The Coincidental Critic

Exploring the art of storytelling.

We’re Not Friends, But We Could Be (SPOILERS)


I like how each episode of “How to Get Away with Murder” starts the same way: the clip of the bonfire and the cheerleader being thrown into the air.  This is something unique to this particular show.  This repeated opening shot ties every episode together and also opens each episode with a bit of a recap, informing us of where we left off with Sam’s murder.  This repeated opening was a great choice made by the directors.

In this week’s criminal law lecture, we learned about the influence the jury can have on a trial. This was not only interesting, but informative, especially since juries decide the results of cases and any US citizen could be on a jury, including myself. It was enlightening to see the lawyers pick and choose their jury and to learn about the restrictions set upon the jurors.

In this episode, Laurel came out of her shell.  I relate very well to Laurel, sharing her shyness.  But just like Laurel, I’m quiet until something passionate makes my personality shine.  Laurel represents a character not usually seen on TV or in movies.  Most characters are either shy or outgoing, nothing in between; Laurel is more complex.  She was quiet at first and kept to herself.  This episode, she became more comfortable, sticking up for herself and showing her true colors.  Her character naturally progressed from a shy state to a more open one.  Laurel is the one character in “How to Get Away with Murder” that I would definitely be friends with, and I look forward to watching her develop as the season progresses.

Along with Frank, I was also curious as to why Laurel was so attached to the case in “We’re Not Friends.”  A teenage boy shot and killed his father in an attempt to protect his mother from his father’s abuse.  This case brought Laurel to life, making her shine and engage more than ever before.  Even Frank was curious with her sudden interest.  “Why the hell are you so worked up about this case anyway?  Unless your father beat you…” he asked.  And Laurel replied, “my father did not beat me, ok?  I just, I want to feel like we’re doing something good for once.  Why is that so hard for everyone to understand?”  The writing team set up the perfect situation to reveal something about Laurel’s life, but instead they said that she was just trying to do some good, which is exactly what Wes said to Professor Keating in “Smile, or Go to Jail.”  They’re just two self-righteous do-gooders. I was unsatisfied with Laurel’s answer.   It was a simple cop-out and not a real reason.  We had the opportunity to delve more into Laurel’s personal life, but the writers prevented us from doing so.

Why is Michaela the only one freaking out about losing her wedding ring?  Don’t they realize that they’re at a crime scene?  In the previous episode, when Michaela was first upset, I thought it was because of the fact that they were at a crime scene.  Instead, we find out that Michaela just doesn’t want to lose her ring because of its sentimental meaning, which I completely understand as well.  But don’t the other characters realize that if found, this ring could lead back to them and rule out their alibi?  I would have expected the characters to have thought of this.  They’ve been covering their tracks in regards to everything else, and this is just common sense.  The characters’ behaviors were inconsistent.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

Follow The Coincidental Critic on

Enter your email address to follow this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Follow me on Twitter

%d bloggers like this: