#michaelross

Having made the astonishing and controversial argument that Suits’’ Michael “Mike” Ross, pretend lawyer and liar extraordinaire, should have dated Lola Jensen, I feel that I must back this up with an analysis of Episode 1 x 08.

Actually, I feel I must back it up with an analysis, because I love analysis anyway and I have a CampNaNoWriMo word count target to beat. But nevermind.

The first time I watched this episode, a couple of days ago, I wasn’t that engaged with the action concerning Anthony Maslow. My day job is in Finance, so I should have listened more carefully to the embezzlement plotline. Fortunately, I’m watching the episode again whilst writing this instalment. I have to be careful not to intrude my own perceptions and wishes upon the characters Michael and Lola, but the more I rewatch, the more I see various signs and hear dialogue that I missed first time. Signs and dialogue that quite frankly shouldn’t be ignored.

First of all, I know that Lewis Litt is a monumental cretin and later on, I’m given to understand (through accidentally checking out his Wikia fan page) that he turns to underhand/criminal means himself. That notwithstanding, I really dislike how Harvey Specter treats him, and how he seems unaware of the negative effect that his braggadocio would have on someone as insecure as Lewis. At the beginning of 1 x 08, Lewis is right to insist that they prioritise a major deposition over Clarity Drilling, but Harvey calls him a “caddy” and gets his way-- as usual. I can’t help sympathising with Lewis at the end of this scene.

The first sign is when Michael gets Lola’s fake ID. He spends quite a while studying it, which you might think was perfectly natural for a lawyer being assigned to this case.

Before I go on, let me just discuss the problems with this plot problem. The fact that Mr. Jensen gets lawyers to communicate with his daughter, but makes no mention of any other potential and less intimidating candidate, demonstrates either the extent of his ineptitude as a father or means that Lola has no other family. If the latter is the case, why not just say so? We hear no mention of Lola’s mother, so are we to assume she is either dead or has left?

Anyway, Mr. Jensen explains that his daughter’s fake ID fell out of her purse whilst at a friend’s bar mitzvah. Pretty ironic that someone who can forge government-issued documents would be that careless. We’re not told how long it was before Mr. Jensen went to see Pearson Hardman for advice, but since we later learn what Lola is doing with that fake ID, it can’t have been long. If it was long, she would have known it was missing and wouldn’t be so invested in her work at Columbia University.

Lewis Litt’s interrogation skills are brilliant! Such a shame he doesn’t get credit for it.

So, Michael Ross has Lola’s ID. And get this: he can’t stop staring at it. We soon find out why as Harvey and Michael leave the office:

“I don’t get it: she looks so sweet!”

Now, Michael Ross has just been told that a client’s daughter is up to something. He has the smoking gun in his hands: she has forged a government document, which, of course, can result in a prison sentence. And yet despite the sense of justice that Michael has shown to other clients in previous episodes-- for example, the victim of sexual harassment in Episode 1 x 01-- he disregards all of this and focuses on her looks. And not just the colour of her hair or eyes: he says she looks “sweet”, which is rather a more substantive compliment. In other words, she looks harmless, innocent. It’s an affectionate term.

Already, Michael has psychologically aligned himself with Lola, regardless.

(I have said before that he has a penchant for pretty women before even checking that they’re above board. Remember how he foolishly let a woman suspected of insider trading leave in Episode 1 x 06, just because she was crying?)

So Harvey has to warn him-- again-- to be careful:

“Don’t let the photo fool you. She’s less girl next door, more girl with the dragon tattoo.”

Does this imply that Harvey has had some personal contact with Lola that ended badly? I ask this question because earlier, Mr. Jensen hesitated before confessing that his relationship with his daughter was rocky. So Harvey cannot have known this. And yet he is on a first name basis with Lola, and knows her character. Not to mention that she had nothing to do with this case; on the contrary, Harvey expected that Mr. Jensen had simply come to discuss his business. Anyway, we once again see an example of Harvey Specter giving Michael Ross some good advice-- something I spotted right from the beginning. Harvey Specter’s lectures are full of solid, if ever so slightly dubious, wisdom.

But even after Harvey warns Michael about Lola’s character, Michael continues to stare at her photo. Why? And why is he hesitant about pursuing this case, asking whether Mr. Jensen could hire a private investigator when he has just heard that the two (Jensen and his daughter) are on rocky terms?

I can only conclude that Michael would rather leave her alone, because she looks “so sweet”.

After Lewis Litt’s interrogation, Harvey runs to his mother, Jessica Pearson.

Seriously, the relationship between Harvey Specter and Jessica Pearson is both amusing, intriguing, and bordering on dysfunctional. In fact, I think Michael even referred to them as “Mommy and Daddy” earlier (or later) on.

It’s a mixture of friendship, absolute loyalty, respect, mentor, partner-in-crime, mother/son, and employee/employer. You get the sense that they like each other too much to persist in arguing. And despite the fact that Harvey blackmailed her into making him Senior Partner in 1 x 01 (what a way to begin), you get the sense that he would never expose her-- and vice versa. They both have dirt on each other, so that restrains them somewhat. Yet they are great friends.

As I say, intriguing.