Vic Mackey can never be at peace: The Shield

"The Shield" just keeps coming at you. I keep thinking, well, maybe I shouldn't watch it, it's not as sophisticated as The Wire, not as complex a Damages (thank Gog), not as literary as The Sopranos, and so on - but each time I check in for an episode I'm immediately caught up and totally attentive. Vic Mackey (Michael Chiklis), with his bulletshaped head and linebacker's body, remains the angriest cop on TV, one of the dirtiest, the scariest. As Season 6 moves along (episode 2), we get closer to the inevitable point when Mackey leans that his partner Shane killed another partner (Lem, in Season 5), and then Mackey's wrath will be unleashed on Shane. We watch Shane wither through the first 2 episodes, terrified by Mackey's violence and his fierce loyalty to his band of brothers, the only thing Mackey cares about apparently. Mackey thinks the Mexican drug-lord Guardo killed Lem, and is in pursuit of Guardo. Shane (and the other partner, I don't know his name - the two fade into nonentity beside the maelstrom of Mackey's personality) has to go along with this, chasing Guardo, but he knows the truth will come out. He keeps trying to deflect Mackey, to get him to forget Lem, but it's not going to happen. The internal affairs investigator, played by the great Forrest Whittaker (see him in Criminal Justice, if you can, for an early look at his talent), seems to be done, caught and charged with forging evidence to nab Mackey. Great jailhouse scene as Forrest and Chiklis confront each other through the bars, and Forrest says he's at peace. Are you? he asks. Mackey/Chiklis says : Not yet. Two words of great irony, as we know he can never be at peace.

It will win an Oscar (in my least-favorite category): Coco Before Chanel

It would probably have taken a miracle to get me to like "Coco Before Chanel," and miracles didn't happen, though I admit that for anyone who is really interested in fashion this movie would be pretty interesting, at least to look at. Personally, there are two domains of art and culture that I am completely indifferent to, even blind to: fashion and dance. I don't acknowledge them. I skip the sections in the newspaper. I will probably never read a book, an article, or a review about these topics. That said, I will probably watch a movie about almost anything, so I was willing to give it a go. A kind of litmus test for me in biographical film (or fiction) is: would this story be interesting if the protagonist were entirely fictional? Sometimes, it's yes, resoundingly (e.g., Citizen Kane, Fear Strikes Out, Ray). Admittedly, that brief list may tell more about my personal interests - I have enjoyed even horrible movies about topics I'm really interested in (Masked and Anonymous, e.g.). But I really think Coco Before Chanel just went through the motions. The story of her early life was choppy and unengaging. It never drew me into the pathos she experienced, and I never really understood her great drive and her talent. Her success seemed to come from nowhere; she could just as likely have become a talented amateur milliner, it seemed. That said, there are some praiseworthy elements to the story. First, it very effectively handled the ambiguity of Coco's social climbing (she pretty much shows up at the doorstep of a wealthy admirer and lives with him as his mistress): her "keeper" (Etienne) is by no means all bad or boorish though he can be crude at times, and Coco herself is by no means saintly or pathetic, as she knows exactly what kind of relation she's getting into and how it can benefit her through social connections and comforts. The class relations are handled very well - including some excellent scenes of Coco dining among the servants. Audrey Toutou is always great to watch. And finally the production values are very strong. Though (see above) I don't pay much attention to this category, I bet it wins the Oscar for costume design - a real challenge for the costumier to show both the high (and low) styles of the era and how Coco's own designs emerged, and even my ignorant eye could tell that the costumes were perfectly matched to the film, the era, and the characters.

Breaking up (an art collection) is hard to do: Summer Hours

I loved this movie, maybe more than it deserved, but why quibble? "Summer Hours" is a beautiful film, and not only because of La Binoche - the whole movie, the look, the acting, the very smart script, just loose and open enough to keep you thinking and guessing, but very nicely structured to bring you through the course of a year, summer to summer, in the life of one family. Story line is that the 75ish mother/grandmother has a charming, somewhat rundown country house where the family - two sibs living abroad and one in Paris - gather. The mother has a very valuable art collection, including unique notebooks from her uncle, a famous artist (and, as we learn, her lover). When she dies, the children have to decide how to break of the estate: one wants to keep it intact and hold onto the house for family gatherings. The two sibs living abroad want to sell - the only seldom come back to France, and they need the money. The great thing here is that all the characters are very likable and very credible, though each with his or her own foibles. None is perfect, none is predictable. They genuinely love one another, but it's a love with its own exasperations, like most familial love. Perhaps the most poignant character is the old Chekhovian servant who keeps the household going and retires to drab senior housing when the sibs sell. They give her a vase she loved, which they know is valuable, but she thinks she took something cheap, which in her view would be only right. Two great scenes at the end, as the oldest son and his wife visit the Musee d'Orsay to see their bequest on display, and the final scenes in which the grandchildren have a weekend blast at the country house, now stripped of its valuables - a new and different generation, culture. Finally, Marge and I were pleasantly shocked and astonished at how much the grandmother reminded us of Ruth and at the many similarities to this story and to our own family saga of inheriting, selling, dividing her art collection (which unfortunately did not include two Corots and museum-quality furniture).

