The Good Wife : Robert and Michelle King Explain The Finale

I liked the idea of starting with a slap and ending with a slap, and being the victim to being the victimizer. BUT I hated the way the last slap was done. It was contrived, didn't make sense, seemed "forced" in a way. They should have developed the arc a bit more leading up to Diane slapping her.

If the Kings had really been thinking, they would have had Alicia do something that would cause PETER to slap her! Now that would have been the full circle slap.

Yes. Not that I needed them to confirm my impressions, since the implications of finale are actually pretty straightforward.

They lingered, in medium closeup, on Alicia's rapid transformation from mortification to composure. There was a time that would not have happened, not with an event this significant, at least not so fast, because Alicia would have cared too much. This moment was set up twice in the episode, in scenes with Fox, the prosecutor.

The conditions for Diane's slap were also set up, making the slap a natural outcome of previous events, motivated from character.


"You must not judge what I know by what I find words for." - Marilynne Robinson

When any series ends, some people are going to like how it turns out, some are not because they were hoping something different.

In this case it leaves it to the viewer to decide how that goes. You can see the good wife overcoming and becoming her own political force, or you can see her failing. But what it did say is not everything was going to turn out perfect for her, just like it had always been.

You have to give breaking bad credit, because it gave all of its characters a moment. Walt's final plan worked, Jesse got away, Skylar got her admission from Walt, the money will be used for Walt Jr., Lydia got what she deserved, the Nazis got what they had coming. Basically it bet the final to show and everyone came away generally satisfied.

I'm afraid I don't give Breaking Bad credit. I thought, with the exception of the Skyler scene, that its finale was dishonest, and a disaster. It violated the spirit of all that had come before, all 5 seasons. Gilligan lost the courage of his previous conviction and tried to please conventional taste with a sentimental, formulaic approach in striking contrast to the show's fundamentally challenging, destabilizing nature. It was disheartening to fans who'd valued that quality above closure-happy, easy satisfaction.

Oh well. It was great until then, so I just pretend the finale doesn't exist.


"You must not judge what I know by what I find words for." - Marilynne Robinson

---

It was disheartening to fans who'd valued that quality above closure-happy, easy satisfaction.

---

What an arrogant pile of *beep* SO anyone who likes the ending doesn't appreciate "that quality" above "Closure-happy satisfactions." Give me a freakin' break. This whole "god's gift" attitude that some of you take is ridiculous. "If you don't think like me on this, you don't have the good taste I do. Vince Gilligan dropped his balls at the end!"
FFS

Hello heboxingcannabyte,

I meant no harm. I think it's very possible to like the ending for the limited kick of having conditioned reflexes triggered, while at the same time dislike it because it disappoints the expectation of a more meaningful experience, as one would have enjoyed before in virtually every episode.

So I think my statement was reasonable in general: fans who valued the earlier kind of experience over a sentimental, formulaic approach could like the ending in that limited way, but were disheartened because the earlier, more valued experience wasn't tended to.


"You must not judge what I know by what I find words for." - Marilynne Robinson

---

Yes. Not that I needed them to confirm my impressions, since the implications of finale are actually pretty straightforward.

They lingered, in medium closeup, on Alicia's rapid transformation from mortification to composure. There was a time that would not have happened, not with an event this significant, at least not so fast, because Alicia would have cared too much. This moment was set up twice in the episode, in scenes with Fox, the prosecutor.

The conditions for Diane's slap were also set up, making the slap a natural outcome of previous events, motivated from character.

---

I agree that everything was clearly set up. We saw Alicia's hardened side appear more than once. No surprises there.

I did feel a little let down, though. It would have been nice to see someone get out of the whole thing with a little happiness. I guess that would be Cary, which is fitting since he seemed to be the one person who probably went through the worst of it and truly came out a better person. But Jason's disappearing act, right when his and Alicia's moment of opportunity had come, was disappointing. But that was set up as well and should have been no surprise based on his character's earlier choices. People don't miraculously change.

Likewise, it really wouldn't have made sense for Alicia to suddenly become an entirely different person than the one she's been building toward since the beginning. Power and success have a price. She seems to have accepted that and I wouldn't be at all surprised if she didn't go on to run for office. She and Diane will become "friends" again because it will benefit them both and Alicia will continue on her trajectory to the top, with Eli at her side. What she's so desperate to prove and why, I kind of understand, but why she's willing to sacrifice so much for so little, I'm not as sure that I do.

I thought it funny a couple shows earlier when Jackie told Alicia good-bye and that she wouldn't be seeing her again because Alicia was divorcing her son. Her parting words were, "I just wanted you to know, we're more alike than not."

