S06.E13: Dark Money

[pennben]

 

the writers are trying to make Alicia despicable, aren't they?

 

I think they think they are making her awesome.

Edited March 3, 2015 by pennben

[axlmadonna]

I can buy that someone Redmayne's age, even a Democrat, would be a homophobe. I have a harder time believing he throws words like "fag" around casually.

Not only do people rarely, if ever, use that word anymore, the Redmayne character was nothing but a caricature. I'm shocked that they portrayed him as Democrat, because TV shows usually love to use that particular stereotype for "conservatives", especially in combination with a southern accent. I've liven in Texas my entire life, and no one talks the way that southern people are portrayed on fictional television. I mean.. "I'm going to donate $1 Million in 'dark money'!"... seriously?? NO ONE talks that way in real life.

I used to enjoy this show immensely, and I have a hard time breaking up with shows I've liked for a long time. I overlook a lot of silly bias, because I understand what the entertainment industry is, but I said goodbye to Grey's Anatomy over this kind of bull, so don't take my viewership for granted, Good Wife.

[CleoCaesar]

Not only do people rarely, if ever, use that word anymore, the Redmayne character was nothing but a caricature. I'm shocked that they portrayed him as Democrat, because TV shows usually love to use that particular stereotype for "conservatives", especially in combination with a southern accent. I've liven in Texas my entire life, and no one talks the way that southern people are portrayed on fictional television.

 

I think it was more of a caricature of "rich old white man", i.e. the quickest way to denote a character is Totally Evil.

[ChocButterfly]

She doesn't know Bishop is funding her PAC. Only the audience (and apparently Sweeney) know.

Nope, she knows, he flat out told her. That's why when Sweeney threatened to make public who the founder of her pac is she momentarily panicked a bit. Which is ridiculous that no one has found out.

 

If the writers have any interest whatsoever in their audience backing Alicia again, the only thing they can do is have her drop from the race because she realized she's already crossed a line and she doesn't want to become that person she's becoming. That's where I thought they were going when she ended up crying last night. She realized she had turned into a horrible person. Speaking of that scene, why does Alicia always treat Grace like she's 5 years old? That conversation sounds exactly like conversation you'd have with a 5-year old. It was incredibly infantilized, like Grace lacks the capacity to have a normal adult discussion. I paraphrase:

 

Grace: What's wrong?

Alicia: I don't like it when people do bad things (WTF??!!)

Grace: (Something simplistic, I don't remember)

Alicia: I was bad today.

Grace: Oh, no you couldn't be!

Alicia: Why you think that?

Grace: Because you're the best person I know!

Alicia: (Starts crying because she realized what a hypocrite and incredibly awful person she is)

[morgankobi]

Oh my god, it's even worse in written form.

People wrote, read,  approved, memorized and actually delivered those lines? And they were all paid for it.

[justjenna]

 

This season has been a total disappointment, and it's obvious the writers have lost their way. I preferred when it was more procedural and everyone was involved in cases and not elections.

Couldn't agree more with the critiques in this thread. It has really lost its way and fallen hard and fast. I really despise how marginalized Diane and well, everyone who isn't named Alicia, has become. If they have to trudge down the campaign trail for an entire season, couldn't the others have some decent stories that showcase their talents, too, like it used to be? Less Alicia might go a long way towards fixing things.

 

On a lighter note, the height of failure has been that they couldn't even get it right and properly utilize Matthew Goode's top notch flirtation skills and charismatic self as a love interest. Now that Downton has stolen their thunder and scored big on that front..they are all but Finn's coming back in every article. Too late.

Edited March 3, 2015 by justjenna

[Tetraneutron]

Grace has always been written . . . weird. I think the show wants to contrast her pure innocence with Peter's and Zach's vastly more entertaining underhandedness and competence but it makes Grace look unrealistically dumb. (I'm still not over that plotline where she gives the fake not to her teacher). And I like seeing the other Florricks scheme and trick people and get things done. I don't like seeing the opposite of that. Although to all the people who think Alicia's a bitch, imagine if she were more like Grace.

 

I'm indifferent to Finn. Am I the only one? Yes, the actor is charismatic, but Alicia doesn't need a love interest. She's too cautious to actually do anything besides innocently vibe with someone. And it's weird to have her fall for someone she just met when the love of her life JUST DIED. The show is perfectly capable of writing non-romance plotlines. It should maybe hold off on the triangles for a few months.