Most unromantic movie about Romantics: Bright Star

I thought "Bright Star" would be a movie that both Marge and I would love, and I was wrong on all counts - neither of us loved it. It certainly had the creds: I love Keats, and the story of his tragic life seems eminently cinematic; Marge loves Campion and all those BBCish British costume-drama productions. And yet: what a boring movie! It's so earnest and well-meaning - and preposterous. First of all, I've never seen a less passionate screen romance that this one (Keats and Fanny Brawn, played to two actors unknown to me). Fanny is a good actor, I admit, and her breakdown on learning of Keats's death in Italy is a terrific scene. Keats seems like a a total nonentity, not a romantic lead in any way. Bright Star tries to get at a depiction of the process of artistic creation, which is really tough to do (I wrote about this re Crazy Heart, on elliotsreading.blogspot.com), but we don't really get a sense of how a 19th-century poet lived and worked. It's corny: Keats climbs a tree, sees a nightingale's nest, goes home and writes an ode! Most ridiculous, as Campion obviously wanted to work into her film lots of Keats's language, both poems and letters (good idea), she has Keats and Fanny reciting lines to each other and she has him literally "tutor" her in poetry, which allows him to spout aphorisms from his letters. Though we marvel at the language, this does not work at all as drama or cinema. It's almost ludicrous. Finally, Campion unfortunately for her is stuck with the historical facts and therefore has Keats dying offstage while Fanny is home in Hampstead, sewing. Ugh. There has to be a better way to tell this story. But if in any way Bright Star leads people to read Keats, then it's added some good to the world!

If Departures were American - would it be a hit? or would it be ruined?

"Departures," its unusual subject matter aside, is an entirely conventional, simple, even saccharine story. The unusual subject and the, for Americans at least, somewhat exotic locale, make the movie watchable, but also tag it as a niche/indie/foreign film. It's about a young man (Daigo), a cellist, who loses his job when his orchestra folds; he and his young wife (Mika) go back to his hometown (Yamagata?) in the far north of Japan, where he finds a job as what here we would call an undertaker's assistant. Evidently, in Japan the undertaker does the funeral arrangements, but a subcontractor actually prepares the bodies, and does so in a ritual ceremony before immediate family. Though these ceremonies are very important to the family, the people who prepare the bodies are social pariahs, kind of like a low caste in India. Who knew? Daigo keeps his new profession secret even from his wife. Through the course of the movie, she learns of his work, leaves, comes back, sees what beautiful work he does. He gradually gains some acceptance in the town, as he builds his love and respect for his aging boss/mentor. More important, the movie builds toward a phony reconciliation of sorts between Daigo and the father who'd abandoned him at 6. Lots of cello playing in background, sometimes in dreamy fantasy sequences. For me, the interest was in learning about this quirky aspect of Japanese culture. As to the movie itself, there's nothing really credible about the plot, but when has that stopped a movie from becoming a hit? I imagine that Departures could be remade at low budget in an American setting and could find a much wider audience (a la Shall we Dance?, Magnificent Seven), though to me that would dissolve all of the elements that make Departures at least somewhat intriguing.

Is it fiction? or documentary? or a new kind of movie?

