LEVERAGE #310 "The Underground Job" POST-GAME

Well, you don't have to go far for the bad guy here. The headlines were all over the place as we were breaking this episode -- indeed, it was one of the few times Dean sent us an email asking "We're doing this one, right?"

As you all know, I believe the government is best that governs least. But this really is one of those situations where the need of a regulatory body cannot be argued. I mean, in the dozen or so real cases we researched, some mine owners ignored hundreds of safety citations -- hundreds per mine -- and gamed the system with appeals and shenanigans with local judges. It doesn't take much to imagine what they'd get away with if there wasn't even the hollow threat of government intervention we have now.

Yes, yes, they paid fines. But as we all know, a fine is a price. In this case, the price of doing business without worrying about killing the men who are trying to feed their families by working your jobsite.

The Wonder Twins, as always, did a ton of research as they broke the story. Coltan, the MacGuffin of the episode, is real. Gave us a nice update on the old "salting a mine" con.

They actually found a mine worker's rep who talked to them for a good long time, told them about all the equipment, the safety measures, even gave them the shift-change dialogue for the opening sequence. His only request is that they not make coal mining look like a second-rate or pitiable job. We tried hard to make the point -- yes, it's dangerous and dirty, but somebody has to go into the goddam earth and crack her bones to make your electricity for your Facebook page and Xboxes and baby incubators.

As to the character beats, it wasn't a big stretch to put Eliot in the mine. After all -- pickaxe fight. C'mon, it's practically mandatory. His relationship with the kid is one of respect. The boy was stepping up to support his family. That, more than anything, is what got Eliot on his side. At the same time, he's acutely aware of dumb choices young men who lie about their age make -- hence his desire to move Cory over to something more advancement oriented.

We're always interested in putting Parker into the cons. As I've stated before, nobody quite writes Parker like the Twins, and they did a great job of advancing Parker's con abilities here. Sophie's been schooling Parker off and on for three years now. Parker's's never going to be great at it, and she'll always do it in her weird, obsessive way, but Parker's at least dependable in the short con. Just don't throw a curveball at her. And note I said "dependable", not "good." That may seem like a fine distinction, but considering how Hardison is simultaneously inspired and awful in short cons, it's a distinction worth making.

The character of the Attorney General was, for the first outline, a guy ... we'll deal with that in the questions. The mine owner, I will admit, was a decent character that turned into a great one when Bruce Davison signed on. Much like Michael O'Keefe made a series of small, inspired choices to build up his character, Bruce's off-beats grounded a villain that very easily could have gone over the top. My favorite moment, one of my favorite acting moments in the entire series, is when he's about to make the call to blow up the mine. He starts to dial the phone, looks at the AG and says "Here we go." There's a little ... naughtiness there, an almost sexual frisson. It's inexplicable and utterly necessary at the same time. I know people will argue Pesci deserved the Oscar for Goodfellas, but damn ... I mean, there are very few moments of such raw humanity as Davison's "goodbye" speech in Longtime Companion. It's a bit like how Hoffman won the Oscar for Rain Man, but Cruise had the much harder role -- but that's an argument for another post.

Before we dive into the questions, I want to give a big shout-out to Production Design and Sets on this one. They did a fantastic job of making a very small, twisty set of tunnels look like multiple areas in a much larger complex. That, combined with some great shot-making by Marc Roskin gave this episode a lovely feeling of scope.

All right. Here we go.

@SueN: Just a comment on the preview: Thanks for drawing attention to the recent (and unbelievable) Supreme Court decision which codified the selling of our government to the highest corporate bidder. That still pisses me off …

We talked to an election law specialist who consults for presidential candidates while researching ... Jesus, which was it, we've made 40-odd of these. Oh, yes, the season opener, when the PAC fund scam was a much more complicated piece of business than what wound up in the script. I remember how I was at first a little derailed when we were talking to him:

Me: "So wait, election funds are that tightly regulated --"

Expert: "Oh yes. You can't move a dime out of an election fund without the Feds bringing down the hammer."

Me: "Dammit. What about a PAC?"

Expert: "PAC'S are essentially slush funds. Like exploratory committees. You can move money all over the place with those."

Me: "What's the difference between a PAC claiming to support a general cause -- but actually dedicated to supporting one candidate -- and an election fund?"

Expert: "Ahhhh. Now you're getting it."

The Citizen's United Decision we reference in passing has managed to be precisely as miserable as its critics -- election reform experts both conservative and liberal -- anticipated. Politico -- not exactly a liberal news organization -- reported that out of the roughly $15 million one PAC raised in the months before the last election, nearly $7 million came FROM ONE GUY. A coal mining concern dumped in another $2 million.

