The Undoing unveils some dramatic last-minute evidence that can't save an uneven episode
TV Reviews Recap
The struggle with any thriller like The Undoing is that a constant stream of revelations about the characters have to occur to upset what the viewer thinks they know about them, while still being within the realm of possibility for what’s been established about those characters. There’s a perfect type of revelation that is both so implausible that it doesn’t occur to you, and yet once you learn it, you think, of course!
And then, of course, there’s revealing that the murder suspect fabricated a story about letting a family dog die only to reveal that actually it was his younger sister. The show has certainly laid groundwork to suggest that Jonathan has some capacity for manipulative, unfeeling behavior. It’s just that this is such an unbelievable fiction for him to have successfully maintained for this many years only to reveal it now. Why craft a version of this story for his wife, to hide behind the reason he doesn’t want a dog that he’s provided for his kid? And why reveal the truth now? He may be estranged from his family, but Grace has clearly met them—they were at the wedding! How could she possibly have never known this about him? And when he reveals it, why does she react with sympathy? I’ve never been married, but this frankly seems like an absolutely WILD thing to keep from your spouse. They have known each other for well over a decade, at minimum.
It’s perhaps the most noticeable of a series of twists and turns in this episode that could give you whiplash. Even the beginning of the episode is disorienting—from Henry watching media footage at school, we’re swept into the middle of another walk between Grace and Jonathan. There’s no real entry point to what they’re doing out there. And then Jonathan decides to ask Grace about her actions the night of Elena’s murder. The question of why these two currently-notorious public figures would go on strolls in the park together right now has still not been answered, but more to the point, Jonathan knows his defense rests in part on people seeing his loving wife joining his side. And yet he’s antagonizing her! There’s also a lot of bewildering behaviors from his hotshot lawyer, who decides to cast suspicion on Fernando on the witness stand by asking probing questions about whether or not he’s getting psychiatric help in the aftermath of his wife’s violent murder. She also claims to know who on the jury has been cheated on based on their Google and Amazon searches, which just seems complicated to figure out. Did those two women on the jury Google “husband cheated now what” then post the results on their public Instagram accounts? What is a “pro-defense news feed”?
The show also has an unfortunate habit of showing us snippets of scenes with the suggestion that they’re meaningful without ever quite making clear why they are meaningful. Jonathan flips through a slide presentation of cheerful pictures of Elena, but we never learn what the point of the slideshow was. Franklin plays the piano very portentously…and at a time of day when his distraught daughter has gone to bed. On the way to the courthouse, we catch moments of the media circus outside, where we’re shown a reporter talking about how a plea deal never materialized. But we know already that Jonathan doesn’t want to accept a plea deal, because we’ve seen him say so. There’s no reason to show us a reporter making note of this, unless it’s supposed to tell us something about the media reaction to this case, but so far the media reaction seems to be that there is one. It’s very easy to say that the media would be obsessed with this case, but it’s been less explicable what the show wants to show with these clips of people talking. Why these moments, these perspectives?
The show does earn some of its gasps of shock, though. The notion that Henry has been concealing the murder weapon works both plot-wise (they’ve mentioned several times that no one can find it) and character-wise—it’s been clear all along that he’s very anxious about what’s happening with his dad. It’s a good twist! It moves the story along based on a big reveal that is both unknowable and right in line with what we do know. And it gives the show a lot to chew on right in time for the finale. It introduces an actual viable new suspect, and emphasizes the dilemma Grace has faced all along. Will money and familial loyalty matter more than justice for Elena?
Stray observations
- This is also the longest we’ve spent in court yet, and I wrote down roughly 300 questions about why things were proceeding the way that they were. Sometimes I can’t tell if the show doesn’t care about the legal stuff and therefore doesn’t bother? You get the gist of what’s happening without the usual procedural steps such as, say, the judge clarifying that one lawyer has completed questioning the witness and another can start.
- Why in the world does Franklin say “Murderer or not, Jonathan must be kept as far away from your son as possible”? This actually seems like a fairly important distinction to consider when deciding whether to estrange a child from his father. If the worst Jonathan can be accused of is infidelity, why would he stop seeing his kid?