 

And for people getting sick of the election, the promo for next week said there's one week left. The show tends to work in real time so that looks like 2 more weeks at most.

 

And about Redmayne, does anyone remember when Peter was re-running for SA, his campaign pressured him to stop hanging out with pastor Isaiah and start catering to the suburbs with coded racism? And now they're doing the exact same thing with Alicia, but with gay people. Peter was quick to do what Eli told him. Does the show want us to draw the parallel here or did they forget all about it?

[ElectricBoogaloo]

Because Peter's the governor. Name one real pol at that level who divorced while in office. It could seriously harm his career ( and hers, if she wants a public job) and they both know it.

While Gavin Newsom was mayor of San Francisco, he divorced his first wife, had an affair with his friend's wife (the friend was his former deputy chief of staff and campaign manager), went to rehab (for alcohol abuse), and married his second wife (not the woman he had an affair with). And all this was going on after he authorized gay marriage licenses in the city, so he wasn't exactly flying under the radar. After all the very public drama in his personal life, he was re-elected as mayor and then became lieutenant governor of California.

Edited March 4, 2015 by ElectricBoogaloo

[milkyaqua]

Yes, this.  And even though he's not running for the Senate seat, I wouldn't put it past Gavin to if not eventually become Governer but to run for higher office.  I'm still pissed at him for stuff he did when he was a supervisor though.

[maraleia]

Real life Illinois voters wouldn't care if let's say we had Peter as governor and Alicia and Peter divorced. The writers think that we aren't sophisticated here in the flyover states which is insulting. Our former governor Pat Quinn is single (divorced in 1986) and is known as quite the ladies man and no one cared. They only cared that he wasn't an effective governor so that's why he lost the election last Nov.

I'm still mad that they get simple things wrong about Chicago that can be solved by using Google maps.

[kwnyc]

 

There's been a lot of speculation about which male Alicia might go on to have an affair with, and it occurred to me with this episode that the one she actually has the most chemistry with is Prady, and he would, to me, be the most interesting choice: a competing candidate who *knows* how profoundly Alicia is misrepresenting her moral standards.

 

That's because David Hyde Pierce is such a good actor. As a character, he IS the guy who should win the election. I'm hoping that he does and that he returns as a recurring character when Alicia is back doing...whatever it is she does.

[Kel Varnsen]

 

I'm still mad that they get simple things wrong about Chicago that can be solved by using Google maps.

I still remember an episode from a few years ago where Alicia met with Ron Rifkin at an outdoor cafe and in the background over his shoulder you could see Radio City Music Hall. And yet there was no mention of her going to NYC to meet him.

 

That's because David Hyde Pierce is such a good actor. As a character, he IS the guy who should win the election. I'm hoping that he does and that he returns as a recurring character when Alicia is back doing...whatever it is she does.

That could actually be interesting. The firms in this show hasn't had a good nemesis as the State's attorney (played by a good actor) for I don't know how long. At least since Glenn Childs.

[needschocolate]

I always try to look for the silver lining, try to find the good in all the bad.  With that in mind --- Yay! they had a Case of the Week!  An actual CotW, that started and ended in the same episode, that didn't have one of the firm's lawyers as a defendant, that wasn't the basis for the firm almost going under or being saved from financial ruin, that didn't pit them against the old firm, and wasn't tied closely with the stupid election.  

 

Although I look for the good in the bad, I am not a strict follower of "if you can't say something nice, don't way anything at all" - there was plenty bad in this episode, as the posters above this have pointed out.  It wasn't a great CotW, but it was a CotW.

[TV Anonymous]

How can Alicia's firm threaten the TV production company on behalf of Chumhum? Didn't Chumhum fire them in one of the last episodes before the break. Considering Chumhum=google, wouldn't every other law firm working in Chicago know about this?

 

Even if Chumhum has not fired Florrick, Agos and Lockhart, what right does the law firm have to make leverage out of its client, which is not a party of the litigation? Further, what stops Neil Gross from suing the production independently after realizing that his product is used on-screen without permission?

[Kel Varnsen]

Even if Chumhum has not fired Florrick, Agos and Lockhart, what right does the law firm have to make leverage out of its client, which is not a party of the litigation? Further, what stops Neil Gross from suing the production independently after realizing that his product is used on-screen without permission?