That has proved to be so true. It's no more apparent than when it comes to Alicia and her kids. I wonder if she'll make a better mother-in-law than Jackie did? Not looking good so far. And I wonder if it will take Alicia as long as it did Jackie to find her "better half"?

Thanks for sharing the catch about Jackie's comment. I remember it well, because at the time it really struck me how impersonal it was, how detached. There really was no connection, it was all superficial. Here today, gone tomorrow, won't remember you.

Blech!

I thought it was such good writing to have Veronica's goodbye be so gushy and personal, seemingly the opposite of Jackie's yet it was just drunken sentimentalism, with no more substance than the clichd "I love you, man!" She and Jackie have an equally superficial relationship to Alicia, at least.

Recalling this moment, with a mother like that, is it any wonder Alicia was so screwed up, especially about intimacy? And that she's always had great potential to be even more screwed up in so many ways?

I have to admit, I really, really disliked Veronica. Every appearance, she grated on me.


"You must not judge what I know by what I find words for." - Marilynne Robinson

Its kinda bad when you have to explain the ending to your drama series So far it is almost the worst episode of the series according to imdb users.

Exactly.

Think of any series you've watched for a long time, and the finale that you really liked for that show's conclusion. Did that finale have to be explained to you in order for you to appreciate it?

Yes, the LOST finale made sense after having long debates with friends. What the Kings said also made perfect sense. At first I didn't get it but the more I thought about it, the more it made sense.

Finales that reveal everything plain and simple are the worst for me. People keep praising the Six feet under finale, but I didn't care for it (the show was great other than the scenes with nate fighting with his girlfriend/wife). The ambiguous ones are the best. Dexter, HIMYM, The Good Wife, LOST were all brilliant. Breaking Bad was meh.

The Kings' letter wasn't so much about explaining the meaning of the ending as explaining their creative choices for it. They recognized, as they did with Will, that there would be a measure of disappointment, and they wanted to speak to that.

For them, this ending was the honest way to go among other options. They too, wanted Alicia to run after, and find Jason and go off happily. As they said, "We like those endings. But there was something false about it here. It isn't who Alicia is. In the end, the story of Alicia isn't about who she'll be with; it's about who she'll be."

They also noted that the ambiguity contains hope. Alicia is poised at a major crossroads. As the Kings say, "this second slap wakes her up to her own culpability. The question is what will she do with that?" Alicia is both more aware of her own culpability, yet over the years it's "added up to a character who was becoming more desensitized to her impact."

I think writing this particular letter showed a high level of consideration for fans. It acknowledges that some will be disappointed, and respects them enough to believe they would rather the ending be true to the nature of this long progression than pander to last-minute sentiment.

Bravo to them.


"You must not judge what I know by what I find words for." - Marilynne Robinson

Well said. :)

I appreciate things that make me think.

Yes, I felt a little disappointed when the show was over, but the more I thought about it, the more right it felt. Because that was Alicia's story and throwing some fairy tale ending on it would have been a disservice to the character and to her story. And, believe me, I love fairy tales, but The Good Wife was not one.

And yes, most of the best movies, shows, books etc. have layers and a certain level of ambiguity so that you have to use your mind. Those are the award winners, the works that become topics of discussion and study.

If we had gotten a happy ending, one which required Alicia to do a complete personality transformation overnight, then riding off into the sunset with Jason, we might have been happy for a minute and that would have been the end of it. We would have forgotten all about it and we wouldn't still be here talking about it how many days later?

It was a realistic and fitting ending for a show that had been building to that point for quite a few years. All of her prior choices made it inevitable.

And hey, considering that this is a realistic conclusion it's also realistic to assume that Alicia and Jason will probably see each other again. In real life, it's doubtful that it would end that way. Why would Jason be at Peter's press conference anyway? He'd wait for it to be over since hearing her ask him to "wait for me". But if he did walk away then and there, then they weren't meant to be together anyway. Based on what we know of Jason, such an act would not be out of character for him. So either way, whether they hook back up or not, Alicia will carry on. That is made really clear from that ending. Alicia is in charge of her own life, not Jason, not Peter, not Diane.

My thoughts exactly. Just like jokes that need to be explained You haven't done your job when you need to explain it afterwards. I would have been so easy to satisfy a majority of viewers: Alicia needed to be independent. I hate shows with an open ending because I feel the writers haven't had the guts to go one way or the other, so it's a wishy-washy middle of the road crap.

-
Still shopoholic, just wearing a new T-shirt

Thanks for posting this. Reading this helped me wrap my head around the series finale.

If you have to explain your finale: You failed.

I think you are right. I felt it felt too forced at times. I did not like JM's acting when she was trying to mock those who thought she would be vulnerable.

