Suits 1 x 08 Analysis Part V
I continue with my analysis of “Suits” Episode 1 x 08, in order to demonstrate the missed potential between Michael Ross and Lola Jensen.
Here are links to my meta analysis on this episode so far:
1- Suits 1 x 08 Analysis Part I
2- Suits 1 x 08 Analysis Part II
3- Suits 1 x 08 Analysis Part III
4- Suits 1 x 08 Analysis Part IV
In the aforementioned Part IV, I had discussed the significance of Lola’s threats against Michael when she blackmailed him using knowledge that he wasn’t a real lawyer. Rewatching this scene, I now assume that Lola either followed Michael to his address (no great sacrifice on her part), or hacked into the Pearson Hardman database in order to find it-- again, a simple task for her. This would also explain how she got his Social Security Number, too.
Before we go any further, it would be worth exploring Lola’s criminal behaviour.
So far, we have seen that Lola is guilty of forging government documents, hacking into classified databases, and embezzlement. The embezzlement alone would land her in jail for up to 25 years, whilst she would be indicted for forgery in the 2nd degree for owning a counterfeit government document, and her accessing classified data comes under computer trespass-- even if she didn’t destroy the data.
The reader may realize by now that I reject the idea of Lola turning to crime simply because she has family issues. I think that a genuine love of the environment and a sense of perceived righteousness gained at any cost drives her actions throughout this episode. This is then buttressed by her father’s evident lack of connection with her as the needs of his company take priority, leading to her neglect.
But when faced with the enormity of her crimes, her reaction (”I’m good with computers.”) is calm-- serene, even. It isn’t as though she doesn’t recognise what she is doing is wrong, but neither does she glory in it, either. One wonders whether her friends know about her secret doings. In fact, does she even have that many friends? Based on the laboratory scenes, Lola works alone and prefers it that way. Her reaction to Michael’s interruptions screams annoyance and contempt, although she appears marginally disarmed by his politeness.
I wonder how close she was with the friend who celebrated his bar mitzvah.
Of course, the fact that Lola’s father won’t go to the police strengthens her confidence, demonstrating an element of emotional blackmail. But even that doesn’t explain Lola’s behaviour.
I would speculate that Lola is naturally intelligent and curious about the world. This may explain her love for the natural environment. She is an enemy of corporations and other entities which replace people. The root of that might be in her father’s incompetence as a parent. Therefore, the institutions are wrong and have failed her in particular. They need to be changed-- forced to change if she can’t persuade them otherwise. Her father’s company is the natural victim, given how it just doused the victims of pollution with money and an apology, rather than investing in methods of decontaminating the sites. Add to this her father’s stronger interest in being a CEO, his use of lawyers to bring his own daughter to order rather than addressing this himself, and you have solid reasons why Lola feels her crimes are justified.
This in spite of the fact that Lola is almost certainly using her father’s money to attend Columbia University-- an Ivy League university, no doubt. Given that she knows his money is tainted with environmental damage, the fact that she benefits from it (we see no sign that she has a job) betrays significant hypocrisy.
Lola does not ask for financial gain, a huge sign that her crimes are motivated by an allegedly moral cause. She takes the law into her own hands, having judged herself as the most capable of doing so. Many people today share this view-- that if they have been wronged, they are automatically right in taking revenge. This idea is flawed in all aspects: presuppositions, philosophy, and execution.
Taking the law into your own hands never yields true justice and always hurts the innocent. In that, Jerome Jensen was right: Lola’s embezzlement was hurting workers at Clarity Drilling. But she did not acknowledge this, too blinded by her motives. And earlier, Michael Ross was right. No matter how pure one’s motives are, embezzlement is a devastating crime with huge ramifications for innocent people.
Despite the other two crimes that Lola has committed (forgery and embezzlement), it seems that her interest lies in cyber-crime. Would she ever stop this? Or is it ingrained into her personality? I shall discuss this question closer to the episode’s end.
Now we come to Harvey Specter’s “analysis” of Lola Jensen’s behaviour that leads Michael Ross down the path of misunderstanding her altogether, Lola’s capitulation, and a too-neat ending.
“You don’t really seem that worried about this.”
“Threats like hers are a tactic; they’re effective, because they distract you from what you’re supposed to be doing.”
