|
Jared's main gig is getting totally shut the gently caress out of what is going on with his family at any given time so I think the idea is that his unhealthy curiosity about Daniel's murder case is a reaction to being so coddled (even in season 1 he had a whole book of press clippings) I doubt it's going anywhere too extreme but he has to blow up sometime. I guess at least Teddy is spending time with him even if it's not going to help his issues around privacy
|
#
¿
Jul 12, 2015 03:47
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 29, 2024 01:37 |
|
|
life is killing me posted:I don't think it's so much that the Senator has been pursuing the wrong man the entire time, although that is a big part of it--it's that he seems to have a chip on his shoulder for Daniel and seems to KNOW that Daniel is innocent because he's started to be pretty overtly slimy in the vein of Trey. He knows Daniel is innocent but for some reason hates him, or at least it's a huge inconvenience to him that he helped put a man behind bars 20 years ago and now he might have been wrong, and we can't have that because he's a senator goddammit and he's up for reelection. He is almost sort of boasting while trying to hide something, which, as wrong an analogy as it probably is, reminds me of Danny Glover in Shooter, whose I'm-Obviously-Guilty-As-gently caress-Of-Everything-But-I-Know-You-Can't-Prove-poo poo attitude toward the end was really telling. I could cut and paste that attitude and it'd fit perfectly on the senator, so I also saw the stroke scene as a kind of comeuppance, and it fits well as a plot device to make us feel even more like Daniel is innocent and the senator knows it. The show is nudging us along to come to that conclusion without ever really intending to directly give it to us, and that's the beauty of Rectify. See, as much as he's a highly unethical human being, I'm increasingly sure that Foulkes genuinely thinks Daniel is guilty. I mean he gave a whole speech to Ted Sr. towards the end of the last season that as much as it's politically damaging for him for Daniel to walk free, he truly believes Daniel is responsible for Hanna's murder. That would be a bit late in the series for Foulkes to simply state the opposite of how he really feels, and I don't think he's ever even been seen to so much as countenance the idea that Daniel's not guilty, regardless of who he's dealing with. If anything he really needs other people to see things with the same prejudice he does, which is what started to drive away his mistress at the diner. I do fully agree that he's covering for some sort of compromising personal investment in the case that we still haven't heard about, but it's an emotional one, not a cynical one. Partly he's just blinded by how alien Daniel's personality and actions are to him: he seems sincerely to have taken stuff like his placing wildflowers on the body as a perversion and even decided that the near-death beating he took constituted "letting a man piss on him". Beyond that, at the risk of it sounding hackneyed I'd presume he's either the father of Hanna or was sexually involved with Hanna (or both, if the show wants to dive deep into Faulkner territory, although I doubt it). Or of course he could have a reason to deny the possibility of guilt of one of the other suspects, like Trey or Chris.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 11, 2015 00:18
|
|
|
Brodeurs Nanny posted:Right, he's trying to frame Daniel and throw everyone off his scent. Chris seemed pretty confident that he was guilty of rape. According to Trey, Hanna lost her virginity to an uncle of hers when she was 13, so I suspect her muted reaction was more to do with being so inured to sexual abuse that she lost her sense of victimhood. Which is plenty hosed up. My take is Hanna liked Daniel because he didn't know about / judge her by her sexual history and wanted to keep it from him; if Daniel actually did kill her, it was probably misinterpreting what actually went on that night as consensual, because he wouldn't understand why she'd be more embarrassed and evasive than upset. Although obviously as a viewer I hope he's not responsible.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 14, 2015 22:47
|
|
|
Bobby letting Jared go really seemed like the natural end of his arc. It repaid Daniel's act of forgiveness and it was clear he was done with living under the shadow of Hanna's murder. I suppose he might get reinvolved if a new suspect publicly emerges, but I don't think he'll be out for blood again.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 15, 2015 18:27
|
|