Much of “Chapter Seven,” the efficient penultimate hour of Perry Mason’s first season, concerns itself with setting up the finale to come. Pete quits, setting him up to get an apology and a plea to return from Perry. (He’ll then find something vital and/or die.) Paul and Perry team up after the former turns up a lead, setting up Paul’s almost certain departure, voluntary or otherwise, from the police force. Perry’s “wow, I’m a mess” lifestyle leads to his inherited home being auctioned out from under him—and purchased by his lover, no less—which will in turn force him to leave that part of his life behind. Ennis ties up loose ends, but the investigation closes in all the same. And Sister Alice continues to spiral her belief and certainty pulling her in one direction as her doubt, sorrow, and suspicion pull her another. It’s a tension that results in her sprinting headlong through the streets, away from the machinations of her mother and her own crushing disillusionment—and presumably, she’s now headed firmly in the direction of the offices of Mr. Perry Mason, newly-minted Attorney At Law.
There’s nothing wrong with an hour that’s mostly about moving the pieces into place, especially when the series in question has succeeded in making its characters so compelling. A table-setting episode can be a bit of a slog, but when the work’s been done to make sure the narrative is driven by the wants and needs of those who live within it, no fireworks are required to compel the viewer’s attention. That said, “Chapter Seven” finds a way to set off some catherine wheels just the same—and for good measure, a smoke bomb.
The final 10 minutes of this episode are so gripping, so impressive both technically and artistically, that it’s easy to forget exactly how much gets accomplished before that fateful Easter morning. You could be forgiven for thinking that Baggerly’s turn on the stand and that smoke bomb happened last week, or that the interruption of Alice’s radio broadcast took place the week before that. If Ennis murdering Seidel got pushed out of your brain by the sight of Emily Dodson weeping into Charlie’s empty casket*, that’s completely understandable. Maybe Birdy telling Alice, in words not all that sotto voce, that by the way there is no God managed to overwhelm the flashback we see in the episode’s opening moments. (Unlikely.) But the pieces get moved all the same, all without making the proceedings feel all that overstuffed. It’s damned impressive, even if it’s not quite as energetic and gripping as the preceding episodes.
Still, all that stuff is important, so before we get to that incredible final act, let’s dig into some of what precedes it. Both the writing and Matthew Rhys’s performance do an excellent job of making clear that, while Perry may be fighting for justice within a broken system, he’s still quite an asshole. He does, at least, have a somewhat better excuse given the task he’s undertaken, but there’s pretty much no one in his life he doesn’t manage to piss off, verbally abuse, or condescend to in “Chapter Seven.” If you look at this first season as a Perry-Mason-the-lawyer origin story, that makes perfect sense. Spoiler: Perry will never completely stop being kind of an asshole. What changes is that he stops being a self-pitying asshole and starts being an asshole for justice. That tracks with what we see here, and Rhys is so damn good that even when Perry’s behaving very, very badly, you can see that capacity for empathy and that need to do what’s right for his client and the little boy who was taken from her.
That’s particularly evident in this week’s morgue scene. Following Paul’s discovery that after Charlie was taken, Ennis brought in a nursing mother to feed him, Paul and Perry head back to the brothel to try to figure out who that woman might have been, and though it ends with Perry getting the shit kicked out of him, it’s preceded by him urgently and gently trying to communicate with a terrified woman about her missing friend. When he seeks out the body of that friend in the morgue (with Virgil’s begrudging help, naturally), a huge piece of the puzzle drops into place: after he was taken, Charlie was breastfed by a woman who used heroin, and as Perry and Virgil come to understand simultaneously, that’s what killed him. Both Virgil and Perry handle that moment as though it might shatter; there’s a mournful quality you don’t often see in scenes like that one unless the body on the slab is one known to the person standing above.
Still, as good as that scene is, and as important a development as that might be, this is really a Sister Alice episode—and in news that will shock pretty much no one, Tatiana Maslany rises to the occasion. The tension between mother and daughter has, for several weeks now, been mounting almost as steadily as that in the body of the church, and the episode-opening flashback puts all that strife in an entirely new light. (I would personally like to thank HBO for showing more restraint in that scene than it did with, say, the discovery of Charlie Dodson’s body in the pilot.) Seeing Birdy hand her daughter over to a not-so-good Samaritan—and just as importantly, hearing her frame that decision as the act of a merciful god—kicks open a window into Alice’s state of mind and her drive to “resurrect” the murdered child. God sent a stranger to help them, and a terrible thing happened, but it was still a miracle. So miracles exist. So she’s meant to play a part in those miracles. God works in mysterious ways, and that must be true, because if not, then her mother sold her to a man in exchange for a ride to town, plain and simple.
Maslany and Perry Mason have been building toward that final scene all season, so carefully and so gradually that her arc often seemed to be less an arc than a line. (A fascinating line, but a line all the same.) That flashback unlocks much of what we’ve already seen and renders Alice’s seemingly cruel decision to attempt the resurrection the act of a desperate, traumatized woman whose life is built upon a corrupted belief in miracles. It even makes her fascinating speaking-in-tongues scene from earlier in the season more interesting. Of course she’d equate illness and disability with a lack of faith; her assault was framed as a miracle, so any pain or trauma she dealt with afterward must be the result of a failure of faith.
If God sent Alice a miracle, then she must be destined to do miraculous things. That’s what happens in the stories. The alternative is unfathomable. Alice was crumbling long before her mother revealed that their lives are, to Birdy at least, a total fiction; she was drowning before Birdy staged that passion play in the street. The technical accomplishment of that scene in the cemetery is nothing to sniff at—the flight in the car is, in particular, like a nightmarish theme park ride. But the real horror is what led to that moment. What a way to enter the finale.
* – The stained casket. What a distressing detail.
Stray observations
- I love that this show makes room for scenes like that gorgeous little dinner between Hamilton and Della.
- Matthew Rhys making hand gestures to suggest beady eyes dot gif.
- I mean, if I were Pete, I’d quit too.
- “If this one turns up in a bowling alley wearing a party hat, I will open your skull with a claw hammer.”
- Related: I know I’m a broken record here, but Jefferson Mays and Virgil are invaluable to this series. He’s nailed the comic-relief-in-the-morgue thing you see in so many detective/lawyer/cop shows, but there’s this seemingly bottomless sorrow and capacity for empathy that make it so much more interesting and human than it otherwise might be.
- Book stuff: In the novels, Paul is constantly asking Perry just how illegal the shit he’s being asked to do might be. I suspect we’ll keep seeing that.
- Costume of the week: Sister Alice’s Easter costume is just tremendous
- Did Perry Mason put his thumbs through the armholes of his vest and pace around in deep thought? Alas.
150 Comments
I’m glad this is up, thanks for it.The show is really building to what promises to be a great finale. I’m unreasonably excited about it.
That scene at the cemetery was unbelievable. I cannot fathom what it took to get that filmed. When we realize what really happened to Charlie. So was Gannon using Emily, playing a long con so they could kidnap Charlie? Did these idiots not think to just go buy some milk? He wasn’t an infant I’m pretty sure he’d have settled for plain milk. Perry interrogating witnesses and unveiling the set of books. WOW. According to the preview, Pete is back next week. So I hope he’s still on board next season, whenever that happens.
Did these idiots not think to just go buy some milk?
No, because they’re idiots. And no one remembers a random dude buying a bottle of milk. But people will remember if they saw a strung out Chinese woman at a motel. Speaks to the desperation of this crime that no one gave these details much thought. Like how to feed the f***ing baby you just stole.
Esp considering Ennis had kids.
Ennis doesn’t strike me as much of a “help mum take care of the baby” type.
Back then (and still today somewhat) fathers weren’t expected to feed, change or really interact with their child until the boy (of course) was old enough to play catch.
Well, feeding certainly wasn’t going to happen, even by the most involved father, because back then women pretty exclusively breast fed. And there weren’t any breast pumps so you could put the breast milk in a bottle so dad could feed. I mean, I’m sure that some form of formula was available, because mothers did die in childbirth a lot more back then, but when the mother was alive, there was very little chance she wasn’t breast feeding. (Wet nurses also existed, of course.)
A man like Ennis tends to have as little to do with their children as possible. Likely never fed or changed his kids.
Sorta fits for the period though. Four guys in a room. “Baby’s hungry.”“Need to feed it. What do babies eat? My wife always takes care of it.” “Babies eat from boobs, right?” “I know a place that sells boobs!”High fives all around.
There is no way a dude in the 1930’s had any idea how to take care of a baby.
All I want in life is for Della Street to be driving to my rescue. I almost let out a cheer.
I honestly think that if it was a matter of stupidity they would have
gone for regular milk. So I suspect they tried other things that the kid
was rejecting first before going to find a woman.
Where is Charlie’s body? Did Birdy take it before the event? HOW? Was it buried empty to begin with??
I don’t think the casket was buried empty (because the stain, oh yikes, the stain. That was gutting). At some point obviously it’s been dug back up. My guess is that Ennis realized there was some physical evidence that Mason could figure out, if only he had access to the body. (Not sure that Virgil would have been able to figure out that the baby was accidentally poisoned with dope, since it’s the early 30s.)
Mason does have that bit of thread that was used to prop the baby’s eyes open, right? (Ew, that was gross to even type!)
Yep, and they’ve taken care to show it a few times. So I’m guessing there will be something there to tie it together, although I’m not sure what.
Man, I am SO excited to see how they land this plane!
I’d imagine Birdy stole it of and disposed of it elsewhere. Let your imagination fill in the gaps there. Then the baby she was presenting was yet another stolen baby.
Exactly. Birdy had the baby stolen, I’m not sure how anybody would have missed that point. The body is missing because of intent. The TRULY odd thing is that Birdy didn’t put the infant in the coffin for like the 3 hours it would have taken with a broken seal so he could breath. It just would have been a better show and less insane than finding a random white baby in what appears to be a segregated black neighborhood….
I am fascinated with the new baby too. It must have been willingly given to her because the second they said ‘Here’s the new Charlie’, if its stolen someone is going to yell ‘That’s my kid!’
Where did she get the alive baby??
Perry interrogating witnesses and unveiling the set of books. WOW.The best part was Perry only introduced them because Barnes brought it up in cross. Because Barnes brought them up, Perry could introduce them without discovery and without Barnes able to stop them. Tracks with the books, but he’s had his license for days? weeks?
Wow, what a comeback for HBO with this series. Albeit starting a bit slow and a little confusing since we all know Mason as a lawyer, they have crafted an amazing show out of this. The story has built using classic storytelling devices – not the ineffective gimmicks of so many recent big-budget series. That’s because they work and the writers have not considered themselves above them. The acting and casting is spot-on amazing, and additionally impressive when you realize how many leads are not Americans. The direction and editing are tight. The set design, CGI, an cinematography, are just, awesome, REALLY good. It’s transformative. Hate to see it end next week.
The only quibble I have is the out-of-place credits. But if you’re going to save money somewhere, that’s the place. The best thing about Westworld this past season was the credit montage. That’s not a good thing.
I thought it was strange no one commented on this review. Turns out it was posted 2 days later.
It’s also not on the homepage
I wasn’t so keen on the childhood sexual molestation reveal, which is such a go-to device for giving female characters a tragic backstory. But Allison’s analysis of all the ways it informs Sister Alice and her beliefs is really great, and gives me more appreciation for what the show was going for there.I feel a bit embarrassed to admit that it wasn’t until Ennis confessed to his partner in the episode before this that I realized (and then went back to confirm) that he was the guy who shot all the other accomplices in the first episode. Even though he has a great face that you’d think would be very memorable, I guess I just didn’t recognize him. So for most of the show I was curious to discover just how involved he was in the case.
You’re not alone. I had trouble distinguishing all the 40-50 year-old white men in this show. Maybe it’s the lighting or that they all wear the same drab gray suit, but I had to read a review to figure out Ennis was the guy who killed everyone. They all look alike!
I have the same problem. All these white guys look alike.
Probably slight differences in costuming and lighting during those scenes helped that. I would need to rewatch to confirm it, but I think Ennis wasn’t wearing his usual work clothes during the kidnapping (he’s kind of a natty dresser), or his usual hat. Sometimes the slight differences in appearance are the best disguises.
I am prepared to be entirely wrong, though!
