More Dramatic Than the Show: Behind the Scenes

[Noreaster]

Hi all, long time reader, first time posting. I stopped watching the show at the end of season 6, but have been keeping up-to-date with the forum.

I'm a fan of AP and this info was disappointing to read.

Of course, everything's speculation and we'll probably never know the truth, but I was wondering, if this is truly the case that AP doesn't get along with folks, could this be part of the reason we haven't heard anything about her project with Fox? Anyone have news?

from her interview back in May with The Guardian:

I don't know if the lack of activity on her development deal means much. I don't really pay close attention to these things but I think they usually take time. There are also probably plenty of development deals that never transpire into anything fruitful.

That said, who knows. If it's true that AP was difficult (and these tweets sound pretty damning to me), then she might have developed a bad reputation. Pretty much all the things that people were assuming about JM may instead be true about AP.

Edited January 27, 2016 by Noreaster

[possibilities]

It might not be either/or. They could both be divas.

[Noreaster]

Yep, could be both. I was just speaking along the lines of those tweets where supposedly at least a dozen people say AP is at fault and none say that JM is. In stark contrast to these boards where most wanted to blame JM 100%.

[pennben]

Oh, I think that there are a dozen or so tweets from behind the scenes sources that support Archie and a dozen or so  that support JM as mentioned.  That people choose sides on boards like these is not interesting in the least, that always happens, with people fighting so hard on each side (whether in the majority view or not) with the same lack of information, and each side fully believes they are in the right, and never the twain shall meet when picking and choosing the anonymous sources/tweets/whatever they decide to believe. I do it as well, so I'm not criticizing, just noting.

 

What is truly fascinating about this whole thing is that "mum's the word" has been the official motto of the show and it has really stuck so there are no official sources.  That so rarely happens anymore with all the social media outlets. And so many tv critics/reporters have tried to get to the bottom of this to no avail. 

 

Honestly, it would be a great episode of the show to explore how a lock-down on info can be so effective in this day and age.

Edited January 29, 2016 by pennben

[Noreaster]

Has there really been any behind the scenes tweets in support of either AP or JM? This latest stuff looks to be from the work of TV reporters/critics who basically reached out to their sources (from TGW crew?) who say that AP is at fault. One of these reporters/critics is from Buzzfeed, the site that reported on this situation in the first place, and who seems to have respect from the Previously TV people. The question is whether the reporters/critics are reliable and whether their sources (the dozen+ people over the years) are reliable. Has there been anything else remotely close to this type of evidence?

I agree it's interesting that the situation has been kept under wrap pretty well. The show including the Kings, JM, and the network have tried to pretend there's no feud. Basically the company line is there is no problem and their comments have been more focused on the creative, technical, and logistical sides of doing things so that they're not really lying. AP seems to be the only one sort of acknowledging it. Which, if I may speculate, may suggest that she's not being all that professional and perhaps this is consistent with the idea that she has not behaved in a particularly professional manner behind the scenes. The professional thing to do in my opinion is to not talk about it at all.

Edited January 29, 2016 by Noreaster

[pennben]

The person at Buzzfeed is Kate Aurthur.  She's fantastic, and a good person to follow on twitter...for instance, she was all in on the Cosby issue well before it was popular/safe to be all in on the rape allegations.  I have no doubt that if she says she's heard things from dozens, she has.  Here's where I get hung up, she and another journalist, I think, in the tweet thread you provided agree that this is what they've heard, and yet neither has published an article on the issue.  Why not?  This is of massive interest to the fans of the show, but I don't recall anything being published other than in some gossipy rag.  I remember there being an article where somewhere in the comments, someone claimed to work on the show and told a different story, I'm sure you can find it upthread somewhere (I should not have phrased it as "dozens of tweets", just different stories from unnamed sources).

 

That's what really fascinates me, why is nothing published? Why does Michael Aussiello of Tvline say he doesn't care about the behind the scenes stuff when folks (and he himself) generally trip over themselves to report on stuff like this and what they've heard?  I sincerely would love to know the answer to that question.

Edited January 30, 2016 by pennben

[orza]

There are lots of reasons nothing was reported. Maybe there really wasn't much to the story. If it was just a case of two actors not working well together because they have different work styles and get on each others nerves, then that is boring and not worth reporting.