- Sorry in advance for being a bit of a media nerd about this, but I don’t think New York magazine puts a doctor on the cover of its annual Best Doctors issue, or at least it hasn’t since at least 2016. And FiveThirtyEight is a polling aggregator. You’d need enough data about cases exactly like this one to predict a statistical outcome and how could you get that? Hoping Vulture weighs in on the important issue of the fake New York magazine cover you see for two seconds in the background of the scene where Jonathan is poking around his son’s room.
- Okay, this is my one actual guess about what’s going to come: Grace told Sylvia about the dead sister on purpose. She knows Sylvia thinks Jonathan is guilty, and that she’s friends with the prosecutor, and she was freaked out enough by the suggestion that Jonathan is a total sociopath that she thinks he’s guilty now.
77 Comments
ugh another beautiful jacket. I love Graces’s wardrobe.I actually enjoyed this episode, I usually get bored when these kind of shows go to the courtroom, but I was engaged the whole time. I’m thinking Henry is covering up for Jonathan, and idk, blonde lawyer friend seems like a red herring at this point? also I’ve seen people be pretty public on social media about getting cheated on, not that farfetched.
I agree that Henry is covering for someone, possibly even Grace, since I haven’t abandoned the DID theory yet. But a violin case is not nearly as good of a hiding place as, say, the bottom of the Hudson river.
At first Hugh Grant’s sororicide sandwich story bugged me as really poor writing. But the Skype call from his mother to Grace was a great payoff especially outlining a disturbing sociopathy. Extrapolating a bit, the mother didn’t know her son was wired with such little regard for life, empathy and compassion or she would not have left him alone with his sister. I think she holds great sympathy for Grace recognizing she too was blind to Jonathan’s true self.But it was Grant’s performance at the restaurant. I am not sure it was poor writing now as much as it was another razor sharp observation of Jonathan’s uncanny ability to manipulate those around him. It did come out of left field a shoe drop he has been waiting to unspool, well rehearsed in his mind complete with this “trauma” motivating his career in pediatrics. But this time, we are all watching for it. I think Grant nailed his version of the tragedy but with just enough light for us to see the fucker is lying through his teeth scrambling to emotionally trick once again Grace into his defense.As a 28 years long subscriber to New York magazine, I thought the cover shot was a fine inside joke. They really do have a Best Doctors and Best Lawyers edition and I actually chuckled “well done”.
Ha, last week I said there were only two suspects, Franklin and Sylvia. Since Donald Sutherland has played so many villains, Franklin as the killer is a feint and so it must be Sylvia. Early this episode, I wondered, “Are they making Henry into a third possibility? That would be stupid” Then I forgot about it, which means rejected it, so I was just as shocked as everybody else by the hammer in the violin case. No, not Henry! The most likable and sympathetic character in the show, played by a very good child actor. I will now follow Noah Jupe’s career.Bu it’s likely not Henry. For one, he couldn’t swing such a heavy hammer with great force multiple times. Plus, of course, he acts like a decent kid and displays genuine pathos and emotion.Another great episode. Loved the shots of the characters’ staring out windows. This is the most beautifully composed work I’ve seen from Bier.Since the prosecution had no actual evidence against Jonathan, his lawyer’s strategy made sense to me, even if it accuses an innocent man who is grieving for his wife. As she said, given what the cops have, anyone else should rightfully be as much a suspect as Jonathan. This actress’s performance is terrific.I can believe Jonathan’s sister’s death was so traumatic, and he felt so guilty, that he completely denied feeling it. Something Like Robin Williams’ character in Fisher King. Or, yeah, he’s a sociopath. But I hope the show is more imaginative than making him the killer. Plus sue me, I have always fallen for Mr. Grants’ charms. Really should rewatch Notting Hill.Finally, and channeling my inner 15 year old, this is the first time I’m fantasizing about the beautiful Lilly Rabe. Guess not playing a nun but a high-powered lawyer wearing great coats and having hilariously awkward timing made her hot.( LOL at coming to court late and waving “Hi” to her prosecutor friend as she’s about to speak.)
This is my third Noah Jupe, the others being Ford vs. Ferrari and that crazy movie where Shia Lebeof plays his father. He’s totally got the goods.Considering how almost manic he sounded at the restaurant, talking about how a marriage can survive infidelity, it does seem like the story is nudging at the possibility of Henry fm doing in Elena to keep the family together. But I’m sure it’s just another red herring in a long line of red herrings for this show.
