MovieChat Forums > Perry Mason (2020) Discussion > Reaction to Season 1 Finale - Spoilers

Reaction to Season 1 Finale - Spoilers

posted 5 years ago by FilmBuff (7436)
14 replies | jump to latest

I was let down. I didn't hate it, but it didn't live up to the promise of the first 7 episodes. I knew we wouldn't get the kind of ending that classic Perry Mason shows offered, as nothing about this show has been of that ilk. This has been about realism, brutality, human frailty, and moral ambiguity from the get-go, so of course Ennis wasn't going to confess on the stand and the show wouldn't end with everything wrapped up in a neat bow. Nonetheless, seeing Mason resort to bribing a juror, even if ultimately he didn't need to, and Ennis being unceremoniously murdered by his partner, strikes me as weak writing. Sure, you can chalk it up to "life doesn't always work out," but that's no excuse for failing to deliver something clever. There are plenty of ways to surprise an audience, and remain true to the "life sometimes sucks" motif, while still delivering something more satisfying that what we got.

Again, didn't hate the episode, and still overall a great first season, but one that lost steam just as it crossed the finish line.

[–] joi2049 (5627) 5 years ago

Why do we need to assume PERRY BRIBES a member of the JURY??? When his former partner pays that other guy who suggested that's what happened, he didn't know what the guy was talking about.

And then when he questions PERRY about it without ever spelling out precisely what he was accusing him of doing, PERRY also has NO IDEA what he's talking about.

So why should we assume PERRY BRIBED someone simply because that's what some other guy thought had happened?

Where's the PROFF of this???

Do any REVIEWS or RECAPS support and back up this claim???

When one gets some time I'll try to check around to see if anyone else has also interpreted what happened that way.

FOUND THIS which confirms you're right:

https://www.tvinsider.com/944593/perry-mason-recap-season-1-finale/

Perry had "one more move," an insurance policy in case Emily flopped on the stand or his closing argument wasn't strong enough. He paid off a juror, using Pete as a go-between to hand over the bribe. While it taints the "victory" somewhat (especially as it seems two jurors flipped without the cash incentive), it's totally in keeping with the Perry we've seen this season. He's willing to cut corners in the name of justice. What was it he said to Della again? "There's what's legal and what's right." This is a man who stole a corpse remember, so what's a little jury tampering? It's too much for Pete, though, who already tried quitting last week. This time he's out for good, accepting a job offer to go work for Burger.

I incorrectly assumed the man that Pete pays was someone else not a juror. So PERRY CHEATED just like you said he did !!!

🕵️‍♀️

[–] FilmBuff (7436) 5 years ago

I'm only just reading this, so I think you must have edited an older post at some point. And yes, that was what I picked up on. Perry told Pete they had one last move, and then the camera cut away, leaving us to wonder what it would be. I kept waiting for Pete to show up as the trial was ending with someone new witness or evidence-- along the lines of Vinny calling Sheriff Farley at the end of My Cousin Vinny-- and then wondering when they'd reveal what he'd asked Pete to do. In any event, yeah, you're totally right that it keeps in character with the Perry Mason we've met, but I'd have preferred something a little more clever and surprising from the writers than a bribe to a juror. Legal vs. Right aside, it feels like a step too far in the direction of moral ambiguity for me.

[–] Filmtenk2 (4137) 5 years ago

But how dumb or morally bankrupt were those other jurors for voting to fry Emily?

[–] joi2049 (5627) 5 years ago

It also looked like there was ONLY ONE FEMALE member of the JURY. So that could also explain the reason why MOST of them would chose to see EMILY the way the DA portrays her instead of seeing her the way DELLA does right from the start of the show (which she also had to point out to PERRY as well who also remained CLUELESS as to how having SEX with another MAN that you're not married to doesn't MAKE you GUILTY of MURDER).

But NOTE the way that's how the DA kept portraying EMILY, as a WHORE who had SEX with another man which is suppose to automatically make her GUILTY even though she was a VICTIM of the CRIME and had been USED by the other KIDNAPPER who let her think he cared about her when all he did was USE her as a way to be able to STEAL her son (which then leads to the MURDER of her SON).

But most of the MALES on that JURY chose to view what happened from the POINT of VIEW of the DA.

And that's also why PERRY was RIGHT to do a WRONG thing, because with his having also fallen for the same BS before DELLA corrects him, Perry himself would probably also have voted GUILTY as well if he'd been a member on that JURY and hadn't had DELLA to point out the TRUTH to him.

And that's also the reason why he KNEW the JURY would vote for a GUILTY VERDICT for an INNOCENT WOMAN.

[–] elmacho (1028) 5 years ago

i agree. the last 20 minutes was a let down. also, agree that the bribing of the juror was unnecessary, especially how his whole closing argument was about how now that he is a lawyer he has to do the right thing. totally tainted that brilliant moment.

[–] SpikeMike (470) 5 years ago

He made that decision before the speech though. It was that speech and the night he spent writing it that changed him into who he is now.

[–] R_Kane (15828) 5 years ago

^ This. I also was very surprised and impressed that the finale’s end credits ran with the 50s CBS Perry Mason theme song. It reminded me of Daniel Craig’s debut as James Bond, where The Bond (trombone) there was nowhere to be heard, until the closing credits. And I don’t care how that asshole Innis died, as long as he did and it was humiliating.