 

If Kings really want internal stuff to stay out of the media and journalists value their relationship with the Kings they will not report on it. If the inside sources insisted that their info remain off the record then reputable journalists will honor that until it doesn't matter any more. Nowadays it's common for everyone who works on a show to sign nondisclosure agreements with million dollar penalties  and job loss for breaking them. People think twice about risking their jobs to pass on a bit of gossip.

 

The fans that have "massive interest" in a supposed behind the scenes feud are a very small number of people. The vast majority of viewers don't care about that kind of stuff. Media journalists need to report on what the majority of their readers care about if they want to keep them as readers and not focus on gossip for a tiny minority.

[pennben]

Yes...see this is the interesting part to me!  It's not reported but it is alluded to in places that won't be quoted/sourced....that's fascinating.  And while you may be right that "massive" was the wrong term to use about the fan interest, there have been many articles written about the fact that Alicia/Kalinda never appeared in a scene together after a certain point in the show, and that it didn't feel right in the flow of the show, so lots/some/a few always have wondered why. See, for instance, this article from as far back as 2014. Folks have wanted to know about this, so I don't understand the lack of behind the scenes reporting. 

 

 

If Kings really want internal stuff to stay out of the media and journalists value their relationship with the Kings they will not report on it. If the inside sources insisted that their info remain off the record then reputable journalists will honor that until it doesn't matter any more

 

I get that, personally I think it is CBS, not the Kings, but what the hell do I know!  I don't believe for a second that Aurthur didn't know her tweet could be picked up by the public even though she responded to a single person.  It's just great fun to see all the behind the scenes things and whatnot and what gets officially reported and what doesn't.  That's just the tip of the reasons I want to see a tell-all!!

Edited January 30, 2016 by pennben

[NutMeg]

Maybe in their last episode the Kings will bring us a similar situation... I'd love to see that!

[Tetraneutron]

Yes...see this is the interesting part to me!  It's not reported but it is alluded to in places that won't be quoted/sourced....that's fascinating.  And while you may be right that "massive" was the wrong term to use about the fan interest, there have been many articles written about the fact that Alicia/Kalinda never appeared in a scene together after a certain point in the show, and that it didn't feel right in the flow of the show, so lots/some/a few always have wondered why. See, for instance, this article from as far back as 2014. Folks have wanted to know about this, so I don't understand the lack of behind the scenes reporting. 

It got quite a bit of attention, I think in part because it fulfills so many stereotypes. The beautiful, yet aging, diva, so jealous of her beautiful young costar that she pitches a fit and acts like a spoiled Hollywood brat. JM isn't taking, doesn't have to, and is never going to. The same with the Kings. Or the rest of the cast. AP would hurt her career if she complained about this. So it's all speculation, but it's fun, because it fits our worst expectations of people. 

[Noreaster]

The person at Buzzfeed is Kate Aurthur. She's fantastic, and a good person to follow on twitter...for instance, she was all in on the Cosby issue well before it was popular/safe to be all in on the rape allegations. I have no doubt that if she says she's heard things from dozens, she has. Here's where I get hung up, she and another journalist, I think, in the tweet thread you provided agree that this is what they've heard, and yet neither has published an article on the issue. Why not? This is of massive interest to the fans of the show, but I don't recall anything being published other than in some gossipy rag. I remember there being an article where somewhere in the comments, someone claimed to work on the show and told a different story, I'm sure you can find it upthread somewhere (I should not have phrased it as "dozens of tweets", just different stories from unnamed sources).

Thanks for the additional info on Kate Aurthur. It seems like she is a legitimate journalist who does her due diligence so I'm inclined to believe that AP is at fault. Comments from unnamed sources meanwhile are things I would ignore. Anyone can make stuff up on the Internet.

[Noreaster]

It got quite a bit of attention, I think in part because it fulfills so many stereotypes. The beautiful, yet aging, diva, so jealous of her beautiful young costar that she pitches a fit and acts like a spoiled Hollywood brat. JM isn't taking, doesn't have to, and is never going to. The same with the Kings. Or the rest of the cast. AP would hurt her career if she complained about this. So it's all speculation, but it's fun, because it fits our worst expectations of people.

People see what they want to see. A lot of this speculation is molded to fit worst expectations. I don't think there was really much evidence to support them.