Totally agreed.The reviewer have missed the fact that this show is playing very coy with what it’s showing, which allow multiple explanation for each character’s behaviors and events, in which would make for twisty and compelling murder-mystery show.The reveal of that hammer at the end was a major shock as I wasn’t totally seeing Henry as a possible suspect.Next week gonna be a nail-biter.
I told you I thought she was a screwy psychiatrist. I want the kid to go all oedipal complex on his dad. Kill his mistress, frame his dad, live on with his mother and her rich depraved father in their upper East side townhouse.
At a time when I need all the distraction I can get from the knowledge that I won’t see any of my family or friends back home until God knows when, I am beginning to sharply resent this show for getting worse instead of better.
He looks like John Kerry in that header image.
The courtroom scenes dragged on for me, but I think it was more in the editing than the actor’s performances. It was all too predictable for a series that so far has kept us interested by doing the opposite of predictable.The idea that Henry could be the killer occurred to me at some point, but aside from the DNA evidence potentially matching him it seemed ridiculous for this kid to have brutally murdered an adult. He obviously doesn’t keep his room very clean, and when he woke up at the end he looked to me at least pretty shocked to see the supposed murder weapon in his violin case. Seems more likely it was planted there.
I’m also a little skeptical about the story regarding Jonathan being blamed by his family for the death of his younger sister. Like… wasn’t he just a kid too? Why are they pointing fingers at him instead of the motorist who actually killed her? If I were in his position I probably wouldn’t be too keen on keeping in touch with my family either.
“ It was all too predictable for a series that so far has kept us interested by doing the opposite of predictable.”I agree, people seem keen to shit on the show and then all takes a guess of what they see happening next episode, and then the show does something completely different of what we would assume happens next narratively.
First time I saw the title of this show on the cable guide, I read it as rhyming with “boing.”Can’t watch it now.
So, are just going to ignore the questionable judgement of the parents from both sides for bringing their kids to trial, fully knowing that there would be some very explicit and graphic details discussed?
Also, maybe it’s the dad in me, but I found it troubling that the defense lawyer instantly whipped out the bloody photo of Eleanor without any warning to the son who was present it the courtroom. That’s automatic grade A trauma for the kid.
yes, that was a very odd decision by the writers. we can clearly see the turmoil Henry is going through by consuming the media coverage on his phone, no need to watch the kids in court as well.
The kid was fine with watching the cell phone news interview video until his dad looked at the camera and said “Yes, I have an idea of who else it could be”.They were trying to set up the kid as the bad guy. Next week it will probably be Elena’s son who gets framed. Gotta play whackamole.
I thought the same, ‘What, no warning before showing Elena’s mutilated face??’ Then after the big reveal I wondered if Henry could really have that much rage in him. Now I think he might’ve hid the hammer to cover for either Jonathan, or possibly even Grace. Where’s the footage of an underage boy walking alone down the streets of New York late at night?
Was there something to Johnathan’s mother correcting Grace’s grammar? Is this a tell that he has mommy issues and finally just lost it? Or was that to help Grace see why he doesn’t talk to Mummy and is really just an abused child himself? Either way it was so smart to get Hugh Grant for this. He is such a charmer. He could literally bludgeon someone to death and I would giggle and swoon like a schoolgirl if I had the chance.
I also wondered about the presentation of Jonathan’s mother – for the same reasons you raised.The dichotomy between the acting versus the writing of the courtroom scenes are striking. The performances therein are killer (pun intended) but the writing is questionable. For example:• Why on *earth* would Fernando bring Miguel to the trial?
• Speaking of Fernando, why didn’t Haley declare him a hostile witness? Or the judge? His behavior warranted it. But she gets an objection for a statement made to him.
• Objections seemed to play fast & loose. The detective was editorializing people’s behavior and should’ve been called out on it.
• The prosecutor’s reaction to the greeting Sylvia (Lily Rabe) gave her seemed odd…cold even.I loved the verbal smackdown Haley gave Jonathan (“Don’t pretend to be a good husband or father, because you are arguably neither…”). And Henry himself needed to be smacked in that restaurant for his argumentative behavior. But I also prefer kids with old-fashioned manners. I also feel that the theory of him being the killer feels too obvious.