Alicia has turned out to be someone I don't care about and I am glad the show is over. No need to keep kicking a dead horse.

I didn't get the impression the Kings' felt their fans needed to be told what the ending meant. They know they got it. Rather, I think they felt their fans deserved to be told why they gave it that meaning.

I think it's respectful to explain final creative decisions to people who've invested themselves in a series over years.

"You must not judge what I know by what I find words for." - Marilynne Robinson

My point is that they didn't have to tell the fans. They chose to, and the reason is because they knew their fans would understand the finale's meaning, yet not necessarily like it. Specifically a sequence of events right at the end.

Borrowing a line from Joss Whedon, I think the Kings gave the fans what they needed, not what they wanted. So they addressed that. It read to me as an expression of solidarity in feeling fan and creators. They too like happy endings, and had an urge to give Alicia that run-to-the-train-in-time moment.

I think the finale was decent. I don't think it was great, but I'm not sure the show was ever of that caliber, at least consistently.


"You must not judge what I know by what I find words for." - Marilynne Robinson

---

I think it's respectful to explain final creative decisions to people who've invested themselves in a series over years.

---

I agree. For better *and* worse, in this era of reduced face-to-face relationships, the end of a series brings some grief for a lot of people, as is evidenced by the amount of discussion on social media (tho most people don't realize that they're experiencing grief); any contribution made by the series creator(s) can help people process the end of the series and move on.

Thanks for a respectful and insightful addition to the thread.

"All you need to start an asylum is an empty room and the right kind of people."

Ash-lee, I think creators explain their finales bc so much of the viewing public is unsophisticated and doesn't know how to read between the lines. Think back to the enormous amount of conversation around the finale of The Sopranos the number of people who refused to believe that Tony died even tho the shift to black and the abrupt end of sound made that clear. This is Murrrka, where public education having been underfunded for years stinks, and most people don't know how to interpret the subtleties and layers that make art-TV-film-theater-etc. meaningful.

"All you need to start an asylum is an empty room and the right kind of people."

None of what I read there makes sense to me. It seems like spin.

Alicia was not Peter, or Diane and both of them were colder and more
calculating so why did Alicia turn out to be the one who was punished?

And Cary really got shafted too it seemed like.

Alicia was always a bit of a cold fish, and clearly she was always intensely ambitious and loved power, tho she had trouble admitting that to herself; if she hadn't had those qualities since college (or earlier), she wouldn't have married Peter in the 1st place. Their post-scandal separation opened up a lot of space around her such that her truer self emerged. Which isn't to say that she would be incapable of changing in the future, the years after the finale (that is, becoming warmer and more loving; putting people ahead of power) but all those years of being an at-home-mom allowed her to pretend to herself that she was more of a nurturer than a conqueror.

I think the series showed not only that the soil in which she found herself (when she returned to work) led to the growth of certain tendencies it showed that those tendencies had been there all along, merely long dormant. And that's the starting point for another thread because Hillary Clinton, Silda Spitzer, Huma Abedin, and most of the other women who, in the past 20 years, have stood by some political husband after his sex scandal all are, in their own right, highly educated, ambitious women who have risen to some level of power or authority. .. And another thread after that (why do accomplished women choose men who let them down so publicly?) .. And another thread after that (to what degree does this weird exhibitionistic behavior by powerful political men reflect hidden tensions and resentments related to changes in women's roles in the past 50 years?)

> clearly she was always intensely ambitious and loved power,

That's a huge stretch. I never got the impression Alicia loved power, and what would
you point out to prove that? She got the shaft multiple times, and was a crusaders for
justice, I always got the impression she thought that if someone was going to do it, as
in start a firm, it might as well be her, because she did a good job.

The idea of speculating about how a TV or movie character changes in the futures is
also a bit off the beam to me. The point of the character is the character itself, the whole
reason the programming or media exists. That kind of thinking is for people who do not
like the way something went and want to change it without condemning the whole program.

Alicia was a flawed human being, like any other. Look at her crazy Mom. In real life most
people who grow up with a parent like that have a lot of problems, so I give her character
credit for overcoming it in a realistic way in other words she was a good female role
model.

And oddly enough so was Diane most of the time until they decided to make her the cold
LIBERAL villain. I think Diane;s character was the one they twisted and bent out of shape
the most.

Philandering men do not really let down women, most of these women are overlooking
flaws they already knew about in order to make some other bargain. I doubt Alicia was
so naive, but I guess it is possible.

But all the stuff you brought up the end of your post is just social context of women you
throw in to make this particular situation seem more weighty but at least in the finale,
I would not really say it was it pretty much sucked.