[–] joi2049 (5627) 5 years ago

I agree that there's a CONTRADICTION between what he says and what he does when he BRIBES a JUROR, but like the other article says, this is also a character who STOLE a CORPSE from the MORGUE as a way to try and RIG things.

And when you also consider how PERRY also had EVIDENCE that ENNIS had KILLED the BABY, but it still wasn't GOOD ENOUGH to PROVE that, then one can also understand the reason why PERRY would also resort to having done something UNENTICAL as a way to try and SAVE the LIFE of a woman that he also KNEW WAS NOT GUILTY of having KILLED her OWN SON.

And that's also the MAIN ISSUE, was PERRY trying to STOP them from HANGING an INNOCENT WOMAN for a CRIME she didn't COMMIT.

So when one considers how a VICTIM of a CRIME was being ACCUSED of the CRIME she was VICTIMZED BY, who can really BLAME PERRY for what he did???

Because what he did was STILL A NOBEL DEED.

And PERRY was also right when he said:

THERE'S WHAT'S LEGAL and THERE'S WHAT'S RIGHT.

And MOST of the rest of us would probably also be willing to BREAK the LAW as well if we were also placed into the same situation ... where we knew that doing so would also STOP others from UNJUSTLY KILLING a woman who was NOT GUILTY of the CRIME that she'd been accused of.

At least that's the way I see it.

[–] FilmBuff (7436) 5 years ago

I agree, and my issue isn't as much with Mason bribing a juror as it is with the writers of the show presenting that as the solution. It feels like an inability on their part to come up with a more clever, surprising finish.

[–] Filmtenk2 (4137) 5 years ago

Emily was railroaded from the start. Even jurors who might have personal feelings about an issue, if they conflict with the pressure put on by the DA's office, usually they follow the DA. For example, most people might say they don't think selling marijuana should be a reason to put someone in jail. Push comes to shove, the people who work for the courthouse who handle the jury pool, and the ones who prep them before they serve, are working for the state same as the DA.They do not want doubt cast on their institution, they want it to run smoothly so they can get on with their day. They're often familiar with the DA and people working for him/her. Plus in the case of Perry Mason, these people wouldn't want to go against someone the think is likely to become mayor in the near future. Justice is blind.

[–] joi2049 (5627) 5 years ago

What I liked was the SCENE where PERRY gives the CLOSING ARGUMENT in COURT ... where he STEP by STEP explains how ENNIS was the one who KILLS the INFANT ... and then KILLS everyone else who could testify that he's the one who did that.

And then the camera ABRUPTLY SWITCHES over to us seeing how it's only a DRESS REHEARSAL and then the DA who is listening to what PERRY's saying also let's him know that the TRUTH of what really happened isn't going to be ENOUGH to get a NOT GUILTY VERDICT for EMILY.

So even though PERRY tugs at the HEART STRINGS of the JURY by putting EMILY on the stand to testify, and giving them the other SPEECH about how much the TRUTH MATTERS, we also know THE TRUTH doesn't MATTER that much in a COURTROOM that's RIGGED in favor of the DA.

So once again one can also see the reason why an ATTORNEY who's desperate to keep his CLIENT from being HANGED for a CRIME that she didn't commit would resort to breaking the law as a way to do it. And that's also why PERRY still remains a HERO even though he was also still involved in CRIMINAL behavior as a way to achieve that GOAL.

🕵️‍♀️🕵️‍♀️

[–] Filmtenk2 (4137) 5 years ago

I agree Perry is a hero even if he broke the law to get results. The law failed Emily.

I was surprised by the court room fake-out scene and was OK with that trick being played on us at the time but did not like how it set up Emily's scene on the stand. I didn't know if it was real and thought we should have seen it from the begining instead of starting whenever they did. It was a serious scene but I was not willing to take it seriously having been fooled in the beginning. I'm glad we won't be seeing Ennis in S2. Is Holcomb redeemed?

[–] joi2049 (5627) 5 years ago

Not sure if we'll ever see HOLCOMB or hear about him again, because unless he's somehow connected to that other woman who tells PERRY she's IN TROUBLE, we'll probably be off exploring another BRAND NEW case in S2.

And we also know this woman isn't who she claims to be because they've also checked her out in the phone book and didn't find any listing there of her name.

I'd also like to know who those other MEN were who held ENNIS under the water. Were they relatives of the other people ENNIS KILLED during the STRIKE???

[–] Filmtenk2 (4137) 5 years ago

They were the muscle that worked at the Chinese flophouse where Perry learned about the lactating heroin addict prostitute before being attacked by these same men. Drake saves Perry from a man wielding a long metal chain (he was present at Ennis' murder).
Holcomb knew that Perry was onto him for his part in covering up his partners murders. After the trial ended, Perry was talking to the press and at one point sees Holcomb and yells at him saying something to the effect of "Where is HE?! Are you protecting him?" I think that's what compelled Holcomb to enlist the Chinese to kill Ennis. Perry wasn't going to let things go and because he was a lawyer now, their paths might cross more often. Holcomb must have compelled the Chinese to murder Ennis for revenge of the the prostitute he killed (the one who killed baby Charlie). Also there were at least two women on the jury, a younger one (who seemed sympathetic to Emily) and an older woman (who did not). Looking forward to rewatching episode 8 as I always miss things.