I'm kind of bummed that the stereotype is that an older professional actress is considered a diva and that she must be jealous of a younger actress. And it does make me wonder whether we would see the same type of speculation if the parties involved were male instead of female.

Edited February 1, 2016 by Noreaster

[meisje]

People see what they want to see... I'm kind of bummed that the stereotype is that an older professional actress is considered a diva and that she must be jealous of a younger actress. And it does make me wonder whether we would see the same type of speculation if the parties involved were male instead of female.

 

I can only speak for myself, but what I've wanted to see is TGW using its great cast to its advantage, which hasn't been the case in years. The original cast rivals some of the very best ensembles ever created in film or TV, again JMO, so it's tough to swallow losing great cast members and others still being around but barely on screen. I don't get the sense that everyone wants to villainize one particular cast member, rather they're disappointed with a major decline in quality of something they used to greatly enjoy.

 

It sometimes happens that the creator/showrunner's not-great choices fall on the star/s of a cast, and that is unfair when that happens. It's also often a studio or network's decision - and a very binary way - of viewing a project's popularity as the result of one person in the cast. So often, they're completely out of sync with what made something really shine, or what brings viewers back week after week. Homeland is similar in that most of the characters and story lines that really had people hooked have been misused, sidelined or killed off, and most people didn't love season 1 of Homeland for Claire Danes. That's another case of certain cast members having diva reps that have followed them, whether true or not, despite their talent (Mandy Patinkin). 

 

Less often do I come across people disliking one person undeservedly, than I see/hear people crestfallen after finding out a project or performance they really like is at the hands of a person who's a jerk (or worse) in real life. A very recent example is the Nate Parker and Birth of a Nation. It's become increasingly difficult not to know about a actor's personal life.

 

People have grown weary of being told that certain actors are all that, when in reality they were great in a certain role but really aren't anything particularly special after the end of the show's run. There are so many examples of that that my mind boggles, but Jennifer Aniston stands out (again, JMO). There are just too many talented actors for viewers to swallow that the most famous are the best and for people to rest on their laurels. Christine Baranski is really the 'older, professional actress' from TGW, and her reputation is pretty stellar. She's been practically erased from the cast, but I guess she's out doing other work or something, because she just isn't on record or showing up making appearances and statements about the show or her role. Josh Charles was a huge part of what made this show into what it was, but he didn't receive much press or acclaim for it.

 

Sexism is still alive and well, but a lot of what is occurring in terms of opinion is just that viewers are well informed about projects and people they're drawn to, and we've happily entered a period in history where the viewer's opinion matters a lot, even as much as the studio's sometimes, which is a first, but it's changing the landscape dramatically.

 

 

[Ms Blue Jay]

Never mind, found my answer through Googling.

Edited February 1, 2016 by Ms Blue Jay

[DisneyBoy]

I happened to watch the show again tonight for the first time in ages, and my question is this...in all honesty what is going on with JM's hair? I'm not asking to judge or make fun. It was just painfully obvious tonight that she was wearing a wig, and in the past I thought they did a really good job of making her hair look natural, so much so that I only knew it was a piece thanks to the people online informing me of it. Tonight, her wig looked like some kind of science fiction film reject, with the super fake central part. It did JM no favors at all...but she seems to still have beautiful natural hair, so I am confused.

[pennben]

I mentioned this in the episode thread, but I hope that they are making it so obvious it is a wig as a lead-up to her ripping it off in the last episode and somehow reclaiming her own identity versus that of her being The Good Wife.

[Nono Ono]

I agree JM's hair looked poorly tonight.

But wow! she hugged a "friend" and I'm not talking about the maybe new boyfriend. Somehow Lucca has managed to become BFFs with Alicia. I wonder how long it will take for their interactions to be only via cellphone.

Edited February 1, 2016 by Nono Ono

[Noreaster]

I can only speak for myself, but what I've wanted to see is TGW using its great cast to its advantage, which hasn't been the case in years. The original cast rivals some of the very best ensembles ever created in film or TV, again JMO, so it's tough to swallow losing great cast members and others still being around but barely on screen. I don't get the sense that everyone wants to villainize one particular cast member, rather they're disappointed with a major decline in quality of something they used to greatly enjoy.