Haley was cross-examining Fernando – he was called by the prosecution. You don’t declare the opposing side’s witness as a hostile witness – you only do that if it’s your own witness and you feel you need to cross-examine the person.
Gotcha – thanks for the headsup (re: rules of cross examination). Although shouldn’t the judge have called out Fernando for his hostility? That was crazy how he was allowed to say all those things to her.
Yes and no. Generally judges won’t on their own rein in a witness unless the witness goes really far afield (e.g. cursing, calling names, rambling extensively, etc.). The cross-examining attorney can ask the judge to direct the witness to answer the questions or to stop going off-topic, and can also move to strike if the witness says something irrelevant. But it’s often a strategic choice about whether to do that – sometimes it makes the lawyer look weak in front of the jury, and there are times that it’s helpful to let the witness hang himself. For instance here, the defense attorney is trying to point the picture that Fernando may have snapped and bludgeoned his wife to death, so showing him being angry and aggressive towards a woman in the courtroom would work to her advantage. If she asked the judge to step in, it would put a damper on that.
Thanks for the clarification. That was legit helpful. 🙂
Yes very helpful! What about bringing up topics in cross examination that were not part of the other side’s direct? I thought cross was limited. It seemed wrong to me that Haley was allowed to introduce a whole other line of questioning around Elena’s possible psychiatric care if it hadn’t been brought up by the prosecutor. I kept waiting for the prosecution to object and the judge to say that if Haley wanted to ask those things, she could call him as a defense witness later.
I typically don’t practice criminal law, but my understanding is that rule is somewhat relaxed in the context of criminal proceedings when it comes to putting on a defense. It also is something that depends on state law – some states permit open cross with no limitation on subject matter (aside from relevancy).
I think the bigger question here is why the hell did the prosecutor put him on the stand in the first place?! There is no question about the identity of the body, for instance, that the prosecutor would need his testimony to answer. His testimony wasn’t necessary, and it opens the door for cross examination to challenge his alibi. In fact, the ONLY reason a prosecutor might consider putting him on the stand is to have him testify about his alibi, now that the defense attorney signaled in opening that they think he’s a suspect. But the prosecutor didn’t even put on that evidence!
Because she wanted to make a whole paragraph of just plain statements instead of asking questions to the witness. I HATE when court scenes are written like that. You can’t just say whatever you want in a cross examination, it has to be a question.
That’s the classic tv trope, right? The defense attorney randomly giving a speech during a cross examination. In a real courtroom a judge would lose their shit if a defense attorney pulled that nonsense. It’s extraordinarily unfair and potentially poisons the jury. The consequences could be devastating if the judge is inclined to be punitive.
Agree, it was ridiculous to bring either child to the courtroom. Fernando isn’t a “hostile witness” – yes, he was being hostile, but that’s a phrase for when the person you call to the stand is antagonistic to your side. The cross-examination in general was batshit – you should never ask questions you don’t know the answer to! Though it seemed to work out for Haley.
A lot of people think Sylvia’s little wave in the midst of a dramatic scene was indicative that Sylvia is feeding the prosecutor info. I’m not so sure – I think she was just (inappropriately) trying to be collegial when the two women know each other, but Sylvia’s now firmly on the defense side. Though I do think Sylvia and Jonathan have slept together at some point. Idk!!
Someone else also mentioned the rules of a cross-examination. Although I maintain the judge still should’ve called out his hostility.I definitely think Sylvia slept with Jonathan, but less certain over her feeding information to the prosecution.,xI feel like there’s too much left to resolve within one episode.
Once mommy-dearest did that to Grace, it’s difficult to take anything else she said about her son seriously.
I think the grammar Nazi comment helped Grace quickly understand why Jonathan wanted nothing to do with his horrendous family. We needed no more explanation after that.
Also why is it Johnathon’s fault if the sister, who he supposedly left in another room just to go to the kitchen to make a snack, ran outside and got hit by a car. He didn’t leave her alone in the house for hours, he went in another room for a minute.Anyone with a toddler knows you can turn your head for 5 seconds and they can dart away. It’s a tragic accident, but if the mother blames him even now, she’s quite a piece of work.And if she blamed him and treated him terribly, why would he stick around? And what do you say? “Gee Mom, sorry my sister ran outside when I turned my back for a minute, and oh by the way, it could have happened to you just as easily”. How about feeling bad for me for the guilt you’re laying on a 14 year old kid over an accident? The mother could be an unreliable narrator, telling her side of the story may not be the whole truth. But the whole dog story instead of the sister is ridiculous.I don’t think this is Kelley’s best work. I keep thinking “why am I watching this?” I guess I want to see how he wraps this up, out of curiousity.