I wanted to like "24 City" and wish I could have liked it more, but it's a movie that doesn't attain its admittedly lofty ambitions. This Chinese movie is about the demolition of an old factory, built in Chengdu to made war materials, and replacing it with a modern factory (eponymous) - the new global economy of China replacing the old. The old was top-secret military, workers recruited from around the nation and transported to Chengdu, far from their families, paid a bonus to keep information secret, and a whole society emerged around the factory, quite separate from the surrounding city. Story told as a series of interviews with the factory workers, some very old, some young - documentary style, though I believe it is scripted and the workers are all actors (not sure of this, though), cut in with scenes of the last days of the old factory, totally dangerous and scary working conditions, and occasional shots of the construction underway for the new 24 City. Some of the footage in the old factory is great, and the interviews all include a scene in which the director poses the subject (or subjects, some are couples, groups of workers, friends) for a very long shot - all of these quite extraordinary. We do learn, through the film, about an aspect of Chinese history and contemporary culture, but unfortunately the stories of the workers, the interviews, are not intrinsically all that interesting, and when they are they're just spoken narratives rather than dramatized events (as in filmmaker's recent movie about a Chinese city soon to be flooded - much better movie, don't recall its name). The documentary-fiction style is often used for highly polemical purposes (Michael Moore) or for satire and comedy (Best in Show et al.), but here the director uses it as a way to tell a story within a historical context, but it just isn't as compelling as I'd hoped, and it times it was difficult to follow the narrative - to know if the workers were already in the new factory, for example. I'd see more work by the director, Jiang-ke I think?, and really like his The World, but this was not a movie for everyone.

The angriest character on TV

Michale Chiklas (vic mackey?) is the angriest character on TV and one of the scariest. "The Shield" (season 6) is about as subtle as a sledgehammer, but it's pretty compelling, especially, maybe only, because of Mackey. For whatever reason, the other so-called tough cops that surround him seem about as tough as, well, a bunch of 2nd-tier TV actors, which they are, but Chiklas more than makes up and carries the show. Too much so at time. Every time he enters a crime scene you know he's going to kick through the door and then kick the shit out of somebody in a way that borders on murderous assault. Of course that makes him all the more scary, as we know entering season 6 that he is out for serious revenge on whoever planted a grenade in a car that killed one of his partners (Lem, end of season 5), and we know that it's one of the two remaining partners, I forget the names at the moment. To Mackey (sp?), everything's about loyalty, and we await the confrontation when he realizes one of his troop killed the other member. That's the overall plat; the great Forrest Whittaker, from internal affairs, is still checking out Mackey. His family life is still a mess. He's another one of these vulnerable heros, will break any ethical boundary or restriction, but if you're being held hostage he's the cop you want to come to the scene and rescue you. He's a terrifying figure, but fierce about his family (though unfaithful), someone you always want on your side but you never really want to be on his. The Shield build on a series of fast cuts, often with Mackey leading his men right toward us, they're blurred in the background, and his face is locked into scowl. I'll keep watching.

Damages - can anyone explain it all?

The final episode of "Damages" Season II was a bit disappointing - it had to be, you knew it would. You could see this story careening toward its ending, with far to many strands to tie together, even in an "extended" episode. Yes, I admit, I was totally glued and captivated by every word, and couldn't get enough of Close on screen. But the way it unfolded finally, sting upon sting, just strained credibility, as well as straining the brain (mine) trying to make sense of it all: Ellen working for FBI trying to "sting" Patti (catching her asking Ellen to bribe a judge), but oddly she warns Patti that they're under surveillance, shoots (at) Patti so as to draw the FBI guy to the scene he's watching, then Ellen goes off to bribe the judge, FBI shows up to arrest not Patti but Ellen, then Tom miraculously appears, with his sister (a U.S. atty) and arrests the FBI guy - he'd been undercover, too, in some manner. Patti off free, for now, but stabbed by the crooked trader, who also goes off (season 3?), but most other principals caught, arrested. Phil story still not resolved. And most of all what about Ellen? She knows Patti tried to kill her, but how will she deal with this in Season 3? Her boyfriend Wes now seeming OK, but he obviously has a troubled past history. Anyway, so much going on here, but the series saved by some great acting, really provocative story editing to keep you engaged, and if some things don't quite make sense at the end, it's hard to complain - it's been a great ride. But there's too much here for any single mind to contain, let alone explain, it all! (I felt that way about Ulysses, too, for different reasons.)

