I’m with you regarding implausibility. Not just for the courtroom but too many other things to mention. But regarding the courtroom - witnesses would be sequestered and not permitted to watch the testimony of other witnesses. Those pictures would never be shown to the entire courtroom, just the jury and certainly not in that manner. The injuries were consistent with a hammer that wasn’t ever located to compare them to? Complete BS. I know this isn’t a legal procedural but some semblance to reality would be nice.
The kid seemed way to anxious to put everything behind them so they can be a family again. Like, "Can’t we stop talking about this (so you don’t figure out that I did it)? ". I don’t know if that’s supposed to be a clue or deliberate mis-direction by the writers. If my better half didn’t insist on watching the show, I would have given up weeks ago. Also, I see she’s been shopping for sculpting hammers on Amazon.
For maximum impact I think the killer has to be someone we have met already. They might be a relatively minor character but someone who has a role in the family’s life. It should also be someone who has not yet been implied to be a suspect.
So Donald Sutherland is a possibility. Miguel fits the bill but he was so heartbroken I don’t think so. After last week’s last minute reveal I will be surprised if it is Henry. I think they would have timed it differently. I think it’s another red herring.
I also think Sylvia is a dark horse candidate. The helpful, devoted friend, we know she already knew about Elena and she had an undisclosed relationship with Jonathan even though lawyer/client privilege gave her plausible cover.
Or maybe the killer was hiding in plain sight and it really was Jonathan. You Should Have Known.
But I am usually wrong about these things too. It is fun to try to puzzle it out though.
I know a lot of people time-shift watching, so I’ll spoiler what I think of the ending:
I found it very unsatisfying. A movie/series where the person who is identified in the very beginning as a suspect, and arrested, and the only official suspect, turns out to be the one that actually did it, made the whole thing feel like a waste of time. I was really enjoying the show, recommending it to people, but now…it’s just like watching an Agatha Christie where the immediate and obvious suspect (the butler) IS the killer.
No. I think that she used her friend as a conduit to tell the prosecutor about her conversations with her mother-in-law, about the way they first learned about his sister’s death, and about the discussion that Kidman had with her friend. There’s no other way for the prosecutor to have learned about those things, and Kidman clearly wanted them to appear to be “reluctantly” drawn out of her. Kidman also insisted on testifying herself, which conveniently got around the issue of not having a spouse testify, since she did it willingly. And, as noted, this way no culpability landed on the son.
What made no sense was Jonathan bringing the sculpting hammer home, to his father-in-law’s beach house. Didn’t he say that he spent time hiding out in a crappy motel at Lake George? Why not bring it up there and, perhaps, drop it in the lake? Or throw it in the ocean at the beach house, rather than just poorly hiding it in the outdoor fireplace?
That was one of the things that bothered me. A lot. Among other big implausibilities. To make this plot “work” the writer(s) had to make the characters behave in ways that human beings just don’t behave.
HBO gets away with a lot of shows with lousy writing–they’ll get green-lit if “boobs” are guaranteed. To hell with the idea of a script making sense: HBO knows what their customers want!
(Nothing against the naked human body, but personally I get annoyed by lazy screenplays–and shots of nekid people do not sufficiently compensate me for my wasted time…)
Worst HBO series that I’ve watched. I felt from the beginning the show was poorly written with so much being so unrealistic. I’d like blame the wife but I willingly watched the entire series. Dumb, dumb, dumb…
I was first with “crappy ending”, but as I said before, overall I enjoyed the series - but felt the ending - really the entire last episode - just defecated on the previous 5 and made the whole thing feel pointless. I very much DID enjoy it up to that point - the acting, the editing, Grace’s coats…
And what’s with the red herrings? They really were a bit too vague and shadowy to be intentional wrong turns for us the viewers; I wonder if they went somewhere but got cut in editing?
For example: “I’ve only had one other affair”. “I’ll need her name”, says the attorney, pen in hand. Never mentioned or referenced in any way ever again.
Another: Elena had apparently created a painting of Grace (found by the police). So…what?
There are a few others that apparently were just fillers, like the friction between the school’s leader and Dad; or how Dad was a terrible husband; or the freaking-out former oncologist colleague of hubby’s.
