big pharma companies out there.

The show has been doing a slow burn of this story, so I'm trusting them to eventually give us more information on Matty's daughter. As to why Wellbrexa, this is the US of A. All drugs get patents and the company that invented them gets all the profits. For example fentanyl was made by TEVA owned by the Sackler family and THEY are the ones that pushed the drug as safe and non-addictive, or at least not very addictive. Other companies my develop similar drugs, but only fentanyl one that has caused the biggest crisis. Pharmaceutical companies do not enjoy sharing the credit or the wealth from their drugs. We have to accept that Matty's daughter got addicted specifically to the drug that Wellbrexa made.

13 minutes ago, Yeah No said:

INow mind you, if someone just wants to get high and seeks out those drugs, I'd consider that a different situation and wouldn't be as sympathetic to them as a result.

That is a reaction a lot of people have. It is carving out the "right kind" of addicts and giving them sympathy. It is similar to how for most of history rape victims had to be the "right kind" of victim, someone who did nothing to "ask for it". The point of the show is, whether the addict was completely sympathetic or not Wellbrexa manufactured, promoted and sold a drug under the umbrella of being safe and not incredibly addictive and that they not only lied, they hid documents that proved the lie at some point when their safety was being reviewed.

Addiction really is and illness. Some people can deal with the stresses of life better than others. That doesn't make the fact that, in Matty's theory, a rich, powerful company TARGETED the people who were most likely to be hurt by their product.

  • Like 5
  • Applause 2
  • Useful 2
schnauzergirl

schnauzergirl

1 hour ago, Bastet said:

No, we have not yet learned the details of her addiction.

Lots of things we don't know about as yet, including the circumstances of Ellie's addition.  We don't know when Maddy stopped practicing law, we don't know where the Matlock/Kingston wealth came from, we don't know anything about Alfie's father.  We might assume the Kingstons live in Westchester County, thanks to the school bus in the opening scene of the last episode.  The one I'm most interested in -- and it may have zero relevance -- concerns Alfie's dad.  Unless I've missed it and I don't think I have, there hasn't been any mention of him at all.

  • Like 1
  • Useful 2
Johannah

Johannah

On 12/6/2024 at 8:20 PM, seacliffsal said:

I think Mattie is trying to convince herself that she's a 'good person' and is hurting people because of a 'greater good.'  However, she is willing to hurt people so her justifications are just an attempt to excuse the behaviors that she intentionally, and willingly, does.  And, therein lies her dilemna-is she a good person or is she truly a person who will hurt others to get what she wants.  The ends justifies the means.  What it comes down to for me is that no matter what she says or how she tries to justify it, she is willing to hurt others to get what she wants.  Isn't that why she is trying to punish the drug company and law firm?  Does that mean that she is on the same level as they are?  

Just glad we didn't have to see the grandson and I guess it's okay she got him to help her as he is on vacation in Florida...

Haven't read all the comments yet, but the hypocrisy in this episode was overwhelming.  Yes, she is doing exactly what her personal vendetta is about.  For her own revenge, she is willingly letting others suffer as they stay in the drug trial.  How dare she shed a tear for her part in this.  Yes, I get that you are doing your job and lawyers have to defend their clients even when they are guilty, but if her only reason for having this job is for revenge against someone doing exactly what she did, then she doesn't have the luxury of hiding behind that excuse.  Maybe when she gets her revenge, and we know she will, someone will come after her.  I hope so and that their revenge destroys her as surely as her revenge will destroy some innocent people in that firm.

On 12/12/2024 at 6:02 PM, psychfan said:

This one may have been the one to lose me. I may hate watch for a little longer to see what happens, but I was so disgusted by this. Does she really not see that what she just did is the exact same thing she’s on this vendetta about to begin with? Even worse in some ways. She was off this case but went digging anyway. If she hasn’t, the common law marriage thing wouldn’t have come up to protect the drug company. So now, she knows their client is deliberately hiding information in ways that are harming patients. She’s helping them to do that. Legally she has no choice but to keep helping them do that (although I think there must be some mechanism to get at the doctor who has a greater obligation to the patients he sees than to the drug company). But isn’t that exactly the same situation she started this for in the first place, holding the law firm responsible for hiding that info? And now she’s the one helping them hide info in ways that are going to harm lots of other people, right now. Seems to me either she needs to step up, risking the consequences for doing so, or she needs to stop the whole idea of seeking revenge for her daughter’s death. Since that revenge is the premise of the whole show that doesn’t seem likely. But it’s really galling that she seems to think feeling bad about it all while doing nothing to help those being harmed is fine for her, while she’s being so self-righteous and lying to everyone to try to get at the people who acted the same way for the same client before.

...Because it needs repeating.

  • Like 2
Bastet

Bastet

(edited)
1 hour ago, Johannah said:

doing exactly what she did

The claim someone at the firm destroyed/hid evidence in the prior case seems to indicate they failed to disclose a document/documents they were obligated to make available to opposing counsel and the court.  Here, Matty didn't hide/destroy a document, she presented evidence that caused the judge to exclude it.  As she was obligated to do once she found out about the marriage.

Or, this (I knew someone had already said it much better):

On 12/6/2024 at 9:02 PM, Percysowner said:

I have to say that as much as Matty felt that what she did was morally wrong, what she did was actually legally ethical and required. She is employed by a law firm that is employed by Wellbrexa to protect them against law suits. Yes, we are certainly being shown that Wellbrexa is a bad actor, but they are the client. Matty found out something that was true and made it part of the court record. That was her job. Frankly, if she had decided she couldn't do it, she would have needed to quit, because she would have been hiding evidence. The irony is that she is doing all this because she believes someone at the firm hid evidence to protect Wellbrexa. So, to help a sympathetic plaintiff, Matty would have had to do the EXACT thing she is trying to bring the firm down for. You really can't say, "I think this is a good person, so I will hide something to help them," and at the same time "I think this bad person hid something to help themselves and they must suffer vengeance". You can't choose to give a full defense only to the people you like, or feel sympathy for.

Part of Matty's journey may be discovering that  she has to do things that cross her morals because that's what legal ethics require She may also come to see that whoever represented Wellbrexa all those years ago did the same thing, something legal, but morally wrong. I'm also pretty sure she is going to have to reckon with how much of her soul she is willing to sell in order to get the "justice" she wants.

Edited by Bastet
  • Like 3
  • Useful 1
GHScorpiosRule

GHScorpiosRule

3 hours ago, peachmangosteen said:

I am pretty sure she said in the pilot that she stopped 10 years ago. I might have the exact time wrong but I do know she mentioned it in the pilot when talking to Edwin.

Yes, she said she hasn’t practiced in 10 years. But for the purposes of working where she is, told them it’s been over 30.

  • Like 2
  • Useful 1

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
Go to topic listing
×
×
  • Create New...