Yea that didn't make sense to me. Plus are F/A and L the only law firm that Chumhum retains? Say he is google and is based in California, wouldn't he have lawyers in California as well (not to mention in house legal people). Plus if F/A and L aren't Chumhum's lawyers anymore how would they know that this wasn't a product placement thing.

 

Plus I am no lawyer, not even a law talkin guy, but would they really have any chance of suing for defamation, just because Chumhum's logo was shown in the background of a murder scene. Wouldn't the fact that the chumhum homepage shows up a bunch of different times be proof that it is not a defamation thing, but proof that it is so well accepted that everyone uses it. I mean we have seen Lamont Bishop drive different cars, could the real life companies that produce those cars sue for defamation?

[Fredward]

Why does it feel like this is becoming a recurring thing? Everyone starts flailing their hands and saying the show has jumped the shark or whatever and then the Kings do something brilliant and everyone's back on board?

 

Anyway. I really like what they're doing with Alicia. Taking her to the dark side, not dramatically but incrementally. The way they contrasted 'old' Alicia on that television show with current Alicia taking money from that asshat was nice. She's been the Good Wife, the moral monolith, but why is that all she should be? I don't know how far they're gonna take this path but I imagine it'll continue right until Alicia almost wins and then she's asked to take one step too far and she falls out of the race. I think. It'd be corny but I'm not sure how well the show would function if Alicia didn't show up in court at all. Also, I get the impression the fans aren't crazy about the current plotline anyway. Too unfamiliar.

 

As for Kalinda and Bishop... I think I recall Kalinda allowing her husband to push her around (or try to) for a while too before she potentially killed him. I thought something similar was happening with Bishop but then they go out of their way to humanize him this episode. Which doesn't cross out Kalinda breaking his kneecaps ofc but it DOES make it seem somewhat less likely.

 

I've always liked Sweeney. Well no. I've never liked Sweeney. But I liked episodes featuring Sweeney because the way he and Alicia interacted was so interesting. It's like they understand each other on some fundamental level neither is totally willing to look at too closely. Or at least Alicia isn't. So I didn't dislike his appearance here but I wouldn't mind a new psychopath either. Maybe one of his wives/ex wives (there is at least one ex wife or gf or something right?) kills HIM.

[marceline]

I've been pretty checked out on this season because I don't like the campaign story and I dislike how the whole conceit of splitting up the firms has been nullified but I have to admit that I still love the performances. Alicia's sour look when Redmayne started talking was great. The same with Baranski's "I need a bleach shower" look when Colin and Renata were eye-fucking in the courtroom. I know a lot of people are tired of Bishop but enjoy Mike Colter's portrayal immensely. Plus I love Laura Benanti and really wish she could find a show of her own that sticks.

 

That said, I look forward to Alicia losing the election.

[MYOS]

We're supposed to hope Alicia loses, right? "New" Alicia won't drop out of the race, but clearly the show portrays Frank Prady as the better man. And he'd be such a fantastic opponent to Florrick, Agos, and Lockhart! I think it'd be awesome to have them on opposite sides of the bench. But I don't know whether CBS will "let" Alicia lose. When she was a lawyer she wasn't "allowed" to lose cases. BTW, in this episode, we saw she's really become a good lawyer and would be better off doing that job than running in a campaign. (And perhaps she'll learn from that campaign to run a better campaign... that'd be awesome for 2016.)

I think Bishop will get Kalinda killed, but not because he wants to kill her - because she's at the wrong place at the wrong time.

[morgankobi]

I'm right there with you. The Kings are aware Prady looks better, right? It's possible they pull some character assassination out of their rear in the next few weeks (lord I hope not), but it is so odd how bad they are making their main character look.

[momlyd]

I think Bishop will get Kalinda killed, but not because he wants to kill her - because she's at the wrong place at the wrong time.

I think you are correct but what an awful way for Kalinda to be killed - as an accident. Sad.

[WearyTraveler]

I guess one possibility is that Kalinda dies protecting Bishop's son.  After all he didn't hire her just because of a bully.

Edited March 7, 2015 by WearyTraveler

[Guest]

Plus I am no lawyer, not even a law talkin guy, but would they really have any chance of suing for defamation, just because Chumhum's logo was shown in the background of a murder scene. Wouldn't the fact that the chumhum homepage shows up a bunch of different times be proof that it is not a defamation thing, but proof that it is so well accepted that everyone uses it. I mean we have seen Lamont Bishop drive different cars, could the real life companies that produce those cars sue for defamation?

