sydneywell-50328
Joined Dec 2015
Welcome to the new profile
Our updates are still in development. While the previous version of the profile is no longer accessible, we're actively working on improvements, and some of the missing features will be returning soon! Stay tuned for their return. In the meantime, the Ratings Analysis is still available on our iOS and Android apps, found on the profile page. To view your Rating Distribution(s) by Year and Genre, please refer to our new Help guide.
Badges3
To learn how to earn badges, go to the badges help page.
Reviews49
sydneywell-50328's rating
Netflix's latest true crime production, The Black Widow, revisits the infamous and deeply unsettling "Patraix Crime" - and does so without moral anesthesia or a sentimental gloss. It makes no attempt to redeem, to console, or to wrap the horror in politically correct discourse. What it offers instead is the clinical dissection of a murder, premeditated in cold blood by two functional adults who, in 21st-century Spain, believed they could get away with it.
Unlike many productions in the genre that mask their voyeurism with a supposed aim of "honoring the victims," this film goes straight to the point. We do not see the body. We do not witness the crime. There is no exploitation of grief, no emotional pornography. The victim and his family are respected - truly respected - and the film gains rather than loses by this restraint. The lens turns instead to the perpetrators, exposing something more uncomfortable, more revealing, and more socially valuable: the internal architecture of those who cross the line.
Despite its evocative title, this is not a femme fatale fantasy. It is the real case of María Jesús Moreno Cantó - known as "Maje" - a nurse by profession, and Salvador Rodrigo Lapiedra, a hospital technician. Both were arrested on January 12, 2018. A seductive young woman manipulating an older, submissive man into becoming a weapon might sound like a cliché, but it is not. It is an archetype. And archetypes are not inventions of screenwriters - they are patterns of real life, repeated because they work, because they are encoded in our culture, our imagination, and, as Carl Jung would argue, in our collective unconscious.
The most disturbing part is not the crime itself, but its banality. Maje and Salva were convinced they could get away with it. They believed discretion, a sense of moral superiority, or the indifference of those around them would shield them. Pathological ego does not require psychotic delusions to act. It only needs self-indulgence, a functional environment that normalizes transgression, and a generous dose of fantasy. As behavioral neuroscience reminds us, the human brain can justify morally reprehensible actions as long as it sees itself as an exception - or rewrites the ethical script to accommodate its desires.
And this is where The Black Widow excels. There is no sensationalism here. There is anatomy. Not just of the crime, but of the decisions, the rationalizations, the self-deception, and the twisted bond between two people who were not victims of each other, but co-conspirators feeding off their shared delusion.
Ivana Baquero and Tristán Ulloa deliver outstanding performances. She is cold, but never cartoonish. He is pathetic, but recognizably human. The script avoids the easy trap of portraying the killers as inhuman monsters; instead, it shows them for what they are: people. And that is far more terrifying. Because if they are people, then anyone - under the right (or wrong) conditions - could potentially become something similar. That is the truly frightening truth.
For me, the crown jewel is Carmen Machi. In a role stripped of her usual comedic register, she plays the investigator who faces life's harshness head-on and trusts her instincts. Though the character is fictionalized, it stands as a worthy tribute to the real-life police work behind the case - to the kind of investigator who, without epic speeches or spotlight, bears the emotional weight of brutal cases, tracking evidence and confronting institutional fatigue. Machi's performance doesn't rely on grand monologues; it lives in hardened gestures, emotional restraint, and her embodiment of a type of woman fiction often forgets: the resilient professional who carries on simply because she must.
The film's aesthetic choices are also commendable. Carlos Sedes's direction avoids visual sensationalism. There is a clinical cleanliness to the world depicted - hospital corridors, anonymous stairwells, police offices. Everything evokes the banality of evil, to borrow Hannah Arendt's phrase: monstrosity doesn't dwell in gothic castles or dark rituals; it lives in your building's hallway, in the hospital kitchen chat, in a WhatsApp message.