I really need to watch each episode twice—which I will do gladly. There are a lot of characters, but each episode is jam packed with events that are relevant to the plot. When Ennis killed his accomplices in the first episode, I just considered that it was done by random criminals. I went back to episode one recently, and was amazed how much it foretold.
Childhood sexual molestation wouldn’t be “such a go-to device for giving female characters a tragic backstory” if it weren’t such a common element of women’s backstories.
Something being common doesn’t make it a good plot point, though.
Yeah, i really was hoping from the moment that guy showed up in the car that it wasn’t going to end up with Alice or Birdy having to go with the guy. Seemed like it wasn’t going to happen. The only mild surprise was that it seemed like Birdy was the one initiating. Like, I wonder if the car was even out of gas?
I agree about the molestation reveal. Because of course that’s the reason. It’s always the reason. The show clearly isn’t bleak enough as it is. Silly me. But I also agree that Alison breaks it down really well, and for what its worth, the scene was quite effective.
For me, Ennis is the easiest to recognize because he doesn’t have any eyebrows.I agree with everything both you and Allison said about the Sister Alice childhood reveal. On the one hand, cliches are cliches because they happen all the time. On the other, it had to be that? Really? On the other other hand, it was an effective way of showing just why someone “has” to believe in miracles in order to process that kind of grief and pain and confusion.
I remembered the face, but got the names of the two cops mixed up and thought he was Holcombe until last week.
This show went from “I’ll watch it because so many people I like are in it, and I like the atmosphere” to my #1 must-see show, and I can pinpoint the exact moment it happened: when Della got the brainstorm that Perry should be Emily’s lawyer. That was a real “shut the door. have a seat” moment.
Watching with my wife on Sunday evening as the cemetery scene unfolded I said to her “the coffin has to be empty.” Being Easter, the theological implications are like Jesus’s empty tomb. Glad to see this review, the AVClub regularly takes away as much as it giveths lately and I worried these had been shut down. This series has been really tremendous and yet it doesn’t seem as if Perry Mason has really hit the zeitgeist.
For me, the most impressive scene was Gloves sashaying up to the defense table with the accounting books. I don’t recall if she had any actual lines this episode, but boy howdy did she make a statement. I also really liked how simple the solution to the Dodson kidnapping turned out to be, once they had all the pieces. And, although he’s been kind of a jerk throughout, I still felt for Herman Baggerly up on the stand, coming to terms with the reality that his grandson died because his church – which he seems to truly believe in – just wanted his money. Ennis killing Siedel was the only scene in the series so far that I actually had to look away from. It was just too brutal. I am really looking forward next week to seeing Ennis brought down.As for the Sister Alice plot, now that we know the lengths Birdy will go to, I do wonder if that IV Alice was hooked up to earlier in the season was the cause of her visions and seizure, rather than a cure? I also feel really bad for Alice, who has been so terribly manipulated her whole life. I want to hope that she returns in season 2, because she’s so interesting (and Tatiana Maslany is so good), but I honestly do not see how she moves on from this.
OMG I bet you’re right, there’s a Sharp Objects kind of feel to those injections!
That’s what I thought after we saw that first part of the episode (and before that, but more of a general unease) – that something Birdy is doing is causing Alice’s “visions” and seizures. Very Mommy Dead and Dearest.
It only afterwards that this was probably the most brutal episode as it was filled with so many emotionally horrifying moments, but the way it never stopped to wallow in them just caused it to be this never-ending of sorrow in the best possible way. In addition, the fact that all of those moments were these common cruelties and human frailties just made them that much stronger. Hell, even the fact that Charlie died because those idiots had a woman who had been made a heroin junkie feed him was somehow even worse than if it had just been Ennis losing his cool.
By the way, an alternative interpretation on the opening flashback as the way Birdy and Alice interacted there made it seem to me that it wasn’t the first time Birdy had sold her daughter in a moment of desperation. Also Birdy’s the mastermind behind all of the kidnapping, isn’t she?
OMG you’re right. When she’s out in the street yelling It’s Charlie! I was like, yeah no it’s not. Why would anyone fall for that?
It’s not even that Birdy was yelling that, but rather that she will go to any lengths to protect Alice, in a sense, probably partially due to the way Birdy sacrificed her as a child.I mean, Seidel was a true believer, but I don’t think he came across as someone strong willed enough to push for all those investments or who would have organized it all. That had to be someone who knew everything that was happened and had that faith that everything would ultimately sort out, which in turn would be Birdy.By the way, another small brutality is that probably the core reason Ennis killed Seidel was because of Holbrooke.
“It’s not even that Birdy was yelling that, but rather that she will go to any lengths to protect Alice”Birdy will go to any lengths to protect Birdy, Alice is simply her meal-ticket. Failing to resurrect Charlie would lose Sister Alice the remaining support she has in the Church, which would then likely expel her and Birdy. After the lavish home and chauffeured vehicles provided by the church, it would be an especially harsh return to life on the road and running out of gas between towns.
Except, if you remember, that was what Birdy was trying to do before, having packed the suitcases and telling Alice that they have to run away.
Slipping away with full suitcases before people find out you’re a fraud is, I think, considerably different than being run out of town after. But in either scenario, Birdy’s main concern is her own well being, not her daughter’s.
I was impressed with the season structural choice to show a more or less normal and loving mother-daughter relationship at the beginning of the season, where the two clearly love each other and depend on one another, but also have their problems as any relationship would. Then we find out here, in what I felt was a shocking moment, that mother exploited her daughter in an act of desperation. That doesn’t excuse her action. But why does it have to be either Birdy loves Alice or she doesn’t? She loves her daughter and is also using her for the material benefit of the both of them, including whoring her out when she was younger. This is the life Birdy chose, and it worked for both of them, even if it’s meant she’s felt guilty. I like it when characters are complicated instead of one-dimensional.
I don’t think you can genuinely love someone if you are willing to exploit them at the drop of a hat. Birdy, as a parent, was willing to prostitute herself on the side of the road to benefit Alice, had that been what the man wanted. But Alice didn’t have the option *not* to participate in the transaction when it turned out the man wanted her instead of her mother. It is difficult to say that arrangement worked for Alice, particularly since the man had already freely refueled their car – Birdy could have driven her daughter to the town and found other options there without prostituting her.