And now to think about it, the whole “my sister died due to my negligence and I’m not sad” plot point only served as a device in the trial, and had no other impact, except the kid not getting a dog.
Yeah, I wondered if maybe some of these got fleshed out better in the book so I googled. I don’t think so. Lots of stuff in the show was apparently not in the book.
Spoilers for the book:
Apparently Jonathan’s guilt was never in doubt, the book is mostly about his time as a fugitive but from Grace’s perspective. Most of her time is spent at the beach house.
“The series poses the question: Who murdered Elena? Was it Jonathan, or someone else? The book poses no such question. It’s clear early on in the novel that Jonathan murdered Malaga/Elena, and by the end of the book he’s confessed to it in a letter to Grace. He’s also on the run for almost all of the novel, which is a nod to his guilt…The book essentially culminates in the conclusion that Jonathan is a sociopath.”
“Direct Susanne Bier tells Marie Claire: “It was always going to be Jonathan who killed Elena…Although the series uses the book [as inspiration] for the first two episodes, it does use the book as a kind of conceptual framework. That whole notion to ‘regulate the truth,’ to massage the truth into what we want it to be, is such a big important issue that we all felt we were doing a really fun and really entertaining whodunit twist and turn but at the core of it was that [book’s philosophy].””
I don’t think that concept worked. Maybe they should have stuck closer to the original story.
The thing that annoyed me most was the trial, and the inclusion of the kids in it. There’s no way (I assume, not au fait with the US court system) that they could just pull a kid onto the stand without any prior warning. Surely as a minor, he would have been interviewed in some cozy family suite, with a responsible adult present, on video for showing to the jury. Not just thrown onto the stand.
Someone upthread mentioned it was like an Agatha Christie. I disagree - she would have tied up all the loose ends (the jealous friend, the wicked father, the uptight English mother). They would all have done it, taking turns with the hammer.
The use of helicopters in the series was pointless but I guess its one of those Hollywood tropes.Chase scenes with a low flying chopper (or two - even better!) is a must.
Meh. A disappointing ending to a disappointing series. I’m glad I watched it, overall - it looked great, had some fine acting by Hugh Grant and Donald Sutherland in particular, and certainly made me think, but was finally brought down by just 'way too many implausibilities.
Agreed as to the implausibility of the victim’s young son going on the stand. And even if he had, the judge would’ve asked him some questions to make sure he understood the seriousness of the situation, what the oath meant, and his obligation to testify truthfully regardless of who it helped or hurt. And having his dad there to nod or shake his head, cueing his testimony, was definitely a no-no.
I think Grace had her blonde lawyer friend approach the prosecutor and fill her in on the call from her husband’s mom. Grace could say with a straight face to her husband and the defense lawyer, “I’ll say I don’t think he’s capable of this,” but neglect to add, “Of course, if I’m asked what his mom thinks of him, I’ll testify to that, too.”
The defense lawyer was flat-out wrong in, with a wink and a nod, advising the defendant and his family to make the murder weapon more permanently disappear. Just outrageous.
I actually didn’t mind the doctor turning out to actually be the murderer at the end. Sometimes the police really do find and arrest the right guy.
Agreed as to both, although as to the latter (and in light of the victim’s last words to her lover), it does appear that he was correct in that she wanted more contact with his family than he wanted her to (not that in any way justified her murder).
Even the opening credits were a red herring. Assuming that was meant to be Grace as a spooky little girl, perhaps destined to grow up to be a murderer, it was naturally misleading.
And what will become of the cute little baby? Nothing good, I fear.
I thought that was a police helicopter? Maybe you’re right. No reason the police would agree to bring along Grandpa, only Grace, to get to where the son was being held.
I think Hugh Grant gets the acting MVP for this series. Some of his best work I’ve ever seen. In the finale, in particular, trying to convince his son and himself that some other version of him killed the girl - trying to hold it together as a sociopathic charmer, just dear ol’ Dad, every boy’s best chum, prompting him to sing a childhood song even as he contemplates suicide and the death of his son… brrrrr.
I also thought it odd (and perhaps inaccurate) that the gory crime scene photos were just thrown up for everyone to see. Don’t they pass photos around the jury box?
