did kalinda kill her husband? - The Good Wife (2009) Discussion

[–] 9 years ago

[deleted]

[–] justabitofeverythingplease 8 years ago

Ever heard of poison?
And Kalinda isn't tiny. She's not big, but not tiny either.
I don't know what to believe and I'm good with that.

reply

[–] sin_clair 9 years ago

after she escaped to radioshack where she defeats Charles "the handsome devil" Lester, Kalinda CGI's herself in the bar scene with technology in the shop and then meets up with her husband and lives happily ever in a toxic domestic violence filled relationship, forever ruining martial arts, the sanctity of getting married to someone you love (it's people like this who are ruining marriage yet no one bats an eye), and ice cream for everyone

reply

[–] MirenaVlad 9 years ago

Good story Sin Clair

reply

[–] monstermayhem32 9 years ago

My guess would be kalinda told nick to run before he was killed for the drugs he was profiting from.

reply

[–] Helena727 8 years ago

My guess would be kalinda told nick to run before he was killed for the drugs he was profiting from.

You needn't guess, because that's more or less what she does in 4-10, tho she's telling him to run from the cops. Then he says, "I don't think you did call the cops -- that's not your style. So what's your plan B?"

Then she meets Alicia for a drink, and says he's gone, that she (K) is safe and so is Alicia, and that "he's not coming back." She then lifts her shot glass again, to drain the dregs, then the camera stays on her face, awash with various emotions, for a few seconds.

I think the writers are clearly signalling that she killed him -- she herself, because she wouldn't want to be at the mercy of a hired killer. But the question is: HOW??? He's much bigger than she is. Even if she used a bloodless method, how would she have gotten him out of the offices and into her car without being seen? Yes, it was night, but city office buildings have security cameras. She couldn't have disabled them all.

Possible, I guess, that she persuaded him to go someplace with her, in her car, and then she killed him and dumped his body; his accomplice wouldn't have reported Nick's absence because the accomplice was guilty of drug-smuggling and wouldn't want any police attention. Still, I think the writers took a little bit of an easy out here, which is annoying considering that they're capable of much better.

"All you need to start an asylum is an empty room and the right kind of people."

reply

[–] janar72 8 years ago

Helena727,

I think the writers are clearly signalling that she killed him.

[...]

Still, I think the writers took a little bit of an easy out here, which is annoying considering that they're capable of much better.

Isn't that slightly contradictory in your explanation? Either they signalling something clearly or they leave it open for the viewer to assume - aren't these two completely different approaches? 

Anyhow, I think the "easy out" of the writers is - once again, like so many times in this show and especially when it comes to Kalinda - to not give a clear answer to the viewer for something they couldn't figured out on their own. It's part of their writing style of over-plotting without resolve, which is, on the long run, extremely annoying. At least for me as a viewer ...

Best wishes,

janar

"Love [...] is the most incredible gift to give and to receive as a human being." - Ellen Page

reply

[–] Helena727 8 years ago

Isn't that slightly contradictory in your explanation? Either they signalling something clearly or they leave it open for the viewer to assume - aren't these two completely different approaches?

I don't think my post is contradictory. One can clearly signal the big picture (Kalinda killed him) while being ambiguous about the details (how did she manage, given that we last see them together inside an office building?).

Good writing can find a way to hint at the specifics without hitting viewers over the head with them. In this case, the implausibility of a small woman killing a stronger man, plus the implausibility of killing someone without being detected or leaving a trace, is a sign of mediocre writing -- the writers chose not to do the hard work of thinking out, and then hinting at, the specifics; instead, they took the easy way out ("we'll leave a blank canvas on which each viewer can paint his/her own picture"). And, this annoys me because the show was, overall, so very well-written -- so much better than almost anything on free TV.

"All you need to start an asylum is an empty room and the right kind of people."

reply

[–] janar72 8 years ago

Helena727,

I'm very sorry about my late reply to your last post here in this thread! 

I have to say that I completely disagree with you on this matter. Especially this sentence:

One can clearly signal the big picture (Kalinda killed him) while being ambiguous about the details (how did she manage, given that we last see them together inside an office building?).

My disagreement with you comes from your argument (not fact!) that the Kings somehow signalled their intention that Kalinda killed Nick. I think that's wrong and they did not signal his death at all. Meaning: They are not only ambiguous about the details (as you put it), they're also ambiguous about the big picture (as I would put it). In my opinion, they didn't know better how to resolve their relationship and left it wide open for interpretation.

See, I read your earlier post with the description and interpretation of episode 4.10, about Kalinda's/Nick's last scene and the scene with Alicia and Kalinda in the bar afterwards. But I'm not convinced by any of the details you brought up or that were shown on tv to assume that Kalinda killed him. In fact, we as viewers can't even say that Nick was killed; from what I know of and remember, there are no clues from the show or from interviews by the Kings about Nick's death. So, all you actually did was interpreting Kalinda's face, reaction and re-assurance to Alicia that Nick won't come back - nothing else, and nothing more, the rest is speculation.

So, in my opinion, factually, you could state that Nick disappeared and never came back, but nothing further. That's the "big picture" here - he didn't come back. His possible death by the hands of Kalinda is merely a detail in some of the many scenarios of what might have happened to him - not the big picture you assume.

I remember that some fans of the show thought that he actually was intimidated by Kalinda's threat of calling the police and just left. A few fans thought that Kalinda threatened him to call Lemond Bishop about his drug business, meaning that she had (business) relations with Bishop beyond what was shown on the show until then. Or some fans thought that Nick finally left because his goal was to get her back and he realized that she wouldn't come with him; that it was never about the money, but about her love for him as his puppet. Or, always my favourite interpretation, that Kalinda was indeed working undercover for an agency all the time during the show, hence her knowing-it-all-all-the-time, and that she got rid of him via her agency.

Nevertheless, my point is: All these different theories/scenarios of what happened to Nick are flawed and doesn't really fit into the show; all these explanations are totally unsatisfying to me. The big flaw in your interpretation, and why I think your argumentation is contradictory, is calling "the implausibility of a small woman killing a stronger man" just "a sign of mediocre writing". What if it was never the King's intention to signal Nick's death by Kalinda's hands/doing? Because - in my opinion - the writers didn't even know themselves how to solve this on their own, which is why they left it wide open. (Side note: I don't think Kalinda would ever be able to kill someone, anyone, for any matter, but that might be a dangerous romantic notion fom me as a viewer that I'm three-quarterly aware of ... )

So, to come back to the OP's question: Did Kalinda kill her husband? In my opinion, we as viewers don't know, because the writers never had the guts to give an answer to that question. And that's what's so annoying about the show in the long run - at least for me: The writers had no idea what to do with many of their characters accept Alicia.

Best wishes,

janar

"Love [...] is the most incredible gift to give and to receive as a human being." - Ellen Page

reply

[–] 8 years ago

[deleted]

[–] jenniferrgrissom 8 years ago

I think Kalinda called Bishop not the police. She wouldn't owe any favors or be held in his debt, quite the opposite. She would be giving Bishop information about a competitor moving into his territory. He would handle as he saw fit. Of course, Kalinda knows exactly what that would mean but she didn't have to ask it of him.

reply