Oh, sure, Birdy in that moment could have found another way to get into town. The show tantalizingly didn’t reveal how often Birdy had prostituted her own daughter. I don’t think we were meant to think that moment was the first time.
I wish we had gotten to know Birdy more. Maybe that’ll happen in the next episode if Alice confronts her. Lilly Taylor has been great.
But I guess we generally disagree. Parents can treat their children terribly but still also love them. And they may feel guilt, too. Same with any kind of relationship. Based on how Alice and Birdy were and the placement of this one scene in the series, I don’t think their entire relationship is a lie and not based on real love, as we’ve seen in past episodes. In the present-day scenes here, you saw the emotions on Birdy’s face, what she said to Alice at the end about it’s just the two of them.
I’m not sure you can really say that being whored out on the side of the road by her mother “worked” in any way for Alice.
At no time did I not think that Birdy was exploiting Alice. She’s Sister Alice because of Birdy’s exploitation of her.
she wanted leave before she was found out by the daughter that she was behind the kidnapping.
True – because the kid died (which was not supposed to happen) and Mason was closing in
Is Holbrooke the lead detective who wanted everything cleaned up and Seidel not to testify? And as we discuss brutality, the way Ennis killed Seidel. Jesus. Doesn’t Birdy want to protect the church, and to that end Alice, which is her meal ticket? I don’t think she really loves Alice, she has used her since she was a young girl. I can understand the desperation she felt when they were stranded, but to tell a stranger “sure go ahead and rape my daughter, but can we get a ride after?” I’d have preferred to see her club the guy over the head, steal his wallet and his car, then let him have Alice.
Holbrooke is the lead detective, but he didn’t care about Seidel testifying, he wanted to Ennis to kill everyone who knew that Ennis was connected to the case.
As for Birdy, again I’m reminding here about that scene in a previous episode where she is trying to convince Alice to flee with her instead of going through with the resurrection. If it was only about the church and her own well-being for her, I don’t think she would have done that.And Seidel’s death was, man, just horrific, but in a way that didn’t feast on it. Instead of just someone being stabbed to death and shown as such, which managed to make it worse.
People were a lot less uptight about fucking kids, and rape in general, back in the day.
Yes, it seemed like Alice knew that saying thank you to the man did not mean saying thank you to the man already. Her mother may have always framed this stuff as a miracle. Ew.Totally agree on Charlie dying from being fed by an abused woman who was herself sold makes the whole thing more sad. It was the person offering the baby comfort who accidentally poisoned him, but only because she herself had been poisoned.
I posted above but, yes, I think Birdy is definitely involved. If not the mastermind of the scheme, than I think she at least had knowledge of it, either before the fact, or after and helped to cover it up, and she may have even sanctioned it, as she has amply proven the lengths she’ll go to preserve the church and her position in it as the power behind the power.
By the way, an alternative interpretation on the opening flashback as the way Birdy and Alice interacted there made it seem to me that it wasn’t the first time Birdy had sold her daughter in a moment of desperation. Also Birdy’s the mastermind behind all of the kidnapping, isn’t she?i read that the same way. i don’t think this is the first time that birdy has made poor alice thank a stranger for a miracle.this all has to end with some combination of birdy/alice/ennis/holbrooke dead or in prison. i think that we have to assume that burger becomes DA because barnes can’t escape this unscathed, can he?
PREDICTION – Sister Alice kills her mom, but also dies herself.
I too felt that Alice being whored out ‘in the name of god’ was a regular thing in her youth. I never thought that Birdy was the mastermind behind the kidnapping but I admit, it is a strong possibility. Good catch.
I don’t think she is the mastermind behind the kidnapping because it seems her main motivation is money. If that were the case, I don’t think that the ransom money would have been burned. She would have stashed it somewhere for a get away.
I had no idea going into this episode how they were going to deal with the “resurrection” and honestly having the coffin empty never once occurred to me. The stubborn coffin lid added such a brief stun of suspense and then all hell breaking loose. The choreography of that entire set piece was jaw-dropping, that rivaled the faith healing in Sister’s TempleThat Della is close with Hamilton Burger a clearly closeted gay man, I think is a slam dunk. For me it did not come off as a cliche but adds so much to their relationship especially knowing what will come in the future. As for Perry losing his home to Lupe “I didn’t think you were fucking me so you could fuck me,” with her replying “I’m a businesswoman” I thought was an inspired nod to real-life Pancho Barnes and her Happy Bottom Riding Club. Barnes was a tough gal and accomplished pilot, Lupe a fine stand-in
I was saying to my wife I’d really like to see a series about Lupe. She’s fucking boss.
I really hope Perry doesn’t let a little thing like secretly buying his foreclosed house at auction so she can tear it down and turn it into an airstrip stop him from continuing to hook up with Lupe. I’ll be so sad if we don’t see her next season.Like, don’t be a baby Perry.
Honestly, I assumed an empty coffin would be the ONLY way this was going to turn out. Dunno when it was emptied, but given that this is not a show with any supernatural element, there was no way they would open the casket and have a live baby. And given that there’s still another ep to go, I seemed very unlikely that they’d reveal a still-dead baby in the casket and be like “Oh well,” Alice is a fraud. (and for the latter, I am truly relieved, because I never need to see that baby corpse again.)
I was kinda on the fence what the purpose of making Della gay was. But now that I see Burger is, it has so much potential for future drama! When he becomes DA, there will be so many dramatic conflicts with what everyone ‘has’ on each other. At that time Burger and Della were ‘criminals’ for their sexuality and its clear that Mason could be easily disbarred and possibly brought up on charges for cheating on the bar exam. So you KNOW when they inevitably cross swords and bump heads (to mix metaphors) there will be competing impulses and conflicting agendas. I am SO there for that!
A) there doesn’t need to be a purpose. B) Perry didn’t cheat. C) I doubt that Della or Hamilton will betray each other. The fact that they are the only people (outside of anyone they sleep with) who they can be completely true to themselves around means a lot. It’s a really big deal.
A) Anything that is well-written does everything for a purpose. It’s not a social statement or criticism. (Btw, my boyfriend agrees.)B) Perry cheated because Ham gave him answers to the exam. Ham said the exam hadn’t changed in years and began telling him the questions, and one can assume the answers, too. Perry had to take that thing basically overnight without the benefit of law school. I bet the Bar doesn’t see that as fair.