Nobody messes with Patti

Next-to-last episode (12) of "Damages" season 2, we learn more crucial info and have some terrific scenes. Now we learn that Purcell actually killed his wife (or thinks he did) and calls Kendrick to help him out of the jam - but it happens that she's still alive and Kendrick's guy finished her off. That could prove relevant - episode ends with Purcell turning himself in, for a crime that we know he did not actually commit (tho he did strangle her). Turning himself in leaves his daughter very vulnerable - seems odd. Wes is about to shoot Ellen (on orders from the crooked detective), but backs off. Now it becomes clear, as Marge observed, that he is taking guns to Ellen's apartment to protect her, not to shoot her - as the earlier flash-forwards led us to believe. Tom, pressured into bribing a judge in the UNR case, refuses to go along, and Patti fires him. What's with this? Why would she want to make Tom her enemy? There has to be a reason. We know from earlier flash-forwards that Tom provides Ellen with a gun - with which Ellen will shoot Patti? Most exciting in this episode is the screaming match between Patti and Phil. Patti realizes that Phil has been betting against her, buying stock in UNR. She makes him see that the UNR people put him up as energy secretary just to derail Patti's case. He seems contrite for a moment - he's a fool, he obviously did not know he was being played - and then he explodes, and then Patti/Close lets him have it. A great scene! She throws a coffee cup and orders him out. He says he's fight her in a divorce suit, and she raises her hand and says: Good luck! Nobody messes with Patti. He is completely overmatched.

Damages, Andy Wolk directs - best episode yet?

Episode 11 of "Damages" season 2 - directed by Andy Wolk. Go, Andy! Is it the best episode of "Damages" yet? Could be - though at that point we're really racing toward the finish line, and hoping somebody's at the wheel. Hard to believe that all of this can be wrapped in two more (40-minutes) episodes. And just to make matters more confusing, a new character is introduced (Ellen hires a detective), a new plot line opens up (Phil's affair becomes important - Ellen sends secret pix to Patti. How does Patti know Ellen sent them?). Extremely confusing about Patti's son's relation with the older woman (why did they bother to show him with a young artist more his age?). And everyone's confused about who's watching the surveillance videos, both of the "present time" confrontation between Ellen and Patti (the FBI guy is watching) and the hotel room where Clair and what's his name, William Hurt, have a liaison. There's just too much, really. We see more of the "present tense" all the time - now it appears that Ellen (or at least someone) has shot Patti, and Ellen is arrested (as in season 1). But maybe that whole shooting is a setup of some sort - who and why? The crooked detective with the beard is involved, as is Wes (Ellen's duplicitous boyfriend). No series has a more complex plot (maybe Lost does, I don't know), and few are more compelling. Most of it's Patti/Close. I want to see more scenes with her, there are never enough. Walter Kendrick, played by the guy from The Wire, seems a very evil character, but the script does not use him well enough. He pushes Claire/Harden out of the picture in his struggle to maintain control of the board of UNR, but he doesn't by this point in the series seem a threat to anyone we care about, and Patti's lawsuit against him has faded from view. A lot of elements to take up in final two episodes, to say the least.

A crooked agent, a dead agent, and somebody's watching

As expected, something's amiss about the two FBI agents, we could see it way back, but now we're getting more facts. You can't say it's clear, nothing's clear in "Damages," but as we near the end of season 2 (episode 10), as we get closer in time to the "shooting" scene that opened the season (now "6 weeks later" - the structure of "Damages" tells the whole season in flashback from the opening sequence, gradually moving closer to that moment in time) we see for sure that one of the agents (the white guy, does he even have a name?) is in touch with some outside forces - perhaps Frobisher? or Patti? - and when found out has his partner killed (and the killers make it look like a drug OD). We also see the agent monitoring the "shooting scene," as Ellen threatens and maybe shoots Patti. And we see him monitor (video surveillance) a hotel liaison between Purcell and Claire, so what's going on there? What is the FBI really interested in, if in fact he is working for the FBI? Meanwhile, Patti's son apparently involved with a very counterculture tatttooed girl whom he doesn't want to introduce to Patti; instead, get an older woman to pose as his girlfriend - not sure the motive there. Hey, it's "Damages." Do the writers even know at this point? Let's hope they're in control, that someone's in control, because we're getting close to the wrap, and I'm not sure anyone can tie together all these strands in 3 remaining episodes. As Marge points out, every character is evil or potentially evil in some way - with exceptions of Ellen and Katie.

