MovieChat Forums > The Undoing (2020) Discussion > Objection

Objection

posted 3 years ago by Ldlamb (589)
26 replies | jump to latest

The courtroom drama was nonsense.....there was no way the statement of the Grandmother would not be hearsay.....the declaration against interest hearsay exception used was total bullcrap....it has to be a declaration against the declarers interest.....in this case the declarer is Grandmother....she is not a part of this trial, is estranged from her son, and may not even like him anymore and may blame him for her daughters death....the defense objections should definitely have been sustained...and allowing it in probably guarantees a mistrial on appeal.

[–] [deleted] 3 years ago

You have to remember this wasn't written by anyone that understands the law, their legal education was probably based on Ally Mcbeal or old Perry Mason reruns. If you watch it on HBO/Max directly after it is over you get some crap from the show runners that really equates to them telling the audience to fuck off, it was something to the effect that they simply wanted to audience to be pulling for Hugh Grant when their intention was to simply spring the he actually done it bullshit at the very end for shock value. Frankly it was complete and utter shit contrived to simpy make a twist.

[–] DarTobor (4536) 3 years ago

David E. Kelley holds a JD.

[–] [deleted] 3 years ago

So do I. It's a good thing he isn't a practicing attorney or his clients would be fucked if this was some testament to his skills as a lawyer.

[–] DarTobor (4536) 3 years ago

😆 Yeah. It doesn't take a lawyer to realize Kelley's plots tend to be a little out there.

[–] R_Kane (15828) 3 years ago

So, thomas, I guess it’s a good thing that Kelly is not in court, but instead is making millions of dollars being the David Mamet of TV and also fucking Michelle Pfeiffer. You? What are you doing with your Juris Doctorate?

Why, you’re posting on this pathetic website. How nice for you.

[–] [deleted] 3 years ago

And you would be reading things on this pathetic website... what's your point?

The world is filled with idiots and stupid people that have managed to become rich and famous...so what? It only shows that there is no rhyme or reason to becoming a 1 percenter in the world. Most people already realize that, maybe you should as well. At the end of the day it doesn't change the fact that the legal drama in the movie was complete bullshit that will unfortunately lead many people to become even more confused with how the judicial system actually operates. Most lawyers can't stand watching legal dramas that get it wrong because when they have to deal with people who have been brainwashed by watching Matlock and Perry Mason they have to spend even more time explaining why they can't do things the client wants done simply because they saw it in a TV show.

[–] R_Kane (15828) 3 years ago

I understand that David E. Kelly is the David Mamet of TV series dialogue writers and that’s why he’s at the top of his game.

“First thing, let’s kill all the lawyers.” - Shakespeare’s second best line, after “Cry havoc! And let slip the dogs of war.”

[–] [deleted] 3 years ago

If you want to quote Shakespeare at least get it right.

"The first thing we do, let's kill all the lawyers"

And then understand the context of the quote. It was as much of a joke back then as it is today.

[–] R_Kane (15828) 3 years ago

Thank you for the correction. It’s been decades since I read the play, so I forgot “we do”. That surely makes a difference. I really threw off The Bard’s iambic pentameter; and of course the line is a joke, along the lines of: “What do you call 100 dead lawyers? A good start.”

[–] Moonglum9 (10737) 3 years ago

I'll allow it. I'm curious to see where this is going, but the second you start to turn this courtroom into a circus, I'll end it then and there!

[–] mobocracy (846) 3 years ago

It might have been more believable if the judge had warned the prosecutor that if she crossed the line any further, he would declare a mistrial and hold her in contempt. At least to give us the sense that she was really pushing the limits.

[–] brux (14666) 3 years ago

Well said.

This series was a waste of time to me. It was just an exercise in the writer manipulating the audience dishonestly.

[–] mobocracy (846) 3 years ago

It's funny, when there's a good twist we're all in for being manipulated, but when the twist is "surprise! no twist!" it really feels like you got jerked around for no reason.

This might have worked if somehow Hugh Grant's character had been redeemed somehow. But I never believed for a second he wasn't a shitbird on general principle and capable of the crime. I don't really buy Hugh Grant's schtick in pretty much anything, the hapless/self-deprecating good looker routine does nothing for me.

I think the character needed some plot-related reason to seriously doubt he was the killer. Like it would have helped if he hadn't lost his job and Elena's widower had been portrayed as involved in some kind of sleazy/criminal behavior instead of just being a grieving spouse.

I think when I caught "based on the novel 'You Should Have Known'.." in the opening credits, I knew we were in for a giant letdown.

[–] brux (14666) 3 years ago

> It's funny, when there's a good twist we're all in for being manipulated, but when the twist is "surprise! no twist!" it really feels like you got jerked around for no reason.

I don't think it is as simple as that. Of course all drama is somewhat manipulative, but there is something real that separates Shakespeare from Hogan's Heroes.

> This might have worked if somehow Hugh Grant's character had been redeemed somehow.

I am thinking this movie was all about unapologetic appreciation of psychopaths.

I've never heard of the novel. I wonder if it is any better than the movie or how it is different.

[–] mobocracy (846) 3 years ago

Like all novels, I'd guess it does a better job of making Hugh Grant's character more sympathetic between reappearance at the beach house and the trial and adds in details impossible to present in 6 hours.

[–] TheArgentinian (6484) 3 years ago

You know those youtube videos where experts comment on movies about their expertise? I'd like to see what lawyers think of the courtroom scenes from this show.

[–] desepticon (165) 3 years ago

LegalEagle does that kind of thing. Hasn't made a video yet about this show though. He says the most realistic legal drama he's seen is The Rainmaker.

[–] Diddy1111 (366) 3 years ago

Correct. It was complete nonsense. An estranged person with no relationship and outside the witness list - immediately deemed hearsay and tossed.

[–] Esterhowse (468) 3 years ago

It was absurd how terrible all the court room stuff it really killed the show.

[–] [deleted] 3 years ago

no way they would have put the wife on the stand.

[–] Jehosaphet (1055) 3 years ago

That's funny, I was actually wondering while watching the scene what I'd hear about it later. Because I don't know much about the law, but if that wasn't hearsay, I don't know what was.
Definitely one of those moments that required actively suspending disbelief. Definitely wasn't something you'd hear at a trial...someone saying what someone else had said.