For me, the grammar correction worked in two ways — one, to suggest that Mummy may not be a reliable narrator. Two, let’s say she was telling the truth. A warmer, more nurturing mother would have gotten her son psychological help because of his lack of feeling in response to the incident. I can buy that someone that ice cold would’ve been fine with cutting ties, she’d seen all she needed to see. A loving mother would (at the very least, even with Jonathan rejecting her) likely insert herself into her son’s new family regardless, particularly with the grandson.If she’d been a sweet, kind lady, I’d have more trouble buying her story.
There were a lot mixed messages in that call. I found it very confusing.
The biggest clue to the identity of the killer is the affair Jonathan had with an unnamed woman before the affair he had with Elena. His attorney asked him for the name but we didn’t get to hear it. I am sure the identity of that woman is Lily Rabe’s Sylvia, Grace’s best friend. Remember that Sylvia said Jonathan had met with her asking her to represent him when he was in trouble at the hospital. Neither of them told Grace, and it hints at other meetings. Sylvia was in love with Jonathan, he dumped her, she was furious and then jealous of Elena. She follows Jonathan to Elena’s studio and kills Elena. Sylvia hates Jonathan and wants to see him ruined, so she planted the weapon at their home the night she was there with Grace watching Jonathan’s tv interview. Henry found it and hid it to protect his father. But what REALLY confirms it: you don’t cast a great actress like Lily Rabe and give her nothing to do. Her big scene is coming.
Yeah this scans to me. Also, the character herself is completely extraneous up until now yet keeps snatching screen time in every episode.
Five episodes in, I’m still not sure what I feel about this show. Bored is part of it. Also, I think directors overestimate how interesting it is to watch long closeups of a mum Kidman looking all mysterious. It’s a very one-note performance, to me. I usually like Kidman’s work but here, I have nothing to hang on to, she just doesn’t feel palpable.
I think she’s supposed to be largely enigmatic this entire series, she finds it hard to grasp onto things, and we as the audience find it hard to grasp onto her.
The character in the book this is based off is even worse, just the most passive protagonist in the world.
Agreed, she is phoning it in. Though to be fair, there’s only so much an actor can do with writing this bad.
Nicole Kidman does a good surprised/shocked face at least.
It’s all in the eyes. It has to be, considering the rest of her face is incapable of moving.
I think she has laid off the Botox. 10 years ago she was looking very odd and frozen.
In fairness, she looks less plastic here than she did in Big Little Lies 2, where she had an uncanny valley type of look about her
Yes
My wife and I have been back and forth on who might be the Real killer. I have been thinking it was Grace all along, where. My wife is thinking Sylvia as the other woman whom Jonathan said he may have had an affair with. With the reveal at the end, still not sure if Sylvia is our favorite target, but looking forward to the ending. Might want to read the book.
I’ve heard the book is almost completely different from the show after, like, partway through the 2nd episode.
This series is fucking terrible with a prestige overcoat. Not even a guilty pleasure kind of series.
I think every HBO limited series since Chernobyl has been ‘fucking terrible with a prestige overcoat’. Trying to be Netflix is not working for them…this (and Run, and The Outsider, and maybe even Sharp Objects) could have been great 2-hour HBO movies, but these are all padded out with false tension, stupid twists, and narrative padding.
I agree. My sister and I have been discussing it and her opinion is “why can’t people just enjoy this instead of questioning everything and complaining?”I told her “it’s called hate watching, which people actually enjoy doing.”There are too many great murder mysteries out there to not point out how bad this one is.
I agree in theory, but I’m having fun watching hugh and nicole be all sexy and mysterious together.