It sometimes happens that the creator/showrunner's not-great choices fall on the star/s of a cast, and that is unfair when that happens. It's also often a studio or network's decision - and a very binary way - of viewing a project's popularity as the result of one person in the cast. So often, they're completely out of sync with what made something really shine, or what brings viewers back week after week. Homeland is similar in that most of the characters and story lines that really had people hooked have been misused, sidelined or killed off, and most people didn't love season 1 of Homeland for Claire Danes. That's another case of certain cast members having diva reps that have followed them, whether true or not, despite their talent (Mandy Patinkin).

Less often do I come across people disliking one person undeservedly, than I see/hear people crestfallen after finding out a project or performance they really like is at the hands of a person who's a jerk (or worse) in real life. A very recent example is the Nate Parker and Birth of a Nation. It's become increasingly difficult not to know about a actor's personal life.

People have grown weary of being told that certain actors are all that, when in reality they were great in a certain role but really aren't anything particularly special after the end of the show's run. There are so many examples of that that my mind boggles, but Jennifer Aniston stands out (again, JMO). There are just too many talented actors for viewers to swallow that the most famous are the best and for people to rest on their laurels. Christine Baranski is really the 'older, professional actress' from TGW, and her reputation is pretty stellar. She's been practically erased from the cast, but I guess she's out doing other work or something, because she just isn't on record or showing up making appearances and statements about the show or her role. Josh Charles was a huge part of what made this show into what it was, but he didn't receive much press or acclaim for it.

Sexism is still alive and well, but a lot of what is occurring in terms of opinion is just that viewers are well informed about projects and people they're drawn to, and we've happily entered a period in history where the viewer's opinion matters a lot, even as much as the studio's sometimes, which is a first, but it's changing the landscape dramatically.

Quality varies over the course of all long-running series. I don't think I've ever seen this type and amount of vitriol and blame directed toward one cast member (producer or not) based on very little evidence. And there have been plenty of assumptions here about JM being jealous and not wanting to get outshined, etc. Just reread this thread. This type of speculation has seeped into the episode threads too which is a big reason why I stopped participating.

I don't have a problem with actors that I don't like or think are that talented getting accolades. It doesn't diminish the contributions of others who may be more valuable/talented to me. All this stuff is subjective. I personally think JM is a pretty good actress, and she clearly has the respect of many of her peers if she's being recognized at the Emmys and the SAGs. But plenty of actors who I don't think are that impressive get recognized and I'm not bothered by it. If they're getting cast in roles or being paid a lot of money or getting media attention or awards, clearly there are others who do like them.

I don't know if anyone has ever tried to attribute all of The Good Wife's success to one person. JM herself has often praised the work of her fellow cast members, the writers, the producers, etc. She's also friends with many of them off the set. Of course, this is rarely mentioned here where there is a lot of AP bias. JM got Josh Charles to do another 15 episodes beyond his contract commitment. Other actors have mentioned that they joined the cast because of JM.

Based on those tweets that I posted, it seems like AP was actually the jerk and viewers have been undeservedly bashing JM. Hopefully JM's reputation hasn't been negatively impacted.

Edited February 2, 2016 by Noreaster

[Tetraneutron]

My point is, I don't care who "the jerk" is. I'm not even sure you can say that either JM or AP are at fault in any specific way, that one or the other is being the diva, or whatever sexist catfight tropes are giving this story so much attention. Maybe they're both horrible, maybe they're both saints. I care that someone, somewhere, let personal feelings bleed into their professional work, to the point where the work suffered. To the pint where they had to write a supporting character into knots so she wouldn't share screentime with a main character. I don't care WHY it happened so much THAT it happened. 

 

We don't really know what happened behind the scenes, but we do know that at some point JM and AP stopped sharing the screen and the show quality took a dive. AP is a lowly actor with no power, JM is a producer. Now, maybe AP is a terrible person who kills puppies in her spare time and everyone loathes working with her. Don't care. You have a job to do you show up and do it, while earning those exorbitant salaries. Doing your job means sucking it up and working with people you dislike - we all have to do it. And the reason I'm assuming JM ordered people to stop writing scenes where she has to work with AP instead of the other way round is simply because she has that power as a producer. An actor wouldn't have that kind of pull. 

[Noreaster]

Could be the decision by the showrunners, executive producers, other producers, the writers, the network, etc. Plenty of other decision makers on the show. AP's problematic behavior may cause others to make the call to keep the two separated.