Rome Open City - Operatic, Exciting, Totally Worth Watching

"Rome Open City" is a great movie that holds up perfectly after so many years - filmed in the late 40s in what is obviously still a war-ravaged Rome, mostly on location settings, on the cheap. I hadn't seen it in 35 years at least, remembered nothing about it, was completely blown away by the excitement, the tension, the moral/religious quandaries, the emotions, the politics. Sure, Rossellini lays it on a bit thick at times - but that's okay because this film is almost operatic, in fact it will remind you of Tosca, its clear antecedent (a tyrant tortures a political leftist while another, in this case a priest, is forced to listen to the screams of pain). "Rome Open City" is about resistance to the Nazi occupiers. The movie begins as the (Nazi) police storm a building, looking for one of the resisters, who escapes to the rooftop and gets away. (Reminds of the later but in some ways similar "Battle of Algiers.") Story is largely about this guy and his friend, a printer, with whom he hides, their relationship with a few women, one of whom (Anna Magnini, fabulous) is faithful and brave. Others are not. They work closely with a very sympathetic priest, who uses his cover as a clergyman to deliver funds and info to the resistance movement. You're always on edge watching this movie. Anyone could be arrested or shot at any time. The reality of the film is brutal. In so many similar movies, you know the lead characters will survive, because they're stars - but here any character can go at any time. The only flaw I can see, the only thing that really "dates" "Rome Open City," is the musical soundtrack - blasting and melodramatic and unnecessary, though unfortunately typical of many Italian films of the era. Very good new print from Criterion. I had to look up "open city"; never knew before exactly what it meant.

Portrait of the artist as a young skinhead

"This is England" is a sad, sometimes scary film that shows how a young, very vulnerable boy (maybe 10 years old? 12?), only child, father killed in the Falklands (1983), picked on at school, mother's depressed and not able to help much, no other apparent family nearby, gets befriended by some older kids, tough and crazy but friendly and good-hearted. At first all seems reasonably OK, though the boy (Sean) gets way to much exposure to sex, beer, cigarettes and is on the verge of trouble (they bust up some abandoned housing just for kicks). Then, some right-wing skinheads step into the group, and Sean is drawn to them - obviously looking for a strong father figure and protector. This group, many ex-cons, all of them racist thugs, is truly scary, and it's particularly horrifying to see how Sean, and others, can be shaped by their vile ideology. Sean comes to his senses after a particularly horrifying racist attack, and he's young enough to escape unharmed. I suspect the film is quite autobiographical. Has strong resonances for today in the U.S., as we look at Aryan groups, birthers, Tea Party, none of them too far from where the British skinheads and "Nationalists" were in the '80s. It's not a pretty film, not meant to be - all filmed in the depressed northern wastelands (Yorkshire, apparently). Pretty good soundtrack, some heavy-handed use of film clips of the Falklands set against protests and racial attacks. That said, a story quite well told and engaging all the way through. As with all movies about children being bullied, you strongly identify with the child, but this one includes some odd twists as you see him going down a frightful path.

Amazing images, but slowest movie ever - Silent Light

Silent Light is an extremely strange film, a film of extremes. First of all, I thought I'd misread the summary. Could this really be a Mexican film? The characters are Mennonites (exactly like the Pennsylvania Amish), they speak an obscure dialect, something between Dutch and German. The landscape is lush green, forested - nothing in this movie seems Mexican in the least. It looks Scandinavian, quite like an homage to Bergmann, and also (I've read) to Dreyer. Not only the look of the character but the austerity of their lives and the spiritual angst that the main character, Johan -father of the large (6 children) family devoted to his wife (Esther) but in passionately in love with another woman, Marianne (who's no beauty by the way), in their small community. Esther and pretty much everyone knows of his passion, and he anguishes about how to resolve his feelings, his faith, his family commitments. (In Bergmann, he would have killed himself.) Oddly, Esther "dies," but then, with a kiss from Marianne as she is literally laid out for burial, she comes back to life. Religious symbolism laid on pretty heavy, without anything in the movie leading you to think this would happen; the film is all quite realistic, an interior drama. No flying angels or anything. On the downside, I have literally never seen a slower-moving film in my life, more than two hour and, perhaps, 200 shots? I actually fell asleep, lying down and saying to Marge, I won't miss anything, then woke up (20 minutes?) and could pick it right up. The plus side: the director lingers on his shots lovingly, beautifully, and EVERY ONE is amazing, composed like a photo in a museum. The family in the stark white room for the funeral with the long silences of the mourners, the funeral hymn, the slow anguished painful breakfast scenes, the long fast drive on a straight dirt road, the farmhouse in the evening light, Esther standing in the pouring rain by the side of the highway, maybe most of all the (6-minute?) opening take of day breaking - I will never forget them. And the use of ambient sound - no soundtrack, only the lowing of cows, the song of birds, the chirping of insects, throughout, all the time. In some ways, absolutely amazing. This film doesn't quite work on all levels, its spiritual ambitions tripping it up a bit at the end, but it has things you will never see anywhere else. Who knew there were Mennonites in Chihuahua?