And yes, this too is science. Forensic psychology studies show that the most dangerous criminals are not the cinematic psychopaths, but the functional individuals who integrate their perversion into everyday structures. They are the ones who "don't seem capable of that." The human brain doesn't register danger in those who behave normally - and that is why certain signals go unnoticed: because they do not break the pattern.
Bambú Producciones approaches this story with meticulous care. Eschewing the trap of gory reenactments, they maintain narrative tension by focusing on psychology. Instead of simply recounting what happened, they explore how it could happen, and why the perpetrators convinced themselves that their actions weren't criminal, but justified. This is more than storytelling: it's emotional pedagogy. It teaches how moral self-deception works, and how intimacy can become a stage for domination.
In short, The Black Widow is a resounding success. Not only for its acting and technical quality, but for its ethical stance: it neither glorifies nor trivializes its subjects. It reveals the horror of the ordinary - how easy it is to cross the line when one believes the world owes them something. A work not only to be seen, but to be felt - in the skin, the gut, and, if watched with eyes wide open, in the conscience.
Unlike many productions in the genre that mask their voyeurism with a supposed aim of "honoring the victims," this film goes straight to the point. We do not see the body. We do not witness the crime. There is no exploitation of grief, no emotional pornography. The victim and his family are respected - truly respected - and the film gains rather than loses by this restraint. The lens turns instead to the perpetrators, exposing something more uncomfortable, more revealing, and more socially valuable: the internal architecture of those who cross the line.
Despite its evocative title, this is not a femme fatale fantasy. It is the real case of María Jesús Moreno Cantó - known as "Maje" - a nurse by profession, and Salvador Rodrigo Lapiedra, a hospital technician. Both were arrested on January 12, 2018. A seductive young woman manipulating an older, submissive man into becoming a weapon might sound like a cliché, but it is not. It is an archetype. And archetypes are not inventions of screenwriters - they are patterns of real life, repeated because they work, because they are encoded in our culture, our imagination, and, as Carl Jung would argue, in our collective unconscious.
The most disturbing part is not the crime itself, but its banality. Maje and Salva were convinced they could get away with it. They believed discretion, a sense of moral superiority, or the indifference of those around them would shield them. Pathological ego does not require psychotic delusions to act. It only needs self-indulgence, a functional environment that normalizes transgression, and a generous dose of fantasy. As behavioral neuroscience reminds us, the human brain can justify morally reprehensible actions as long as it sees itself as an exception - or rewrites the ethical script to accommodate its desires.
And this is where The Black Widow excels. There is no sensationalism here. There is anatomy. Not just of the crime, but of the decisions, the rationalizations, the self-deception, and the twisted bond between two people who were not victims of each other, but co-conspirators feeding off their shared delusion.
Ivana Baquero and Tristán Ulloa deliver outstanding performances. She is cold, but never cartoonish. He is pathetic, but recognizably human. The script avoids the easy trap of portraying the killers as inhuman monsters; instead, it shows them for what they are: people. And that is far more terrifying. Because if they are people, then anyone - under the right (or wrong) conditions - could potentially become something similar. That is the truly frightening truth.
For me, the crown jewel is Carmen Machi. In a role stripped of her usual comedic register, she plays the investigator who faces life's harshness head-on and trusts her instincts. Though the character is fictionalized, it stands as a worthy tribute to the real-life police work behind the case - to the kind of investigator who, without epic speeches or spotlight, bears the emotional weight of brutal cases, tracking evidence and confronting institutional fatigue. Machi's performance doesn't rely on grand monologues; it lives in hardened gestures, emotional restraint, and her embodiment of a type of woman fiction often forgets: the resilient professional who carries on simply because she must.
The film's aesthetic choices are also commendable. Carlos Sedes's direction avoids visual sensationalism. There is a clinical cleanliness to the world depicted - hospital corridors, anonymous stairwells, police offices. Everything evokes the banality of evil, to borrow Hannah Arendt's phrase: monstrosity doesn't dwell in gothic castles or dark rituals; it lives in your building's hallway, in the hospital kitchen chat, in a WhatsApp message.