Also the whole quality taking a dive thing...just a reminder, season 5 was considered to be the best season of The Good Wife by many critics. Zero JM/AP scenes.

Edited February 2, 2016 by Noreaster

[GHScorpiosRule]

Could be the decision by the showrunners, executive producers, other producers, the writers, the network, etc. Plenty of other decision makers on the show. AP's problematic behavior may cause others to make the call to keep the two separated.

Also the whole quality taking a dive thing...just a reminder, season 5 was considered to be the best season of The Good Wife by many critics. Zero JM/AP scenes.

In your opinion.

Like I said when all of this started happening, I don't care if costars get along or not. It's their job to not let whatever differences they have influence the work they put out for the camera and viewers. I provided examples, of famous "wars" and one was before my time, but until I found out they couldn't stand each other, I never would have known (William Frawley & Vivian Vance on I Love Lucy).

All of this, pro Julianna/con Archie, con Julianna/pro Archie, are just speculations by everyone. And we and they can only guess what the real problem was. I can only glean or make my own speculations based on what the actresses actually said, or what the show runners said. And the fact that Archie is not the powerhouse actress that Julianna is, makes me think the problem was with Julianna. Because if Archie was the jerk/trouble maker, the Kings could have cut her loose. But they didn't. And Julianna made her thoughts more than clear what she thought of the Alicia and Kalinda friendship--she wasn't a fan.

But, it's all moot, because Archie is now gone from this show. We may never know what really happened. I just think it sucks that they couldn't have put the differences behind them and done their job.

Edited February 3, 2016 by GHScorpiosRule

[Noreaster]

Of course my opinion. I don't state stuff as fact.

Adios all.

[milkyaqua]

At this point what makes no sense to me, if AP was that bad to the crew and was wasting company money doing multiple takes, why not just get rid of her ASAP?  This is the entertainment biz we're talking about here.  Getting rid of a character due to a "change in direction" is not unheard of.  Why drag it out?  That's the totally senseless part (okay, so there's the old adage, "there is no such thing as bad publicity" but still).  And agree, would anyone even care if it were two male co-stars who had issues with one another?

[pennben]

Okay, I'm feeling puckish by bringing this comment over from what someone posted in the episode thread:

 

 

I didn't even notice the actual meltdown as I was too engrossed on how they filmed that scene without ever having the two actors in the frame at the same time--Lucca was hugging Alicia's standin when we saw Lucca's face, and Alicia was hugging Lucca's standin when we saw Alicia's face. Maybe that's why JM wears that wig, so it can be worn by a standin and no one will know it's not her. Maybe the wig will win an emmy this year.

It must be in JM's contract that she never has to actually be in a scene with another woman.

 

I can't say that I saw this at all, but I wasn't looking for it, and, well, it may have been a joke about the dissecting of the scene with JM/AP, but I couldn't let this pass.

Edited February 3, 2016 by pennben

[Readalot]

Okay, I'm feeling puckish by bringing this comment over from what someone posted in the episode thread:

I can't say that I saw this at all, but I wasn't looking for it, and, well, it may have been a joke about the dissecting of the scene with JM/AP, but I couldn't let this pass.

maybe JM has a highly communicable disease and she is thinking of the well being of her fellow actors so she refuses to be in scenes with them <snark>

[Ohmo]

But, it's all moot, because Archie is now gone from this show. We may never know what really happened. I just think it sucks that they couldn't have put the differences behind them and done their job.

 

I just finished a massive Season 7 13-episode binge of TGW over the course of several days, so I'm now caught up.  What bugged me as a fan was the continued assertion that there was no problem, when in fact everyone knew there was.  To quote Marissa Gold, "I have eyes." I was also irritated by the insinuation/scolding/impression that came from some fans at times, the Kings at times, and even entertainment journalists at times, that this was mere gossip that was none of the fans business.  (I'm not necessarily talking about here, but I read a lot of stuff about this situation from lots of places, and there was often that undertone.)  In this situation, IMO, this ceased being gossip the moment the show and the storylines became negatively impacted. The Kalinda/Alicia friendship was one of the hallmarks of the show for many.  It was destroyed and the use of CGI proves there was a toxic dynamic that somehow made even one scene between the actors impossible.  CGI is expensive, so this wasn't just gossip.