 

I'm no lawyer either but I think that if the Google logo appeared repeatedly throughout a show without prearrangement with the trademark holders, there would be legal complications, which is why we don't see logos appear in shows, outside of endorsement/ad deals, for the most part.  With cars, I think they avoid showing the trademarked part-- the logo/name on the car.  

[Kel Varnsen]

I guess one possibility is that Kalinda Idies protecting Bishop's son. After all he didn't hire her just because of a bully.

I can see kalinda dying for some kind of collertal damage thing. I noticed whe she brought the kid home after getting beat up, she didn't bother to mention about the car following her again.

[ktwo]

After all he didn't hire her just because of a bully.

I'm wondering if that's exactly what Bishop did. It's not like he could have a member of his crew witness his son being bullied without it reflecting negatively on him.

Edited March 7, 2015 by ktwo

[Tetraneutron]

I'm no lawyer either but I think that if the Google logo appeared repeatedly throughout a show without prearrangement with the trademark holders, there would be legal complications, which is why we don't see logos appear in shows, outside of endorsement/ad deals, for the most part.  With cars, I think they avoid showing the trademarked part-- the logo/name on the car.  

That's right. It's why TV shows go out of their way to mock-up search engines that look like google but are called "Planet Zowie" or "Searchsies". So it was realistic that the TV studio would drop the suit, but not that they'd use ChumHum in the first place, Shows don't as a matter of course, use real brands.

 

 

Nope, she knows, he flat out told her. That's why when Sweeney threatened to make public who the founder of her pac is she momentarily panicked a bit. Which is ridiculous that no one has found out.

You were right, I was wrong. Although it's not realistic no one's found out, since we consistently see Bishop's lawyers outmaneuver everyone else's lawyers. It's probably a bigger deal that Peter hasn't caught heat from his wife's firm representing Bishop, but the show only seems to remember Peter exists when it's convenient for the plot.

Edited March 9, 2015 by Obviously

[paramitch]

I didn't love this episode, but I thought it was okay. I definitely didn't think it was a sign the show has launched into a steep decline or anything. 

 

While I do think the Kings have made serious missteps with the show this season -- specifically, with Cary's ludicrous prosecution storyline and Alicia's election -- I do think they are aware that Alicia is not the best person on the show, and that they are actually willingly exploring what happens when a fairly decent person gets their standards eroded bit by bit. I have absolutely no doubt that everyone involved knew that Alicia came off terribly in the Redmayne scenario, and that Prady was the one who had me (and probably most) cheering him on.

 

I like that on a show called "The Good Wife," that the show is daring to ask questions about what makes Alicia both a good person and a good wife. I also thought it was interesting to explore a plotline in the same episode, in which we see that Lemond Bishop remains a very bad man, but that he is actually trying to be a good father.

 

Anyway. I really like what they're doing with Alicia. Taking her to the dark side, not dramatically but incrementally. The way they contrasted 'old' Alicia on that television show with current Alicia taking money from that asshat was nice. She's been the Good Wife, the moral monolith, but why is that all she should be? I don't know how far they're gonna take this path but I imagine it'll continue right until Alicia almost wins and then she's asked to take one step too far and she falls out of the race. I think. It'd be corny but I'm not sure how well the show would function if Alicia didn't show up in court at all. Also, I get the impression the fans aren't crazy about the current plotline anyway. Too unfamiliar.

 

I think the same thing as well -- I don't love the election storyline, but I'm okay with it if it keeps allowing Alicia to honestly examine herself and her potential hypocrisy. I also like the ways in which it examines the law and how so much of it seems to come down to the ways in which we can define what honesty or justice truly are.

 

Meanwhile, I admit that I found Baker a bit over the top as the actor, but I do always get a kick out of Sweeney, and to echo others, the scene with Sweeney on the stand while his wife was making come-hither faces at him was just hilarious. Laura Benanti is just terrific (and I loved seeing Julie White as the opposing counsel -- it made me wonder if the Kings were fans of "Go On," or if it was just a six degrees kind of thing to have her on the same episode -- especially as Matthew Perry has a recurring longtime GW role as well). I also loved how increasingly grossed out everyone was each time Sweeney took the stand.