And yes, this too is science. Forensic psychology studies show that the most dangerous criminals are not the cinematic psychopaths, but the functional individuals who integrate their perversion into everyday structures. They are the ones who "don't seem capable of that." The human brain doesn't register danger in those who behave normally - and that is why certain signals go unnoticed: because they do not break the pattern.
Bambú Producciones approaches this story with meticulous care. Eschewing the trap of gory reenactments, they maintain narrative tension by focusing on psychology. Instead of simply recounting what happened, they explore how it could happen, and why the perpetrators convinced themselves that their actions weren't criminal, but justified. This is more than storytelling: it's emotional pedagogy. It teaches how moral self-deception works, and how intimacy can become a stage for domination.
In short, The Black Widow is a resounding success. Not only for its acting and technical quality, but for its ethical stance: it neither glorifies nor trivializes its subjects. It reveals the horror of the ordinary - how easy it is to cross the line when one believes the world owes them something. A work not only to be seen, but to be felt - in the skin, the gut, and, if watched with eyes wide open, in the conscience.
In the second episode of 'The Good Fight,' the show introduces a case that seemed poised to deliver a scathing critique of the privatization of punitive power. The plot centers around the so-called 'Friedman Method,' a fictional variant of the notorious Reid technique-widely condemned for eliciting false confessions through psychological manipulation and coercive pressure. Up to this point, all signs pointed toward a powerful commentary on the excesses of law enforcement in the United States.
But the true anomaly-one far more serious-lies elsewhere: the interrogator is not a police officer. He is just "Benji Diyardian, from BMI's loss-prevention department." BMI's lawyer claims Benji is "trained in police methods," but this is legally irrelevant. Training doesn't grant state authority; a civilian doesn't acquire police powers by learning interrogation techniques. It's like saying some TikTok influencers can issue traffic tickets because they know the traffic laws.
Astonishingly, this fact is never problematized. Maya, the young attorney representing the interrogation's victim, asks sharp questions and challenges the procedure. Yet, she appears genuinely shocked that the police are legally permitted to lie-an implausible reaction from a trained jurist. One need only recall 'Frazier v. Cupp' (1969), the Supreme Court precedent that upholds the use of lies and certain forms of deception by state agents during an interrogation.
So, inventing evidence, witnesses, or entire scenarios can be perfectly legal... as long as you're a police officer. Any regular viewer of procedural dramas knows this. The slapstick scenario in which a seemingly gullible suspect is duped into believing that a Xerox machine is a lie detector is not merely a TV trope-it's drawn from real-life practices. David Simon, in his series 'The Wire' and 'Homicide: A Year on the Killing Streets,' portrays the use of such deceptive techniques. Before becoming a showrunner, Simon worked as a police reporter for 'The Baltimore Sun', and in his nonfiction book 'Homicide: A Year on the Killing Streets', he meticulously documented various interrogation methods that border on the absurd. These are well-known tactics-designed to instill a false sense of certainty-in order to wear down a suspect's psychological defenses. Their legal basis lies in the fact that they are used by agents of the state.
But Maya never articulates the critical point: the interrogator in this case is a private citizen. Benji carries no badge, represents no public authority, and acts without delegated power. There is no legal justification-no statutory cover-for detaining, isolating, and psychologically tormenting a person for seven hours. What, in the hands of a state detective, fits within the contours of legality becomes-when done by a civilian-plainly criminal: unlawful detention, coercion, possibly even kidnapping. This is not an opinion; it is elementary criminal law.
Since Miranda v. Arizona (1966), it has been mandatory to protect suspects' rights under the Fifth Amendment (protection against self-incrimination) and the Sixth (right to counsel). While private citizens are not bound to Mirandize suspects, neither are they permitted to assume the roles of police officers. When a civilian performs the functions of prosecutor, judge, and cop-exerting pressure with tangible consequences (a confession, a financial penalty)-what we witness is the usurpation of public functions. That is, without any ambiguity, a crime.