Just wanted to comment about the line “pro-defense news feed.” There was an episode on The Good Fight where they explained how to use social media against/for jurors. After stalking the jurors, they would then create fake articles/news to serve the purpose they want then connect it to the social media behaviour of the jurors so it would appear on their news feed. It was explained better on the show but it does seem possible given the amount of information people share online.
this show is going off the rails. 1) there is no fucking way a prosecutor would not chase down an estranged family of a suspected murderer. and from the candor at which the mother spoke about her son effectively being a full blown sociopath to grace would lead me to believe she’d tell the prosecutor about it as well.2) why the fuck would J & Ge be in public restaurants? walking through the park? just because he got bail doesn’t mean he wouldn’t be subject to house arrest. i get they need to show the public a unified front, but these scenarios are absurd.3) kidman’s aussie accent is popping up more and more. she is a great actress, but between the accent slips and her frozen face, its a bit jarring. 4) the awkward focus shift and lingering camera on sylvia saying hello to the prosecutor was weird.5) the kid as a suspect idea is eh. like, sure, he could have done it, but if he is dumb enough to hide it in his closet, he’s dumb enough to be caught on every traffic camera in NYC to and from the murder.My theory: Kidman did it personally or she used her father’s power to have it done.
Almost every actor in this show is failing at an American accent, it’s really distracting. Even Donald Sutherland’s Canadian slips through. The police detective I guess they just gave up and made the character Italian (?) for some reason? He’s not even good in the role, only thing he seems to have going for him is a comically square jaw. Sofie Grabol on the other hand I will always stan and forgive after Forbrydelsen. God, now there was a twisty murder mystery potboiler done right.
There are just SO MANY non-Americans playing American characters in this show, it seems like every character has a few blatant accent slip-ups. The only one who doesn’t is the kid playing Henry, he does a great American accent.
On part rewatch, I noticed in the scene where Grace is telling Sylvia by phone about her conversation with Jonathan’s mother about his sister and how his parents thought he reacted, that our first shot of Sylvia’s side of the conversation is a blurry reflection of her on the table?, right when Sylvia is repeating Grace’s words that Jonathan expressed no grief and guilt. That may be a sly visual hint that Sylvia is the killer.
Might as well propose a new theory: Sylvia was the other woman Jonathan had an affair with, and she found out about his sister—either he told her or took her to meet the parents who did—and she knows that he didn’t express grief or guilt. Framing him by killing Elena was her way of revenge for Kitten Katie.Though, come to think of it, I wish there is another explanation than Elena’s murder being all about Jonathan. She should have been killed for something she did and who she was, not just because she was Jonathan’s lover. That’s a more respectable treatment of a working class character instead of being the plot device effect for a study of the rich characters.
I thought it was Sylvia and that she’s going to be revealed as the other affair, which I’m wondering why Ms Defense Attorney “I can figure out all your secrets from your Amazon purchases” hasn’t tracked her down.If that’s the murder weapon how did she get it into Henry’s violin case? And wouldn’t he have found it?
I take issue with even calling this show a “thriller.” It’s a whodunit swimming (slogging?) through a fantasy of privileged Manhattan. It is nice to see that the reviewer is coming around to noticing that the show is awful. Not sure how David E Kelly even got onto the “prestige TV” format but treacle like this belongs on the three ossified old school networks so commercials can separate the lapses in drama that don’t make sense. No respect for the viewer’s intelligence, it’s a real time-waster. The real issue this series raises with me is: Hugh Grant has aged; his puppydog eyes now have bags under them, and his charming, boyish style has now been weathered by time. And Donald Sutherland is now so aged and respected that his sagging jowls and eyebrow hairs teased out in front of his forehead add a “distinguished” look. So why do we live in a society where, for a woman to do the same, it’s tantamount to career suicide? I have no idea if Nicole Kidman is a good actor in this series, simply because her face is shot up with so much botox, or else has been deadened by plastic surgery, that, with added soft focus lensing, there is not a line on her face anywhere. I know 20 year olds with more character lines in their faces. Kidman can at least emote with her eyes, which is good, but does anyone else find her nearly unrecognizable, with her new big chin, and her visage stretched out like Katherine Helmond in “Brazil”?
I hope this is tied up in the last show but I still don’t see why the cop lied under oath about Grace being recorded near the crime scene. You can’t portray him as being so squirrelly and sly with Grace until now and then committing such a stupid blunder to perjure himself.
This was baffling to me as well. Why on earth would he lie about something he knew could be easily disproved?!