 

So I'm still watching, and I still think this is an intelligent and worthwhile show overall, even if I don't love all the choices being made. My biggest complaint would echo those who are mystified by the consistent choices to isolate Alicia from the rest of the regular cast. It's just started to become weird and very noticeable, and I can't decide if it's deliberate (to exacerbate Alicia's isolation and loneliness) or an inadvertent production choice.

Edited March 13, 2015 by paramitch

[lovinbob]

Did I miss an episode or several? Was the altercation Alicia had with Diane and Cary (about Alicia being AWOL, and Diane and Cary making a big decision without her) ever addressed?

 

Because Peter's the governor. Name one real pol at that level who divorced while in office. It could seriously harm his career ( and hers, if she wants a public job) and they both know it.

I actually thought about when Rudy Giuliani and Donna Hanover were barely coexisting toward the end of his term in New York. Even before he "came out" as dating his now-wife, he and Donna were barely on speaking terms. I don't think it hurt him too much at the time, and I don't think he can blame his more recent failures on that particular issue.

[Tetraneutron]

Did I miss an episode or several? Was the altercation Alicia had with Diane and Cary (about Alicia being AWOL, and Diane and Cary making a big decision without her) ever addressed?

It was not.

 

Giuliani was mayor, though, not governor. Yes, he was elected by a city with more people than some states, but local politics are different. (I would also speculate that his marital history is part of the reason why he didn't win the GOP Presidential nomination in 2008). There might always be a few exceptions, but in general, politicians at that level don't divorce. They might be already divorced (like Pat Quinn), or maybe they have a really safe seat (anyone named Kennedy) and they can afford it. But on the whole, governors or Senators don't divorce while in office. Besides, we've been talking about men exclusively in this conversation. Alicia knows it would kill her image if she got a divorce. We keep seeing how much voters love St. Alicia. Now that she wants the label to get something for herself, she's going to use it.

 

If Peter were still SA, I would say the fact that they hadn't divorced (or hadn't seriously talked about it) was silly. But Governor? A governor with a known-to-the-public history of infidelity? Both Eli and Peter know how valuable their marriage is to their brand.

[Guest]

I liked this one because it finally addressed the question of whether Alicia would actually go there and be unsaintly to get what she wants. Frank Prady really is the best politician this show has had. He is probably be the best man for the job.Can Alicia really still run knowing that her opponent would be better at the job?

 

why does Alicia always treat Grace like she's 5 years old? That conversation sounds exactly like conversation you'd have with a 5-year old. It was incredibly infantilized,

 

 

I agree that it was overdone and very condescending. I think Alicia's crisis of conscience would have been better if she had been talking it out with Owen on the phone instead of with Grace. She really needed to bounce off of a grown up in that scene.
 

[vibeology]

I agree that it was overdone and very condescending. I think Alicia's crisis of conscience would have been better if she had been talking it out with Owen on the phone instead of with Grace. She really needed to bounce off of a grown up in that scene.

 

One of the big problems I'm having with the show right now is that they've written themselves out of all of Alicia's adult relationships. Kalinda is no longer her friend because she once slept with Peter, Will is dead, she can't just chat with Finn because of the "sexual tension", Cary and Diane are at odds with her over work and she's still angry with Peter because of their past. It leaves Owen and Veronica but that requires booking guest stars and you can't always have the people you need when you need them and even with her family the writers created tension. When you have a character like Alicia who is closed off, you need her to have at least one outlet so the viewers can get inside her head in an organic way. JM plays Alicia with this calm and I think its a wonderful choice but it makes it hard to follow all of her choices. She needs to talk things out sometimes but there isn't any character who can fill that role.

 

The fight to be Alicia's best gal pal is between Eli and his 21 year old daughter. And the 20 something is probably winning.

[John Potts]

I was wondering if the ChumHum thing wasn't a "Appearing in this program could be considered defamatory and you know what deep pockets ChumHum has" - implying that they might sue but (depending how it was worded) not actually claiming that they would. I have no idea how legal that would be, but I assume a bunch of lawyers could word it carefully enough.

 

As for the election - Bleh! The only good bit was Charlie Epps (OK, he's called Josh here) going : "Three weeks before the election, are you kidding me? We'd wait until three days before."

 

As for the Ever-More-Morally-Compromised Wife, she should have shown her moral backbone by refusing Redmayne's money. The important thing was that Prady didn't get his financial backing and after her meeting, it was clear that wasn't going to happen. Obviously more money is always nice, but it wasn't necessary to her campaign. Unless it was all a test - and then she definitely should have refused his money!