I agree its a really big deal these two characters can be allies. All I’m saying is that with hidden agendas/alliances comes good dramatic potential for the future of the show.
A) The purpose can be just that some people are gay. (I don’t know how your boyfriend agreeing with you should sway me at all. I don’t know either of you, so your opinions are not enough on their own to make me change my mind.)B) Hamilton had no idea if they were still going to have the same questions. Many lawyers (or, at least, people who took the bar exam) said in the comments after that episode that people study the questions from previous bar exams all the time. Studying the questions from the previous exams is not cheating (they are available in law libraries. They aren’t a secret.) And, law school was not a requirement to be a lawyer back then. That was actually addressed in the show. C) Who has hidden agendas?It’s possible to have drama without having the main characters, who are clearly close, backstabbing each other. Things can be interesting without being Big Brother or Survivor.
I loved that scene with Hamilton Burger ! wlw / mlm solidarity ! we love to see it
At first, I thought she was on a date with him. Especially when he said that he helped Perry because she asked him. I thought they were dating, her as a cover, and him being smitten.I was actually happy to find out that they were just really good friends. One, because Della really needs someone other than the person she’s sleeping with, someone who isn’t wanting anything from her, who knows her truth. Two, because you never see a gay man and a gay woman being friends in shows and movies and it’s refreshing. I feel like I got a really good idea of their friendship from that scene and I like it.
It’s funny, when I’m watching this show I find it incredibly boring. I only like it when I reflect back to what actually happened. This episode we figured out who the kidnappers are, we figured out how the baby dies, we figured out Alice and her crazy mom are crazy. All of that was answered in this episode and I still found it pretty dull until the last few scenes.I’m still confused about the baby body being gone, where is he now? And why the plot of land and that stranger with the gun was so important if it really was just a kidnapping for ransom? Was George really stealing money from a broke church? Where did the money go after the kidnapping?
As a slight note, now that Poor Pete may not actually be so Poor after all, I’m almost more certain that Hazel is going to die in the final episode. The way the character is present and continuously shown otherwise makes no sense to me. Having written that, would not be the first time I’m wrong.
Was Della married or otherwise attached in the books or TV show? Cause if she’s consistently described as some kind of spinster that would scan with Hazel’s being tragically killed in the 1930’s. (Yes, I realize that an openly gay character would be unthinkable at the time the books and show were current but this show is dealing in backstory. One could ask a similar question about Ham Burger)
I mean if I understood it correctly, Della is single in the books, but I also don’t think that needs to be a constraint here and that’s not why I think Hazel’s going to die or that Della would remain alone after that.The issue I have with Hazel is that she has no character, yet the show is constantly reminding us she exists. Name me a single thing about Hazel except that’s younger than Della and likes to wear gloves? The only sense I can make of the choices made with the character is that she is going to die, but don’t want the audience be too attached to her, as otherwise I’m just flummoxed here.
With one ep left, I’m not sure how it serves the narrative at all to kill Hazel. I think she’s a flat character just because she doesn’t need to be much more at this point. So killing her wouldn’t even have that much impact. And why would anyone want to kill her? Nothing is going to make Perry back off now. Just spending 10 minutes of the finale on killing Hazel would seem like a lot of wasted time.
I could definitely see them casting someone they really like for Hazel with the hopes of expanding her role in season 2. But for now, she’s basically there to flesh out Della’s character, and Della has been pretty well developed now. Don’t think you can take EB and Hazel from her in four eps.
But here’s a problem with the argument that Hazel is a flat character because she doesn’t need to be more: There hasn’t been a single Hazel scene in the last three episodes where it was necessary for her to be there. I mean she’s there, but there’s no real reason for her to be there and featured. Hell, we’ve had characters who have been fleshed out far more than Hazel in one scene.She also creates a problem with Della in the sense that the relationship is so undefined that it doesn’t really feel meaningful, yet at the same time prevents exploration of Della’s character through that relationship. I mean compare to Paul’s relationship to his Paul, which informs us of the character and his actions much more. I’m not advocating killing Hazel, by the way, just that her character and presence so far makes absolutely no sense unless they intend to kill her.
I think she’s there to establish that Della is a lesbian and is not going to have a romance with Perry (which was I believe always a thing in the books and the TV show). She’s helpful to have around in future to give Della a person she can talk to in her personal life. Killing her seems relatively useless because her relationship with Della hasn’t been presented as a big enough love match to work. It wouldn’t be weird if nothing much happened with her until a later season imo. There’s lots of shows that establish that a character is married without immediately doing anything with the spouse.
Yeah, the role of Hazel as quick and easy solve to an “will they or won’t they” stuff with Perry and Della makes her presence justified by itself. Plus with Della, there’s a clear line she won’t cross with Perry, just as far as her personal life goes. Having Hazel gives us a chance to see her internal life without having to voiceover or anything.I see Hazel as possibly being like one of the side characters on a show like The Americans. And not just because of the Matthew Rhys connection. Just someone who’s relatively flat now, but could definitely be filled out and ask to do more in later seasons. I’m assuming characters like Ennis or (hopefully not) Pete will be around for multiple seasons, so having a roster of characters ready to go seems prudent.
Stan’s second wife comes to mind. Everyone was so sure she was going to turn out to be a KGB spy, but nada. She was just there.
Man, there were so many characters, I TOTALLY forgot about the second wife thing, and that was a HUGE point of speculation that last season.
Especially since they got someone who was relatively known, since she played Andrea on The Walking Dead and she was in The Mist movie (and the XFiles, but that was a long time ago.) I feel like they started to make that be something, but then realized that they didn’t have time with everything else going on.
I just think her flatness as a character speaks more to their plans of having a character to flesh out later, rather than a cheap way to try to up the stakes by killing her. If this show goes several seasons, they’re gonna get into Della’s personal life more. Seems like a waste of a romantic interest to just kill her off and have to introduce someone new later.Also… it would be sort of amazing if, in season 2, the show did a massive swerve and spent the majority of the season on the residents of Della’s boarding house. It almost seems like they filled it with enough characters for a spinoff.
