#lewislitt

(Continued from Part I).

“You know, real musicians? They don’t wear eyeliner.”

Got to love that.

What I don’t love is Harvey once again lording it over Lewis and overruling all his ideas.

Now we come to the first meeting between Michael and Lola, which is what I really want to discuss.

First of all, reality check: unless Columbia University allows visitors during the semester, then how on earth did Michael Ross get in? What’s more mysterious is that Michael checks the fake ID before coming up to Lola. This must mean that he enquired after Lola at the university-- presumably under her real name, since the fake name is linked with an employee at her father’s company. Do universities in America allow you to walk in, looking for another student?

Perhaps he got this information from Mr. Jensen.

Now despite Michael’s lapse in judgement earlier, he does come fully prepared for his meeting with Lola and completely catches her off-guard. She plays it cool and correctly guesses that he comes from Pearson Hardman. That’s quite interesting, because she would be in serious trouble had Michael come from the FBI. Why does she play it so cool, then? Why does she know that Michael comes from Pearson Hardman? This seems strange behaviour, given the gravity of forging government documents.

Could it be that she did not accidentally drop her fake ID at a friend’s bar mitzvah? Was she intending for her father to find it? If so, that would explain how she knew that Michael was from Pearson Hardman. It would certainly explain why she seemed so cool about him holding her fake Driving Licence AND why she continued to test samples and embezzle from her father’s company despite not having said fake ID.

If she did accidentally drop it and then saw it in the hands of a stranger, she must have been panicking-- and, judging by her later actions, planning her next move.

Watch what happens next:

“You know, forging a government document like this after 9/11 is next to impossible.”

“God, there must have been a glitch at the DMV!”

Michael laughs. He laughs!

Think about this. His earlier comment would have sounded as though he wanted to shock her into making a confession. But after laughing when she practically confesses to hacking a state government system and forging identity documents, it is revealed that he actually admires what she did! Look at his expression. He is impressed by her audacity. Not only that, but he is silenced and lost for an answer. Instead, he seems to ponder what she has just said, and she must revive the conversation-- even though she evidently has no pleasure in doing so.

Am I the only one who thinks this speaks volumes?

“Why d’you come here?”

“Your father came to us, ‘cos he’s worried about you.”

“If he’s that worried, he’d be here himself; he wouldn’t have sent an empty suit.”

It is never explained why Jensen and Lola’s relationship is so rocky. This would have provided some context to the plot and depth to Lola’s character. My main problem with this episode is that she is typecast as a poor little girl whose main problem is her Daddy, when it’s dead obvious that she has other concerns-- as I will explain later.

Furthermore, it simply doesn’t make sense that Lola would go to the trouble of embezzling money from her father’s company because she had a rocky relationship with her father. Children who want their parents’ attention usually choose personal stunts. They might run away. Lola hasn’t done this. They might date somebody their parents strongly dislike. Lola hasn’t done this. They might threaten to hurt themselves. Lola hasn’t done this. They might turn to illegal drugs. Lola hasn’t done this.

She is so deeply wounded by the breakdown in her relationship with her father that she turns to… embezzlement? Even sets up a fake company? Sorry, I just don’t buy that.   

Now, if Lola has to embezzle from Clarity Drilling to get her father’s attention, that might give a hint as to what kind of father Jensen is.

But if so, then why?

See, if we had some context about Lola’s mother, some of these issues might have been cleared up. If Lola was hurting her father to avenge her mother, that would make sense.

The problem with the Lola storyline is that it completely dilutes her professed motives which are actually sound and logical, not to mention the fact that they add a likeable component to her rather unlikeable character.

“If he’s that worried, he’d be here himself; he wouldn’t have sent an empty suit.”

Suppose this implies Lola’s anger that her father spends too much time on his company and not enough time on her. It probably does. But again, I am given no reason why, nor how she learned to hack government databases.

Anyway, when Lola calls Michael an empty suit, watch his reaction: he’s taken aback, insulted and has to collect himself together.