I *hope* this was a case where the writers had to create this rather uneven show to tie off loose ends and direct everything towards what I hope will be a great climax, but I have my doubts.
Who has read the book? Please tell me this is not one of those shows that will still leave it ambiguous at the end.Also I’m honestly unclear on some of the financial circumstances. They kind of talk about Fernando and Elena as if they’re working class types but they live in East Harlem (I suppose it could be rent controlled?), she had that massive Manhattan art studio, and certainly had a 4-digit price tag look for that charity event. Are we meant to think Jonathan was footing some big bills for her besides the ones we already know about?Also, why didn’t Grace ask Jonathan about his claims that he loved Elena so much, considering his story about how she terrorized and threatened and stalked him?
I read the book. The book is out the window the moment Jonathan came back after attending a fake medical conference.SPOILER FOR THE BOOKIn the book, he fled and never came back, and he did it, he killed Elena, and grace just keeps unspooling a web of lies and psycho stuff she lived and believed about Jonathan, and the irony is that she was about to publish a book called “You Should Have Known”.. I loved the book, it was so good in slowly pulling the rug from under Grace’s rose-colored glasses view of her marriage, and showing how psychopaths can fool and manipulate and otherwise thrive in society.The show has nothing to do with the book except the murder of a mistress and Grace being a psychologist and Jonathan a doctor, and Henry playing violin. Beyond that, I have no idea what they are going for, but IMO, Jonathan is still a psychopath, he did it.
Ohhhhh. Interesting. Thank you!Now I’m nervous, though. That he didn’t do it, especially since they’re straying so far from the book. I now need him to have done it.
I think he did. Psychos are so arrogant in their belief they can fool everybody. Like he said to Grace “I cannot take a life! I am a DOCTOR!” yeah, right. But who knows. My money is on him though. If they make somebody else the killer, why then even say it’s based on this book? There is hardly anything from the book in there then.
I loved the scene with the lawyer in the previous episode when she went from “How fucking charming do you think you are?” to about a minute later realizing, “Wow, this guy is SO charming that we need to get him on TV in front of the national public immediately.” Because Grant really IS that charming and believable. Even after he visited Fernando, he made ME think he wasn’t that bad of a guy. (I obviously haven’t seen the finale yet)
I haven’t either, incidentally. DVR’d it and waiting for a breather in my week to sit down and enjoy without distractions :)Yeah, psychopaths are THAT charming. I guess they cast Grant just right. True story (and long ago, water under the bridge) – I was married to one such psycho for 10 years and I didn’t have a fucking clue :))) until I was onto him and the cookie crumbled… And NOBODY in family/friends believed a thing. yeah, the manipulations and pitting one person against another, and other stuff – perfect! That’s why I loved the book so much. It told my life story, basically. Not as happy ending as in the book 🙂 Don’t have a lake house to retreat too, and never met that perfect stranger 🙂 Hope you enjoy the finale
So, where all has this violin case been all this time? Not in the house when it was searched, I’m guessing. So, it probably got there (at Franklin’s) after they moved in. And, who has access to it there? Franklin. No, that is STILL a stupid way for it to get there.Also, whoever did this got splatter all over themselves. So, probably not Grace. Not Henry, as he doesn’t seem strong enough to overpower Elena.My guess: It’s the attorney friend, who had an affair with Jonathan.Second guess: Grace, who then has some amnesia afterward. Or, SHE’S BEEN DEAD THE WHOLE TIME!!! (Wait, that’s one of her movies, never mind.)
It’s really bothering me that no one seems to care or even be curious about what Jonathan did with the $500,000 he got from Grace’s father.
In all of these reviews there has never a mention of the
scene where Franklin walks by himself uptown and looks into the Alves’
apartment. That scene could not have been filmed for the heck of it. He
also walked into his grandson’s bedroom and had an extremely brief
conversation about what a great instrument the violin was which ended
with Henry just casualty mentioning about Franklin leaving a footprint
on the schoolmaster’s head. What was it that Franklin said? “I’m an old fashioned cock sucker… The kind who fucks over anyone who hurts me or a loved one…. You have not yet met ugliness”. That museum painting that Franklin looks at so much? It looks like the bench is in front of a landscape (Harbor of Dieppe by Joseph Turner) but, just to the right, there is a portrait of a woman (Margareta de Vos by Anthony Van Dyck). Reminds him of his wife and how he now hates cheaters? Red herrings?