I think she functions as filling out Della’s world a little bit. Otherwise Della come off as only existing to help her bosses. I like her as a filling out the world of the show a little bit. That minor characters only exist to be killed off is such a tired trope, especially for gay characters, that I hope they don’t fall into that old trap.
I think her purpose is to simply give us a window into that aspect of Della’s life. Della is a much more compelling character when you see her family life contrasting with her work life. Being gay is just a part of that. I hope they don’t kill her off, there is no need, we have plenty of drama and suspense left to carry the season.
But what window has she given in to Della’s life or character since she was used to establish Della was gay? Like literally anything? In the scenes she has been in since that revelation, what has she done to inform of her or Della more than Della’s laugh after Hamilton asks about Hazel’s age?I’m not arguing that Hazel needs to die, she is just a nothing character the moment on a show that has gone above and beyond to avoid such characters.
I will be very disappointed if they fridge Hazel.
The implication in the books was that Della was hopelessly in love with Perry, who didn’t reciprocate her feelings that way. Though sometimes the stories suggested she dated Paul as well….One of the 30s Perry Mason movies (starring Warren William, cropping up on TCM sometimes) revolves around Perry and Della trying to get married by a female Night Court judge, except there’s this desperate client…. The movie ends with the judge arresting Perry so he’ll stick around long enough for her to marry him and Della, which Perry does as soon as he exonerates his client and points out the real guilty party! If you get to see it, it’s kind of hilarious since the judge treats Perry like a rascal nephew she’s fond of, but sees right through his bullshit, and sides with Della every time.
This would suck and reeks of tragic gay tropes, so I hope the show is smarter than that.
And on the topic of characters who may die… Are we sure Paul Drake is safe? Seems like if he was going to die, they’d have done it already. BUT… this show does seem to have a real “no good deed goes unpunished” kinda vibe. On the other hand… does the current climate of 2020 make it sort of improbable that producers would decide to kill the only black main cast member? I hate that that’s even a consideration. But I’ve found myself wondering that in the moments where I was really afraid they were going to kill Drake, just hoping they wouldn’t kill him off.
Paul Drake’s a regular character in the series (he’s the Private Investigator Perry always uses), so I think he’s pretty safe.
I hope so, and I don’t even consider any kind of spoiler… I hate when I spend a whole show hoping certain characters won’t die, which gets increasingly harder in this world of prestige TV, limited series, and really, anything on HBO.
I know! I could see HBO going “Oh, we can Kill off Paul Drake, right? He’s only a regular character in eighty novels and short stories, to say nothing of 286 episodes of television!” Yes, I’m counting the short-lived Monte Markham series as well as Raymond Burr’s long-running show. Not the Perry Mason movies of the Eighties -Nineties, though, as William Hopper had died in between them, so William Katt(!) took his place as “Paul Drake, Jr.”.
That’s hilarious once you know that Katt is Barbara Hale’s son…leading to the speculation that it was actually Paul and Della who got busy!
They won’t kill Paul Drake because Paul Drake is a major character from the books and the earlier TV show.
So Seidel was the mastermind of the kidnapping plot? And he ordered Ennis to off the co-kidnappers? Seems like he would still have had to deliver the money to Seidel to cover the debt of the church and maybe had them killed so he didn’t have to pay them? But why would he off his old buddies from denver and not also Ennis? Maybe there is still a mystery to be revealed this sunday.
Peter, Paul, and Perry. Sounds like a trio with a hit or two in their future.
This show. THIS SHOW.In a year remarkable mostly for how abysmally awful its been, we haven’t looked for or counted on anything interesting/fun/escapist at all and watched the first episode without a single expectation except “I wonder how it compares with the original?” (we’re olds, and watched the original Perry Mason in endless reruns on local channels as kids). Liked the first, stuck with it, and we are in AWE at how fantastic it’s turned out to be. The writing, the actors in their roles, the sets, the pacing, the direction, the camerawork. Was delighted when I heard it was renewed for a second season, and can’t wait to see the finale next week. Ennis is toast.
New blood here who never saw the original, only this. I’m 19 and am absolutely enthralled by it but I can’t be bothered to see the first iteration.
The biggest mystery left on this show is what exactly those courtroom rabble-rousers were saying–I had my captions on but it went by too fast–just before they tossed the smoke bomb. I’m pretty sure the last thing they say was “Go Bruins!”
So it turns out the DA went to USC and it was just a prank before the crosstown rivalry game?
I think we’re meant to take from them that this case has become so big that even frat boys have an opinion on it. Like, that it really is The Case of the Year. And that everyone has decided Emily is guilty.So that when Perry inevitably wins in an impressive fashion, suddenly he’ll have clients beating down his door.
Hamilton Burger also brings on the down-low was a smart, smart, smart reveal. It also adds an interesting dimension to his later antagonism with Perry and Della The final sequence was incredible. And I love the continuing theme of Perry blindly stumbling toward the truth and needing to be bailed out. A fighter he is not.
Again, the Fifties television show made Perry Mason and Hamilton Burger’s relationship far more hostile than the books did. Perry and Burger weren’t close friends, but they were both professionals in an adversarial profession, and didn’t take their feuding outside the courtroom.
I mean, even if the show ends up going the route of the books where they’re professionals above all: they’re going to be on opposite sides in high stakes cases, and Perry’s already going to have the reputation of essentially unseating Burger’s predecessor. But I’ll concede that adversarial is a better word here.
Well, if this is true to form for Gardner’s books, Perry Mason was a much detective as lawyer — and he never lost a case, largely due to exonerating his client by finding the real killer, every time. I think both Burger and Lt. Trask must have started dreading walking into the same courtroom as Mason….Wouldn’t it be funny if one time, Burger just said, “Okay, Perry! Obviously your client’s not guilty because you’re here. Could we just skip all the humiliation, and you let us in on how we should be charging, please…?”
Did any of the previous iterations make jokes about the character being called Ham Burger?
When he showed up at the diner and introduced himself to Perry, the quip that popped into my head was Perry saying, “Well, I know what you’re ordering.” (I’m glad the writer’s room didn’t go there.)
This exchange was pure genius, both in how Matthew Rhys delivered his line so earnestly and in the look that Chris Chalk shot at him at the end of it.