 

I suppose that The Fall and The Jury (AP's new pilot) will potentially have the opportunity to further inform what happened on TGW.  If AP was indeed the problem, some of the very same problems could befall her on future sets.  For now, though, I still consider myself pro-AP because in part, if she was the problem, the way the situation was handled just baffles me.  CBS is not new to conflicts on its shows: Mandy Pantinkin and Thomas Gibson on CM and Donald Bellasario and Mark Harmon on NCIS.  All of those people had much higher profiles than Archie and in each case, someone departed the situation.  If it was Archie, why allow the situation to exist at all? If CBS felt it couldn't act right away, I get that, but why let it go on for so long?  Kalinda's role was minimized for awhile, and now she's not even a character on the canvas, so the show is functioning without her.  The show needed all that time to figure that out (and held onto AP all of that time) if there was this much of a problem?  Why? 

 

Luca (who I really like) seems to have clearly been brought in to help create the kind of friendship dynamic that Alicia and Kalinda once had.  If Archie was the problem, why not have introduced Luca earlier and written an exit for Kalinda?  If you take the names Julianna and Archie out of it and label them Lead "Name" Actress and Popular Supporting Actress, this would still come across to me as more of a way that a network would handle a difficult lead actress, not a difficult supporting one.

Edited February 7, 2016 by Ohmo

[xyzzy]

The show needed all that time to figure that out (and held onto AP all of that time) if there was this much of a problem?  Why? 

 

I stopped watching TGW because this mess was just so shoddily handled within the context of the show that I couldn't be motivated to put my annoyance away while watching. And I agree with everyone saying that actors should be professional enough to put their personal gripes aside in order to get work done--people do this in regular old white and blue collar jobs for much less money and with less visible stakes. You go along to get along unless we're talking major safety issues, illegal activity, etc.

 

Something about the way this was handled makes me think that, for whatever reason, the Kings were basically on AP's side. If they thought that JM was in the right they would have canned AP immediately regardless of any fan uproar over the loss of a popular character. As it was they put her even further in the background and jumped through a million hoops to satisfy their lead actress and keep AP employed. Otherwise, none of this makes any sense. There's literally no reason to piss off your lead to save a support, even a popular one, unless you have some empathy for the support or you want to stick it to your lead for other reasons. And since the Kings were so acquiescent to JM's demands by using 232334 phone scenes and changing the trajectory of the show's storyline to suit her requirements, it doesn't seem likely that they were deliberately tweaking her. Otherwise they could have just said, screw you, you have a contract, you will act in scenes with AP as the script demands, but in deference to your strong feelings we will try to reduce the number of those scenes.

 

Personally, I'm not pro-JM or pro-AP because I don't have access to the facts behind the gaping chasm that erupted between them. For all I know I would have strongly disagreed with the Kings' assessment of the situation. But I just can't imagine what could be so awful that JM couldn't be arsed to do her job (acting with other actors) but not awful enough to fire AP.

[orza]

The actors' contract partner is the the network, not the show runners. The Kings don't have any power to fire cast members. They can go to the network and say they want to write a character out of the show for whatever reason, but if the network says no, we like the cachet of having an award-winning actress and we don't want to pay for her golden parachute, then the show runners have to make the situation work somehow. There are plenty of valid reasons to keep a difficult person in one's employment. Those reasons may not be apparent to outsiders, but then outsiders are not owed anything. Internal decisions need to stay in house. What happens on set and how actors get along or work together is none of the public's business. Fans are not owed any kind of explanation.

 

People not getting along and sabotaging or stonewalling hated coworkers happens everywhere at all organizational levels. Any supposed feud between JM and AP (which I don't believe) pales in comparison to what happens every day in work places everywhere. Separating two people who for whatever reasons don't work well together is a pretty common practice.

 

I think the absence of scenes together flowed naturally from the story. From what we know about Alicia she would not want to continue a friendship with Kalinda after learning about her one night stand with Peter. I consider the one episode in which Kalinda brought some things to Alicia's hotel and they spent the evening drinking together a writing misstep that didn't make any sense. Aside from that it all makes sense that Alicia would distance herself to the point that she didn't need to have any personal contact with Kalinda.

[CleoCaesar]

From what we know about Alicia she would not want to continue a friendship with Kalinda after learning about her one night stand with Peter.