Ellen goes for Wes - But what's his motive?

More information in episode 9 season 2 of Damages, as the crooked detective orders Wes, Ellen's new love interest, to kill her and make it look like an accident. I suspect that Wes is actually working against the unnamed detective - either for a government agency or more likely out of some need for revenge against Frobisher: he encouraged Ellen to kill Frobisher, early on. On the lawsuit strand, Patti's husband being considered by Secretary of Energy, but we know he has skeletons, including his investment in UNR, his ties to insider trading, his affair, and of course his link to Patti. David Pell, he UNR link to the insider trader, Finn, confronts Finn. Patti learning more about Finn, as she gets closer to figuring out what's going on with UNR stock. But overall, the story line is drifting away from Patti/Close, too bad because she's the stick that stirs this drink. Ellen will have to confront her. And what's with junior partner, Tom? Patti tells him she is under FBI investigation, and his reaction is to be made she hasn't told him before; he doesn't even ask why she's under investigation or what they have to fear. Maybe there's more to him than we thought - in one of the flash forwards, we see that Patti fires him and that he, too, wants revenge (and provides Ellen with a gun). My guess is that Wes never tries to kill Ellen, he comes to her for help, and she does confront Patti (that's pretty obvious). Tom may be total wimp, or he may be an FBI informant as well. There's still something off about the FBI agents and the investigation, with its disappearing file, but not sure what.

Thugs who look like Yuppies

Okay, I jumped the gun on Uncle Pete, should have learned, in this show above all others, a character's not dead until you see him laid into the ground and maybe not then. Pete turns out to be comatose in the hospital, which helps move the plot a little farther and clarifies a bit more, as Patti talks to him, tears in her eyes, and memories of her childhood with an alcoholic father and Pete, though a ne'er do well, taking caare of her. More important, a new character (Mike?) shows up, beats up one of Pete's collectors, learns Pete's in the hospital and - now I'm pretty sure - kills him by messing with his IV. New character apparently was involved in the botched attack on Ellen, and worries Pete will talk. FBI, with Ellen, has bugged the hospital room, so they know something's up, but Ellen can't make the guy and he leaves the hospital without anyone's seeing him. Meanwhile, Frobisher forced out of the case, threatened by the bookish-looking rogue detective he'd paid to kill Ellen's fiance, David. Hm. Posted yesterday that Marge thinks the detective too cute to be a killer, but to me that makes him scarier. Strikes me that never in any show have I ever seen such wimpy-looking bad guys. The thug who just killed Peter, for example - looks like a gust of wind could blow him away. Pete, too - he makes Tony's uncle (The Sopranos) look like an NFL tackle. And especially the killers going after Ellen and Katy, every one of them looks like a boarding-school kid. Good idea to have one thug look wimpish (e.g., Brother what's his name on the Wire). But when they all do, you have to wonder who does the casting for these shows?

When you don't know what to do with a character - kill him

Poor Uncle Pete - he's dead. We knew it would happen to you, not because you deserved it (most of the characters in Damages deserve an evil fate) but because even the highly skilled writers of this very entertaining series just plain didn't know what to do with you. We've come to learn now that you did all of Patti's dirty work, that you were somehow involved in the attack on Ellen and its cover-up. But who are you and why would you do these things and how come you're a genius at covering up a crime scene but you push around the dry-cleaning racks at a law firm? Now, no need to explain, you're gone, poor guy. That still leaves plenty of characters to root against! We see the bearded detective, whom Marge thinks is too cute for the part but I disagree - he's even more frightening in his cold-bloodedness because he looks like a history grad student - was totally working for Frobisher, was obviously involved in killing Ellen's fiance, has shot another dirty cop in the back, and now is threatening Frobisher. Well, there could yet be another twist there - but he's got his hands pretty damn dirty. Kendrick becomes ever more loathsome, and now we have a new element, illegal stock trading with a cokehead commodities trader with a weakness for escort-service hookers. We're nearly halfway through the 2nd season and nothing's looking like it's wrapping up, everything just gets more complex. Will be interesting to see how Ellen manages to deal with Frobisher as a client - Patti tells her she brought Frobisher in as a client to learn more about him, for Ellen, but Patti will tell Ellen anything. Still unclear whether the FBI guys are on the up and up as well. Wes, Ellen's apparent love interest from her therapy group, continues to meet with the killer-detective, but we have no idea of his motive in getting to Ellen.