And no, the suspect's "consent" to participate does not legitimize the act. Any agreement signed under extreme pressure-especially during an extended interrogation designed to induce guilt-is legally void. Psychological coercion nullifies consent. Constitutional rights cannot be waived under duress.
Thus, the confession extracted in such a setting would be inadmissible in court on two foundational grounds: 1. Tainted source: It was obtained by a civilian lacking lawful authority. Any evidence derived from an illegal act is excluded under the "fruit of the poisonous tree" doctrine (Wong Sun v. United States, 1963).
2. Involuntariness: The confession was secured through severe psychological pressure, without legal safeguards, rendering it invalid under Colorado v. Connelly (1986).
The Reid method-or its fictional counterpart, the Friedman method-is crafted for use by state agents who operate under the (questionable) cover of 'Frazier' precedent. No legal doctrine extends such protection to civilians. The episode had all the elements for a clear-cut legal victory-not due to the brutality of the technique, but because it was implemented entirely outside the bounds of legality.
Can a company act as prosecutor and judge? Yes, but with very narrow limits. Firing someone based on suspicion of theft is legal (the U. S. is an at-will employment country). Demanding financial compensation can be done through a voluntary agreement or a court judgment. But threatening to fire someone to force a payment is extortion.
Real-life example: Walmart has Asset Protection teams that detain suspected employees for up to 2-3 hours in a legal gray area ('Fischer v. Walmart,' 2019). What's illegal in the series: The duration (7 hours) and the use of Friedman/Reid techniques, which transform the detention into psychological torture. Yes, it's true that companies sometimes exploit legal loopholes to terrorize employees, especially in low-wage sectors. But I can't understand how they can treat Benji as if he had the right to kidnap for 7 hours and coerce.
The narrative irony is painful: Maya is scandalized by the fact that the police can lie (a legal, if unsettling, reality), yet remains unmoved by a civilian employing coercion without any legal authority (a clearly illegal act). Is it possible that despite the amount of US legal theory I know, something escapes me because of the distance (I live in Spain/Europe)? But if it escapes me, the series also fails to explain the origin of this normalcy in granting a civilian rights that even the police don't have (interrogating without Miranda rights and without a lawyer).
The series sets the episode at the beginning of Donald Trump's first term, but the problem they aim to critique is therefore earlier and structural. We're talking about a system where punitive power is outsourced to private actors, creating a parallel state without constitutional checks. But the critique falters if a series usually superb for its legal aspects fails in this episode on basic legal principles. And if any American jurist can explain to me how such a blatant disregard for the constitutional framework can be waved away in the name of legal fiction, I would be sincerely grateful for the clarification.
But the true anomaly-one far more serious-lies elsewhere: the interrogator is not a police officer. He is just "Benji Diyardian, from BMI's loss-prevention department." BMI's lawyer claims Benji is "trained in police methods," but this is legally irrelevant. Training doesn't grant state authority; a civilian doesn't acquire police powers by learning interrogation techniques. It's like saying some TikTok influencers can issue traffic tickets because they know the traffic laws.
Astonishingly, this fact is never problematized. Maya, the young attorney representing the interrogation's victim, asks sharp questions and challenges the procedure. Yet, she appears genuinely shocked that the police are legally permitted to lie-an implausible reaction from a trained jurist. One need only recall 'Frazier v. Cupp' (1969), the Supreme Court precedent that upholds the use of lies and certain forms of deception by state agents during an interrogation.
So, inventing evidence, witnesses, or entire scenarios can be perfectly legal... as long as you're a police officer. Any regular viewer of procedural dramas knows this. The slapstick scenario in which a seemingly gullible suspect is duped into believing that a Xerox machine is a lie detector is not merely a TV trope-it's drawn from real-life practices. David Simon, in his series 'The Wire' and 'Homicide: A Year on the Killing Streets,' portrays the use of such deceptive techniques. Before becoming a showrunner, Simon worked as a police reporter for 'The Baltimore Sun', and in his nonfiction book 'Homicide: A Year on the Killing Streets', he meticulously documented various interrogation methods that border on the absurd. These are well-known tactics-designed to instill a false sense of certainty-in order to wear down a suspect's psychological defenses. Their legal basis lies in the fact that they are used by agents of the state.