Now, think about this. Michael has faced a number of insults. Lewis is a jerk, so is Harvey, Jessica barely gives him a second glance, Donna can run rings around him (see 1 x 07 in the mock trial), and Rachel Zane rebuffs him every chance she gets. Furthermore, Lola Jensen is the client’s daughter, someone with no connection to him whatsoever. So why does he appear so stunned when she calls him an “empty suit”?

(Not so sweet now, is she, Mike!)

He takes it so personally and his next words prove it:

“You don’t know anything about me!”

This is rather a defensive comment. It sounds like he is trying to defend his integrity. Now if Harvey had handled this investigation, I am sure he would have blown off Lola’s attitude and cut to the chase. Michael, on the other hand, allows her insult to get to him and must refute it before continuing with his investigation.

Small signs, but significant.

By the way, does Lola expect to shake Michael off her tail during this meeting? From her sulky looks, it appears not. It’s a shame we don’t know what she is thinking, because she is far too intelligent to let a lawyer outwit her. 

“You’re stealing money from your father’s company. A couple million, so far? I don’t need to know why, but I do need you to return it-- now.”

Harvey Specter is currently trying to get Maslow to confess to massive embezzlement charges. It’s ironic that Michael has no interest in why Lola is also committing embezzlement. Yes, Mr. Jensen told Harvey not to pry, but for someone as curious as Michael-- particularly where Lola is concerned-- his non-curiosity is surprising.

“Actually, you do need to know why.”

See: this is my problem. Lola proceeds to give an accurate, scientific explanation for why she is going after her father’s company. She has gone to the trouble of collecting samples and even hacking into classified company data in order to get graphs that will prove her case. This is a well-oiled operation, possibly planned for months in advance. It is not the kind of rash decision designed to gain quick attention at all-- which seems more likely if family troubles were her driving motive.

And we are to believe that she is doing this just because she has father issues? The passion in her voice, her expansive knowledge of the subject, her disciplined investigation, and her underlying moral motives (though heavily flawed) simply does not support that conclusion. Instead, it does her an injustice as a character. I’m watching this episode on Netflix, and this episode is called “Identity Crisis”, with a summary saying that Michael Ross has to reign in a “modern day Robin Hood”.

Anyone with the faintest idea about English folklore knows that Robin Hood robbed the rich to feed the poor. So why have this summary for the episode but reduce Lola’s motivations to family issues? Of course, family issues can be part of the problem. But they are completely unexplained, whilst her investigations, methodology, reasoning, and intended actions after embezzling from her father are explained to the letter.

And by the way, when Lola says, “Actually, you do need to know why,” have you noticed that her tone loses its sarcasm and sulky disrespect? Have you noticed that she takes off her gloves, looks him in the eye directly without contempt, and immediately launches into an impassioned statement about her motives? Sure, she might be unwilling to discuss her rocky relationship with her father to a complete stranger, but would she even communicate with him if her only motive were family problems? No-- rather, I get the sense that she has wanted to explain herself for a while and seized the first opportunity to do so.

Meaning that her main motive is concern for the environment, and she is trying to get back at her father’s neglect of her and the environment. Why? Well, the family part is unexplained. But the environment part is well-explained.

“How did you get that-- that’s classified company data.”

“I’m good with computers.”

That always makes me laugh now.

Watch Michael’s reaction: he’s speechless for a moment, and then the whole Locksley LLC dawns on him, leading to a renewal of his admiration for Lola Jensen. He’s smiling as he figures it out! This is a totally inappropriate reaction to someone whose crimes could see her completing her degree behind bars.

“These toxins are known to cause kidney failure, liver cancer, and infertility.”

And this is just about daddy issues. Come on.

Her voice rises-- she doesn’t even take any credit for the Robin Hood idea. No, it’s all about the harm her father’s company is causing.

“I’m not giving the money back: I’m giving it away.”

Michael is speechless as he faces the real possibility of failure (never an option), whilst Lola slams down her laptop in triumph and walks off.

An incredible scene, folks.