From where does Harvey Specter, strolling down the street with a coffee in hand, come to such a conclusion?
I will argue here that Harvey’s “advice” is nonsense. What he will do in this scene is convince Michael Ross that Lola Jensen is just a poor, sad, angry little girl who wants more cuddles from Daddy. But get this: Harvey had warned Michael earlier that Lola was nowhere near as sweet as she looked! Girl with the Dragon Tattoo, anyone? Which is it to be? How can she be menacing one minute, but as soon as is convenient, just a poser and trickster? This comes right after Lola has threatened to ruin Michael’s career-- something she could do with the click of a button.
This either demonstrates large-scale inconsistency on Harvey’s part-- almost implausible, given how carefully he plans his moves-- or inconsistency on the part of the screenwriters.
“Are you crazy? What we should be doing is backing the hell off!”
Again, Michael Ross demonstrates how powerless Lola Jensen can make him feel. And this time, it’s serious. He has lost his rose-tinted sympathy for her now that his entire future could be ripped from his eyes, but it is far too late. Once again, we wonder why the exceptionally talented Michael Ross could slip in this fashion, victim to a complete stranger who might not have his memory, but is fiendishly intelligent. The answer is that Michael allowed himself to fall for her image, a sweet girl, and this became his guiding principle when dealing with her. He didn’t listen to Harvey’s actual good advice, which was not to be fooled by her image.
“I told you it’s a distraction. She won’t pull that trigger.”
Body language is relevant here: Harvey turns to face Michael instead, and his voice loses its presumptuousness. This demonstrates that Harvey has an interest in protecting Michael’s secret, not just because he would be implicated if Michael was exposed, but because of their obvious friendship. Harvey put his neck on the line to secure Michael’s job and relies on his talents to win every case. So the above dialogue really means, “Don’t worry.”
But then comes Harvey’s “reasoning”:
“Why do you think she hasn’t distributed that money yet? Why do you think Jerome doesn’t want us to go to the police?”
“I don’t know.”
“It’s because they both want to bury the hatchet. And if any of that stuff happens, they can’t.”
“Then what?”
“Figure out a way to make them reconcile. It’s easy.”
Wrong, wrong, and wrong again.
Lola would be intelligent enough to conceal the source of the funds if and when she did distribute that money (making her guilty of money laundering, too-- quite the list!). But that doesn’t guarantee that she wouldn’t leave a trail, and it certainly doesn’t guarantee that her father might be driven to expose the embezzlement once his funds weren’t returned. And who would that money come from? Some elementary research into Locksley LLC might reveal the required information, but wouldn’t cover Lola’s backside entirely. Her plan is too ambitious and too risky. Remember, she was embezzling that money under the name of Mildred Wiesniewski, but would she really allow this innocent employee to get all the blame when the money trail was exposed?
The idea that this is all linked only to her father is a figment of Harvey’s imagination. It demonstrates how little he knows about human relationships, let alone Lola’s personality. The notion that embezzlement would help lead to reconciliation is, of course, absurd. As I have said before, a breakdown in parental-child relations does not drive one to extremes of financial crime-- not even in “Suits”. I defy anyone to prove otherwise. The main motivation for financial crime is greed. Lola’s motives have nothing to do with money, and everything to do with her grand cause: saving the environment from her father’s company. A flawed cause, of course, but one nonetheless.
Jerome may wish to bury the hatchet, but Lola has deep-rooted issues-- some of which, of course, are familial-- which require confrontation. From what we have seen so far, and from what we are going to see, Jerome is the last man to fulfill those wishes. Since we know nothing of Lola’s mother (although we should naturally have been given information about her), she wouldn’t have anyone to help her see sense-- apart from Michael Ross.
So Harvey lands Michael with a plan. If they reconcile, the whole hacking, embezzlement and forgery thing will go away. It’s easy, he says. And so we get a pathway to tying up this episode with a nice bow and forgetting about the ramifications of Lola’s crimes, let alone the environment. Harvey is obviously more interested in the embezzlement at Maslow’s company, and Jerome’s issue is “just a problem” that requires fixing. Jerome, in fact, treats this in much the same way. This attitude to problems; dousing them with money or a coverup, may explain why Lola has such a warped moral compass.
To be continued.