Yeah I’m loving a lot of the silent looks he gives Perry. Dude is great at emoting.
Lol I loved this
Oh man I was just going to comment about this! My favorite moment in this episode, maybe in the series so far.
That look said, “I am so disappointed in you for not getting that.”
Terence Blanchard’s music has been great all along but the way it propelled everything after the empty casket reveal was amazing. This show is hitting on all cylinders right now.
The real devastation of the first scene is that you can tell Birdy has whored her daughter out on numerous occasions. That was not the first or last desperate attempt to survive another day. And you see that through the performance of Lili Taylor and the young actress. Topped with fine direction.And, we will soon discover that all of Alice’s past “miracles” were Birdy’s machinations, too. Guessing that Birdy will “take one for the team.”
I will have to watch this episode again. We were really struggling with it and felt that it had returned to the early part of the season before it hits its stride. I can’t say this one was on the level of the previous four.
A gorgeous, powerful review. This is really petty, but how is AV Club still spelling “Dodson” as “Dotson” when there was even a file onscreen today with the correct spelling?
Am I the only one who didn’t care for the final scene? I could have used a bit more explanation as to how that commotion started. The point of the scene was how half-baked and bald-faced the plot of Birdy was, and we only saw half of how half-baked it was. Tatiana Maslany was brilliant, but it was either Lili Taylors performance or the writing that left me feeling like the “oomph” was sucked out of the room. I’m not sure which.
I didn’t care for it either. It was confusing and it seemed like this entire episode was venturing off into True Detective territory where they have an interesting premise but can’t figure out how to stick the landing. Here I still have hope for the final episode and bringing it all together in some logical way that doesn’t have me scratching my head trying to figure out what I just watched.
Admittedly I was watching while checking my phone, but did I miss the explanation of where that other baby came from?
I didn’t see one. It was clear it was a contrivance of Birdy from context, but the details were left out…for now?
I’m gonna call it now:
Alice’s mom, if not outright involved in the kidnapping, was aware of it, or gave it the go ahead. She’s already demonstrated a willingness to prostitute her daughter, and commit fraud and, arguably, another case of kidnapping since where did that baby come from? We already know that Charlie’s murder was an accident, and the whole thing got out of hand, so I can see how she could’ve been a part of it, since it all started off harmlessly enough (at least, as harmless as a child kidnapping can be). I think Alice will find out and will take drastic action, as evidenced by her absence from the trailer for the final episode. Murder suicide perhaps? Something has to happen here because Sister Alice isn’t a sustainable character, and her arc has to end.
I kind of felt that Alice took off running because she finally realized her mother was in on this. She has some sort of gift, but may have been temporarily blinded to her mother’s involvement because she was too close to see it. When she sees her holding this baby, ready to lie and exploit this child, it hits her hard and it’s too much to take.
“Hey, you almost look like a lawyer up there”“🖕🏼“
I really hope Pete sticks around. His banter with Perry is top shelf. I know Paul is destined to be his main PI guy, but as a black man in the 1930’s? He’s gonna be pretty limited in his ability to sleuth around. Though I suspect he’d have other options that someone like Pete wouldn’t have. Thus I’m hoping for a Paul & Pete duo. They’d be able to come at cases at completely different angles. Plus I’d really love to see those two hitting the scene together.
Pete will be fine
I thought this episode did a good job of setting up Paul and Pete’s separate strengths (or in some cases, weaknesses only because society sucks). The motel owner/manager wasn’t going to give Paul an inch, because why should she talk to some black man asking questions. Meanwhile, the maid sees in Paul a person fighting on the side of the little guy (or the littlest guy, in Charlie’s case).But both Paul and Pete are masters at flirting with office ladies to get the paperwork they want to see.
Exactly. Pete can work the front of house (to put it in restaurant terms) while Paul can work the back.
I thought to myself, “That maid probably wouldn’t have talked to Pete.”
Who had “bounced from a Chinese whorehouse” on their bingo card?
So they’re from Saskatoon. This means they’re Roughrider fans, and not Rough Rider fans.
$100,000. What is that adjusted for inflation back then? Because damn
1.9 million dollars by one online inflation calculator. Serious cheddah.
Man, the cast just keeps killing it, probably more than this concept deserves. I just gotta say though, after seeing that dinner I’m just not really sure how I can keep watching this without thinking every episode that even twenty years later this would be about Della’s scrappy legal practice assisted by her functional-acoholic gumshoe, Perry.
it took me a minute or two to put 2 + 2 together and realize Alice’s mom dug up Charlie’s body as part of that charade, but when it finally hit it was probably the most sickening moment of the show (yes even ahead of the baby with its eyes sewn open), at least for me. I can’t see how the last episode could top this one but I’m anxious to find out.
Wait, the man’s name is Ham Burger?
There was something familiar and rather unsettling about Alice’s long sprint at the end and it took me a while to recognize its source. Of course, the great granddaddy of this scene is Antoine’s run at the end of “The 400 Blows,” but then it struck me that the situation, the desperation , and the staging of the shot more closely resembled the final shot of the excellent video for the Lumineers song “Gloria.”
There are shots in the parade sequence that are lifted directly from The Fugitive.
Did anyone else interpret the whole attempted resurrection as a deliberate move by Alice to expose herself as a fraud and escape the church/her mother? Birdy said something like “I know what you tried to do but I just couldn’t let you” to Alice when she revealed her little “miracle.”
I’m late here, but that exterior scene at Perry’s place: is that the same location used for the Givens place on Justified?
If you believe Birdy and the corrupt elders of the Radiant
Assembly of God had Charlie Dotson kidnapped and Sister Alice knew nothing
about it, I have a bridge I would like to sell you, and it is in Brooklyn. Even as a child, Sister Alice recognized the con:
that’s the less obvious reveal in the first scene of the episode. She and her mother are a pair of grifters.I’ve looked seriously at
Sister Alice as the culprit from the moment in episode 1 when Della Street said
(something like), “Well, it doesn’t have to be a man. Crazy women kidnap babies
all the time.” Two more pieces of evidence for this highlighted
by the series itself are the jailhouse interview between Sister Alice and Emily
and the decision to hold Charlie’s funeral at the Radiant Assembly of God. The
first suggests that Sister Alice may have some of the same regrets and
frustrated desires as Emily: In other
words, Sister Alice is not pure as the driven snow. Second, the funeral is the perfect set-up for
Charlie’s timely resurrection, which also constitutes another
opportunity to pass the collection plate.
