The Good Wife Review: "Infamy"

at . Comments

On this week's returning episode of The Good Wife, the series threw a lot at viewers.

But as it's done throughout its great initial season, the CBS series did so in an intelligent, well-paced, well-acted manner. Read through our complete episode recap for "Infamy" now.

What makes The Good Wife such a simple, enjoyable show? This installment provided a few examples:

No dumbing down: You either understand certain legal or political references or you don't. The show never dumbs down its content or its dialogue for viewers. Case in point: during a back-and-forth in court, Diane mentioned the Scooter Libby case and the judge replied by saying the defendant has "outflanked the prosecution on the left." Don't know what any of that means? Don't watch The Good Wife.

Alicia vs. Glenn

Great casting: We could sing the praises of Julianna Margulies all day. But let's focus on the drama's use of guest stars for now. David O'Hare has been a subtle riot in his recurring role as Judge Abernathy; and who out there didn't wanna strange Craig Bierko as Duke Roscoe? That means he did his job perfectly.

Small moments: Most shows go out of their way to paint characters in a certain way, to hammer home certain points. Not The Good Wife. Witness Cary's bumbling attempts to bond with the grieving husband this week, along with Peter's confident smile when placed in general population and Alicia's curious glance at Kalinda when Roscoe mentioned a "closeted lesbian" at the firm. Great stuff.

What was your favorite moment from the episode?

For a sneak peek at next week's installment, check out these photos from "Painkillers."

Matt Richenthal is the Editor in Chief of TV Fanatic. Follow him on Twitter and on Google+.


The episode, "Infamy" was my first time watching the program. I was disappointed with the writing and will not watch again. The program disappointed on two levels. First, on a legal level, the woman whose baby was kidnapped was not a "public figure," so I do not think that the high standard of "reckless disregard" enunciated in "New York Times vs. Sullivan" applies to the slander by the talk show host. Second, even if the show was correct on the legal standard, the show failed as a morality play upholding the First Amendment freedom of speech protection. When supporting basic principles that protect really dastardly conduct, there must be careful development of the reason for the principle and why it is so important to uphold. These writers did not do that. I suggest that they review certain episodes of "Law & Order" to see how these basic principle conflicts are effectively developed.

Tags: ,