But Maya never articulates the critical point: the interrogator in this case is a private citizen. Benji carries no badge, represents no public authority, and acts without delegated power. There is no legal justification-no statutory cover-for detaining, isolating, and psychologically tormenting a person for seven hours. What, in the hands of a state detective, fits within the contours of legality becomes-when done by a civilian-plainly criminal: unlawful detention, coercion, possibly even kidnapping. This is not an opinion; it is elementary criminal law.
Since Miranda v. Arizona (1966), it has been mandatory to protect suspects' rights under the Fifth Amendment (protection against self-incrimination) and the Sixth (right to counsel). While private citizens are not bound to Mirandize suspects, neither are they permitted to assume the roles of police officers. When a civilian performs the functions of prosecutor, judge, and cop-exerting pressure with tangible consequences (a confession, a financial penalty)-what we witness is the usurpation of public functions. That is, without any ambiguity, a crime.
And no, the suspect's "consent" to participate does not legitimize the act. Any agreement signed under extreme pressure-especially during an extended interrogation designed to induce guilt-is legally void. Psychological coercion nullifies consent. Constitutional rights cannot be waived under duress.
Thus, the confession extracted in such a setting would be inadmissible in court on two foundational grounds: 1. Tainted source: It was obtained by a civilian lacking lawful authority. Any evidence derived from an illegal act is excluded under the "fruit of the poisonous tree" doctrine (Wong Sun v. United States, 1963).
2. Involuntariness: The confession was secured through severe psychological pressure, without legal safeguards, rendering it invalid under Colorado v. Connelly (1986).
The Reid method-or its fictional counterpart, the Friedman method-is crafted for use by state agents who operate under the (questionable) cover of 'Frazier' precedent. No legal doctrine extends such protection to civilians. The episode had all the elements for a clear-cut legal victory-not due to the brutality of the technique, but because it was implemented entirely outside the bounds of legality.
Can a company act as prosecutor and judge? Yes, but with very narrow limits. Firing someone based on suspicion of theft is legal (the U. S. is an at-will employment country). Demanding financial compensation can be done through a voluntary agreement or a court judgment. But threatening to fire someone to force a payment is extortion.
Real-life example: Walmart has Asset Protection teams that detain suspected employees for up to 2-3 hours in a legal gray area ('Fischer v. Walmart,' 2019). What's illegal in the series: The duration (7 hours) and the use of Friedman/Reid techniques, which transform the detention into psychological torture. Yes, it's true that companies sometimes exploit legal loopholes to terrorize employees, especially in low-wage sectors. But I can't understand how they can treat Benji as if he had the right to kidnap for 7 hours and coerce.
The narrative irony is painful: Maya is scandalized by the fact that the police can lie (a legal, if unsettling, reality), yet remains unmoved by a civilian employing coercion without any legal authority (a clearly illegal act). Is it possible that despite the amount of US legal theory I know, something escapes me because of the distance (I live in Spain/Europe)? But if it escapes me, the series also fails to explain the origin of this normalcy in granting a civilian rights that even the police don't have (interrogating without Miranda rights and without a lawyer).
The series sets the episode at the beginning of Donald Trump's first term, but the problem they aim to critique is therefore earlier and structural. We're talking about a system where punitive power is outsourced to private actors, creating a parallel state without constitutional checks. But the critique falters if a series usually superb for its legal aspects fails in this episode on basic legal principles. And if any American jurist can explain to me how such a blatant disregard for the constitutional framework can be waved away in the name of legal fiction, I would be sincerely grateful for the clarification.
It's been eight years since The Good Fight first aired, and I'm surprised to be the first to leave a review here. Time has passed-so has one presidency, and we are now well into Donald Trump's second term. What was a political cataclysm in 2016 has become a new normal. While many (regardless of their political alignment) experienced Trump's first victory as a shock, his reelection felt, to me, entirely predictable. From this vantage point, I'm revisiting the atmosphere that birthed The Good Fight-a show born from rupture, not continuity.