Why
would Elene plead with a boy before being struck? Then again, why would
she plead with an old man instead of fighting back? As to, why not
throw the hammer in the Hudson? A trophy.Another thing, why would the director and writers make a big deal about “none of us IS doing great”?
I’ve thought about Franklin out in front of the apartment the whole time. That’s definitely a Chekov’s gun situation. It has to be resolved one way or the other. If Kelley wrote that into the script just to throw people off, it’s really bad writing. It would have been better if they had an encounter at the charity event.
The Prosecutor’s opening statement seemed more like a defense attorney setting up reasonable doubt. “The defendant and victim had sex, were having a affair, no motive, oh, and we don’t have the murder weapon either.”
The defense attorney kept making a big deal about Kidman and the victim’s husband being questioned while potential subjects, but not being mirandized. My pretty strong impression of Miranda Rights is the police are supposed to give them when questioning a subject who is actually in custody (either under arrest, or at least being not free to leave). If the suspect can say “I’m outta here” and leave at any time, the police don’t need to Mirandize them. Am I wrong?
I do not think that without the pandemic and the current lockdown I would had kept watching this.. at this point it has reduced to a show with a brilliant cast trying to do its best having to deal with bad script/story. And their coats.
It is not only bad, it is galactically stupid. I refuse to accept that a psychologist would bring her child to a murder trial with his father as the accused. But Miguel’s presence in the trial makes absolutely no sense, except if his father hates his son’s guts or something.
Social care should had taken both children away from their idiotic parents.
I think Henry packed up the weapon to protect his dad. (I thought he went into Grant’s closet but went back and saw that was Kidman finding perfume and other items that were Elena’s). There’s a shot of him packing up his stuff into that canvas bag in a frenzy and staring at his dad’s photo. We know now that he knew they were together. Katie the Kitten was a weird piece of writing and a bit strange of a nickname to force the pet connection. I’m sure his mother duly corrected him that Katie was a Human, not a kitten, regularly.
Ah, okay. I was trying to figure out for whom Hugh Grant was the red herring (betting on Sutherland.) He just seemed so guilty, but now I see the kid is the red herring for his murder-dad.Let’s get this show on the road so Nicole can have her character fulfill her real destiny: a coat boutique.
I came to this series a bit late, but I’m grateful for the reviewer’s opinions and the comments. I think people are so excited about discovering a real whodunit that we are willing to forgive a lot. At least this one told us who actually did it, unlike “Defending Jacob” which started out as an whodunit and then went all “French artsy cinema” and copped out at the end.It would take an entire essay, which I plan to write, about what is wrong with The Undoing even though there were moments of pleasure, and Nicole Kidman can be mesmerizing as an actress, if only for the way she “transforms” herself for every role. But she isn’t the kind of actress who can transcend really bad writing. At a certain point, the whole thing became such a contrivance that it seemed like everyone wanted to give up and escape from the set – O.J. style, like Hugh Grant’s character. It’s funny, I tried to tell someone about The Undoing an hour after I watched it and I literally couldn’t remember a single character’s name except Elena (which was never pronounced with a Spanish inflection) and Sylvia. That’s how deep it was.I think the story would have been much more fascinating if Grace had actually gone to Elena’s studio that night after the fundraiser, if they had made love or at least made out in the elevator. A visit to the studio would account for the painting and police suspecting Grace’s culpability. I was much more interested in Elena’s nudity being used in the real possibility of Grace’s sexual ambivalence which was never explored. The thing with these prestige series is that while it is fun to go more in-depth in a story, a story isn’t made more deep just because you drag it out for six hours. Sometimes a movie, especially a “Jagged Edge” knock-off like this one, needs to be an hour and a half, so that before you can have a week to really think between episodes, your suspension of disbelief is never tested too hard. The Undoing might have made a very interesting 90 min/2 hour movie. But without the deeper character development or real consequence, without an actual relationship between Grace and Elena, or Grace and Sylvia or Grace and anybody, it just falls flat.I also have to say there is something really deplorable about a movie that when it fears the audience is getting bored, “spices thing up”, by showing the crime scene photos over and over again.