Also pointing to the possibility of Sister Alice’s involvement
in Charlie’s disappearance and death is the involvement of George
Gannon in Sister Alice’s operation. He is the link between Charlie’s fate and
the shady land deals that are gradually emerging as a factor. The
piece of the puzzle added this week is that the ransom amount, $100,000, is
exactly the figure needed to “save” the Radiant Assembly of God after its land
deals go south. Charlie Dotson is the
obvious choice for the kidnapping because he is the grandson of one of the
church’s most reliable benefactors.This leaves at least two
possibilities for the finale: Either Emily is
acquitted when Mason convinces the jury that the grifters and charlatans
running the Radiant Assembly of God had more reasons for kidnapping Charlie
Dotson than his mother, or Emily is convicted and then shown to be innocent
because Charlie is not dead, a reveal that exonerates his mother after her conviction.In terms of dramatic
development, it is far more original to end the first season by having one of
Perry Mason’s few lost cases be this one. A failure turns Perry Mason into the
underdog just before season 2, a better place to be in terms of plot
development: nowhere to go but up. If the kidnapped/murdered infant is
resurrected, the disastrous consequences of Mason’s maiden voyage in the
courtroom as a defense attorney, a widely publicized loss, are not as severe as
they would have been had Emily been convicted—or even Ennis. Everybody has
a big payoff and lives to sin and connive and conspire another day.
A win for Perry and Emily
improves the tally for justice but does not make Emily whole. It performs the feat—and it is no small thing—of
bringing together a winning team with whom, Perry Mason, the newly minted
defense attorney, can go forward, to fight for truth, freedom, and the American
way. Those who prefer a superhero
franchise will be happy—but not surprised.
Maybe it’s just me, but I would love for the last scene of the finale to be a pullback from Perry sitting behind a desk, asking Della to call Paul in as we glide by the window painter finishing up “Perry Mason, Attorney at Law” on the office door. And then the Fred Steiner theme kicks in for the first time…
The theme kicked in at the end of the fifth episode, albeit in a remixed form.
Maybe it’s just me, but I would love for the last scene of the finale to be a pullback from Perry sitting behind a desk, asking Della to call Paul in as we glide by the window painter finishing up “Perry Mason, Attorney at Law” on the office door. And then the Fred Steiner theme kicks in for the first time…
If you believe Birdy and the corrupt elders of the Radiant
Assembly of God had Charlie Dodson kidnapped and Sister Alice knew nothing
about it, I have a bridge I would like to sell you, and it is in Brooklyn. Even as a child, Sister Alice recognized the con:
that’s the less obvious reveal in the first scene of the episode. She and her mother are a pair of grifters.I’ve looked seriously at
Sister Alice as the culprit from the moment in episode 1 when Della Street said
(something like), “Well, it doesn’t have to be a man. Crazy women kidnap babies
all the time.” Two more pieces of
evidence for this highlighted by the series itself are the jailhouse interview
between Sister Alice and Emily and the decision to hold Charlie’s funeral at
the Radiant Assembly of God. The first suggests that Sister Alice may have some
of the same regrets and frustrated desires as Emily: In other words, Sister Alice is not pure as
the driven snow. Second, the funeral is
the perfect set-up for Charlie’s timely resurrection, which also constitutes
another opportunity to pass the collection plates.
Also pointing to the possibility of Sister Alice’s involvement
in Charlie’s apparent disappearance and death is the involvement of George
Gannon in Sister Alice’s operation. He is the link between Charlie’s fate and
the shady land deals that are gradually emerging as a factor. The
piece of the puzzle added this week is that the ransom amount, $100,000, is
exactly the figure needed to “save” the Radiant Assembly of God after its land
deals go south. Charlie Dotson is the
obvious choice for the kidnapping because he is the grandson of one of the
church’s most reliable benefactors.
This leaves at least two
possibilities for the: Either Emily is
acquitted when Mason convinces the jury that the grifters and charlatans
running the Radiant Assembly of God had more reasons for kidnapping Charlie
Dotson than his mother, or Emily is convicted and then shown to be innocent
because Charlie is not dead, a reveal that exonerates his mother after her
conviction.
In terms of dramatic
development, it is far more original to end the first season by having one of
Perry Mason’s few lost cases be this one. A failure turns Perry Mason into the
underdog just before season 2, a better place to be in terms of plot
development: nowhere to go but up. If the kidnapped/murdered infant is
resurrected, the disastrous consequences of Mason’s maiden voyage in the
courtroom as a defense attorney, a widely publicized loss, are not as severe as
they would have been had Emily been convicted—or even Ennis. Everybody has
a big payoff and lives to sin and connive and conspire another day.A win for Perry and Emily
improves the tally for justice but does not make Emily whole. It performs the feat—and it is no small
thing—of bringing together a winning team with whom, Perry Mason, the newly
minted defense attorney, can go forward, to fight for truth, freedom, and the
American way. Those who prefer a
superhero franchise will be happy—but not surprised.
I honestly wonder when Herman Baggerly figured it out. My take is he figured out what happened sometime between when his son was charged and when Emily was. It just seems to me that if I had recently turned anyone down for 100k and then three days later my grandson was kidnapped for a ransom of 100k, it’d only make sense to me to look at the people who’d originally asked me for the money. But I can also see where he believed very deeply in the church, and it was only when his son was accused of killing his own kid, that he allowed himself to think about what happened. (I also think he could not possibly case less about Emily and if she can hang while his church gets off, so much the better.)The Sister Alice reveal was heart-breaking and I definitely took it as not the first time that it had happened to her. (Also, good job to the casting people, who found a child with Tatiana Maslany’s exact jawline) But, as some have said below, using sexual assault as shorthand for a woman’s characterization is tired (and very, very hard to watch).I love that we’ve essentially wrapped up the mystery in the penultimate episode, which just leaves time for Perry to drop the hammer and witness the fallout in the season finale. (And introduce another mystery?) All along we knew that the church had to be involved; we just weren’t sure how or why. Now we know all of that, and the show becomes less about how or why, but rather what now.