As a European viewer, I approach American television as something more than entertainment: it is a cultural laboratory. The U. S. tests political and societal extremes that other nations later absorb and recontextualize. In this light, The Good Fight is not just a spin-off of The Good Wife, but a necessary mutation. And, like all meaningful mutations, it begins in trauma.
If The Good Wife was a political and emotional Bildungsroman, its successor is something else entirely: a sophisticated elegy turned manifesto. The Good Fight doesn't merely open in shock-it absorbs that shock into its genetic code. The series begins with Diane Lockhart, a pillar of liberal elegance and institutional faith, watching Donald Trump's inauguration in stunned silence. A moment of perfect symbolic clarity: the screen flickers, and something shatters-not just her retirement plans, but her worldview.
The pilot, as conceived in October 2016, envisioned Diane's departure following a Clinton win, a moment she believed would justify her life's work. Then, reality intervened. With Trump's election occurring during production, the show pivoted, portraying Diane as utterly stunned and unable to function professionally.
While The Good Wife stretched out its final season to ride the emotional inertia of the Obama era and Hillary Clinton's anticipated victory, The Good Fight is entirely post-illusion. It emerges from loss, from freefall. And it knows it. The opening credits alone-Diane's refined world of vases, handbags, stilettos, laptops, and telephones blown to pieces-is a sublime visual metaphor. This is not mere narrative upheaval; it is aesthetic rage. The bourgeois liberal dream doesn't fade quietly. It explodes.
In a stroke of irony so sharp it borders on satire, Diane, who was once the embodiment of white, educated, feminist privilege, is now hired at a majority-Black law firm as a "diversity" partner. But the show isn't mocking her. It's reorienting the narrative. Her symbolic capital-her name, her politics, her poise-carries less weight here. And that's the point. She must now function in a space where she is no longer the axis. It's not just narrative comeuppance. It's ethical recalibration. The story no longer revolves around whiteness, comfort, or prestige-it moves toward Black voices, queer stories, and radical feminist critiques.
Here lies the core divergence from The Good Wife. That show started with a personal trauma-the betrayal of Peter Florrick-and used it to explore structures of power. The Good Fight begins with collective trauma and uses it to unravel the personal as inherently political. Maya, Diane's goddaughter, isn't just lost; she's emblematic of a generation promised progress and delivered disillusionment. The betrayal of her corrupt father is a generational rupture. She is a liberal millennial stripped of legacy and direction. Both women, in their own ways, are cast out of paradise: one from ideological security, the other from familial stability.
To me, The Good Fight doesn't seek continuity with The Good Wife-it seeks disobedience. If The Good Wife asked whether a woman could redefine herself within the system, The Good Fight asks whether the system itself should still exist. Reddick, Boseman & Lockhart is not just a new office-it is an alternate political utopia. A place where different rules apply, where different leadership emerges, and where different kinds of grief speak in different tongues. It's The Good Wife on a political acid trip.
And no, I don't believe Trump caused the collapse of a world. He revealed it. The Good Fight understands this with uncanny precision. The show is not just an act of resistance-it is an exorcism. It doesn't try to restore the pre-Trump order. It insists that order was already rotten. Trump didn't storm the gates of a pristine garden; he turned the lights on in a paper-mâché Eden.
That first scene is powerful not for what it shows, but for what it suggests: Diane doesn't just witness a transition of power-she sees the collapse of her belief in the social contract, in the protective promise of civilization. She is meritocracy incarnate: white, liberal, well-dressed, institutionally embedded. And suddenly, that world no longer recognizes her. She no longer knows how to move through it.
That's what makes The Good Fight such a rare gem. It doesn't just build on its predecessor-it interrogates it. It doesn't settle for catharsis; it demands reckoning. It's a work of art forged in fire, sculpted with fury, and polished with intellect. And like all great art, it forces you to ask: What story were we living in? And who did it serve?