 

I disagree. That was JM's take on it. From I see of Alicia - who STILL hasn't divorced her pig of a husband - I think she would have eventually forgiven her. Alicia doesn't leave people, no matter how foul they are. It's not nobility or loyalty on her part so much as it is doormat-ness, IMO.

[orza]

I disagree. That was JM's take on it. From I see of Alicia - who STILL hasn't divorced her pig of a husband - I think she would have eventually forgiven her. Alicia doesn't leave people, no matter how foul they are. It's not nobility or loyalty on her part so much as it is doormat-ness, IMO.

Alicia stays in her marriage to her own benefit. Being married to the governor has cachet and helps her professionally. It makes her special in the eyes of many people in a way that being single does not. There are also financial and tax advantages to remaining married. Maintaining a marriage on paper because it brings financial, professional and social benefits for one or both parties is not unheard of in the real world. Bill and Hillary Clinton are a conspicuous example, but I can think of lots of others.

 

We saw how Alicia reacted to Eli and his revelation about the phone message. Alicia would and did drop people who had hurt her. However, a husband and father of her children is in a different category than a friend from work she has known for only a year or two..

 

Alicia and Kalinda had what I call a superficial work friendship. People become friendly because they work together but the friendship is dependent upon the professional connection. If they no longer work together or something negative happens such as in this case to disrupt the friendship, there is not enough substance for it to survive. Alicia and Kalinda had nothing in common outside of their work. Going for drinks together and gossiping about work is not a basis for an enduring friendship.

Edited February 7, 2016 by orza

[mparcher]

An ad during the Super Bowl just announced that this is the final season, confirming what everyone pretty much knew. 9 eps left.

[Inquisitionist]

Being married to the governor has cachet and helps her professionally.

 

It should, but the show hasn't really been making this point, has it? 

[xyzzy]

What happens on set and how actors get along or work together is none of the public's business. Fans are not owed any kind of explanation.

 

I completely agree. But when the work product becomes weird and inconsistent, they've failed to shield me from internal set disputes or real life actor drama. If I can become aware of it without reading gossip, they've made a mess. (When I was watching Buffy, I had no idea that she was basically over the show and the part by season 3 and was vehemently opposed to pretty much everything that happened in the show's darkest season. I only found out some of these things long after Buffy was over. Maybe I'm dense and don't pick up on such things, but if that's true the Kings really failed to shield their viewers from set shenanigans.)

[Tetraneutron]

It should, but the show hasn't really been making this point, has it? 

I think we're all overthinking it. Alicia stays married to Peter because that's in the title. I've done more complaining than anyone about how the show forgets Peter exists unless they want to gin up some conflict (usually of the "poor Alicia in her gilded cage" variety) but they've also handwaved all the times that being married to Peter SHOULD hurt Alicia but it hasn't. In the real world, a Governor would not be OK with his wife working cases that try to take down the NSA, gun manufacturers, big businesses, etc. He would not be OK with is wife working for a notorious drug dealer and a notorious wife killer. 

 

I think they've shown her benefitting from Peter twice: at the end of the first season when she got the job over Cary, and in the 4th season when she was the only associate chosen for partner. And they made it clear that Alicia hated that. 

[CooperTV]

I think they've shown her benefitting from Peter twice: at the end of the first season when she got the job over Cary, and in the 4th season when she was the only associate chosen for partner. And they made it clear that Alicia hated that. 

 

And when she founded her own firm, Peter used his status to publicly threaten Chum-Hum into staying with her firm, and she was very much into that.

[Inquisitionist]

OTOH, Alicia being reduced to Bond Court is complete BS.  Even with the election "scandal," a real-life version of Alicia would land with a prestigious Chicago law firm (better than Lockhart Agos Lee, for sure).

[meisje]

 

OTOH, Alicia being reduced to Bond Court is complete BS.  Even with the election "scandal," a real-life version of Alicia would land with a prestigious Chicago law firm (better than Lockhart Agos Lee, for sure).

 

I think we can rest assured that Alicia's Bond Court arc was nothing more than an "Alicia is one of the people" nonsense story line, as well as another elaborate attempt to make the character appear sympathetic/the underdog. The lengths the writers have to go to to keep trying to convince us of her victim status, and perhaps just the sheer amount of storytelling for Alicia and only Alicia, has the whole thing feeling like trying to do laps in a 3 x 6-foot  pool.