As a European viewer, I approach American television as something more than entertainment: it is a cultural laboratory. The U. S. tests political and societal extremes that other nations later absorb and recontextualize. In this light, The Good Fight is not just a spin-off of The Good Wife, but a necessary mutation. And, like all meaningful mutations, it begins in trauma.
If The Good Wife was a political and emotional Bildungsroman, its successor is something else entirely: a sophisticated elegy turned manifesto. The Good Fight doesn't merely open in shock-it absorbs that shock into its genetic code. The series begins with Diane Lockhart, a pillar of liberal elegance and institutional faith, watching Donald Trump's inauguration in stunned silence. A moment of perfect symbolic clarity: the screen flickers, and something shatters-not just her retirement plans, but her worldview.
The pilot, as conceived in October 2016, envisioned Diane's departure following a Clinton win, a moment she believed would justify her life's work. Then, reality intervened. With Trump's election occurring during production, the show pivoted, portraying Diane as utterly stunned and unable to function professionally.
While The Good Wife stretched out its final season to ride the emotional inertia of the Obama era and Hillary Clinton's anticipated victory, The Good Fight is entirely post-illusion. It emerges from loss, from freefall. And it knows it. The opening credits alone-Diane's refined world of vases, handbags, stilettos, laptops, and telephones blown to pieces-is a sublime visual metaphor. This is not mere narrative upheaval; it is aesthetic rage. The bourgeois liberal dream doesn't fade quietly. It explodes.
In a stroke of irony so sharp it borders on satire, Diane, who was once the embodiment of white, educated, feminist privilege, is now hired at a majority-Black law firm as a "diversity" partner. But the show isn't mocking her. It's reorienting the narrative. Her symbolic capital-her name, her politics, her poise-carries less weight here. And that's the point. She must now function in a space where she is no longer the axis. It's not just narrative comeuppance. It's ethical recalibration. The story no longer revolves around whiteness, comfort, or prestige-it moves toward Black voices, queer stories, and radical feminist critiques.
Here lies the core divergence from The Good Wife. That show started with a personal trauma-the betrayal of Peter Florrick-and used it to explore structures of power. The Good Fight begins with collective trauma and uses it to unravel the personal as inherently political. Maya, Diane's goddaughter, isn't just lost; she's emblematic of a generation promised progress and delivered disillusionment. The betrayal of her corrupt father is a generational rupture. She is a liberal millennial stripped of legacy and direction. Both women, in their own ways, are cast out of paradise: one from ideological security, the other from familial stability.
To me, The Good Fight doesn't seek continuity with The Good Wife-it seeks disobedience. If The Good Wife asked whether a woman could redefine herself within the system, The Good Fight asks whether the system itself should still exist. Reddick, Boseman & Lockhart is not just a new office-it is an alternate political utopia. A place where different rules apply, where different leadership emerges, and where different kinds of grief speak in different tongues. It's The Good Wife on a political acid trip.
And no, I don't believe Trump caused the collapse of a world. He revealed it. The Good Fight understands this with uncanny precision. The show is not just an act of resistance-it is an exorcism. It doesn't try to restore the pre-Trump order. It insists that order was already rotten. Trump didn't storm the gates of a pristine garden; he turned the lights on in a paper-mâché Eden.
That first scene is powerful not for what it shows, but for what it suggests: Diane doesn't just witness a transition of power-she sees the collapse of her belief in the social contract, in the protective promise of civilization. She is meritocracy incarnate: white, liberal, well-dressed, institutionally embedded. And suddenly, that world no longer recognizes her. She no longer knows how to move through it.
That's what makes The Good Fight such a rare gem. It doesn't just build on its predecessor-it interrogates it. It doesn't settle for catharsis; it demands reckoning. It's a work of art forged in fire, sculpted with fury, and polished with intellect. And like all great art, it forces you to ask: What story were we living in? And who did it serve?
Recently taken polls
8 total polls taken