All this is not to sob and boo-hoo about corruption. I'm not making a political statement, I'm making a crime-writing statement here. If you're a crime-writer, you look for ways to hack society's inherent social and legal regulations, because that's what smart crooks do. The really interesting crimes are the ones that aren't technically crimes. I'm as interested in the ability of rich people to influence elections -- that is, for people to protect their interests and maximize their money -- as I am in guys who provide bad service to game the Google search rankings, or people who crash entire countries' internets. (Okay, in theory that last one's a crime. But there are ways of doing it that aren't crimes ... yet.) Right now I'm kind of fascinated by research into charity grift. The Leverage CrimeWorld is a direct cousin of FilmNoirWorld -- corruption is its operating system.

@Joella Blue: For two episodes now Parker has mocked Eliot's pain such as being hit by a car and by a tire iron. If this was a novel, I would think this is foreshadowing some event where Parker regrets or is made to regret mocking him. Either he turns on her or really gets hurt. Close? or waaay out in left field?

It's more a mix of her belief that Eliot is invulnerable and her own annoyance at the situation during the times in question. Empathy is not her strong suit. I'm not even sure she owns that suit.

@Gina: Uh, guys? The Palin parody? Completely lame. Now, give us a parody of a First Lady who spends like a drunken sailor in the middle of a recession . . . then you'd REALLY have something funny. As a new fan, I usually like your show, but it might behoove you to remember that your audience isn't 100 percent liberal. Just every once in a while, you know. As a novelty. :-)

We wound up having a ... spirited discussion about this in the Comments. Apparently things got a little warm over on the TNT boards as well.

The character started as a male judge -- we were doing a straight-on buy-off conspiracy. We realized then that we hadn't had a female villain for a while, and putting the bad guys literally in bed with each other would give us some fun juice and another lever to use when we spoiled the conspiracy in the fifth act. So the male judge became a female AG. A particularly law-and-order female AG who went to a Serious University and revelled in her job and political career. And who wore the kind of suits female politicians have to wear like a goddam uniform in the American political scene, god help you if you diverge from that studiously desexualized image ...

That ain't Sarah Palin. Hell, you could argue it was based on Nikki Haley, or Kamala Harris, or Kay Hagan or, to tell you the possibly actionable truth, Kay Bailey Hutchinson ... but here we are, running right into the issues we ran into with sex in #207 and race in #304. We live in polarized times, and people read media as they will.

I think a more interesting discussion is: if we do parody figures who self-identify as conservative, is that parodying conservatism? For example, I don't think Sarah Palin can carry Senator Lugar's lunchbox. I once made fun of the book Liberal Fascism, and people were offended that I was making fun of conservatives. No, I was making fun of one well-written but horribly conceived book. (And I would remind you, if a post on this blog doesn't have the "Leverage" tag on it, anything is fair game. This blog preceded Leverage, and will survive it.)

If we make fun of Clinton's horndogginess, are we making fun of liberals? Amy Poehler's Hillary makes me laugh so hard I wince. I personally think Michael Moore's done some nice work, but Jesus Christ does he come across as an asshole, and is ripe for parody. I wouldn't consider slapping him around filmically a blanket condemnation of liberalism.

You can figure that the Congressman from "Homecoming" was Republican or Democrat, you can assume the AG was either, based on the accent and the location ... End of day the Leverage storytelling universe is built around an axis of People With Power, and People Without. Last time I checked, lots of R's and D's after the names of the People With, and plenty of R's and D's on the People Without.

And I cannot finish, without noting, as one commenter did, that you want people to spend during a recession. :P

@whimseyrhodes: So here are my questions: The mine was supposedly filled with methane, or pockets of. Why didn't the entire mine blow when the first explosion went off?-and-Why didn't Eliot seem to notice it when it DID blow?

Because they faked it. The methane detectors were rigged. That may not have been clear in the flashbacks. Our bad.

@J.J: I thought the "sounds like they were working out" comment was great but Is Parker really that naive about sex or is Parker just not a noise girl

Parker did not expect to hear those sounds in that context. I refuse to comment on her ... "noisiness."

@Caitlin: My mom and I were just wondering if there were any interviews done with the families of victims of mining accidents when this episode was being written. And is there any chance that Cory might come back?

Not only would we not want to bother those folks, it would have been touchy to base the whole ep on one case. It's an amalgam. Assume Cory is moving on to a very satisfying, non-Leverage life.

@Hardy: Did Parker sleeping in Hardisons van signify a growing comfort level/relationship or am I reading to much into it?

You know, we always kind of assumed she catnapped in weird places this whole time. It's a sign of trust, but nothing all that significant.

@Anonymous: Did a Nate/Sophie scene towards the end got cut? I saw a production still that made me believe we'd get a nice N/S scene at the end when Nate got out of the mine. Why are you deleting Nate/Sophie scenes lately? The same happened in The Three Card Monte Job. There are hardly any Nate/Sophie scenes as it is this season. You're making this fan very unhappy. Whhhhyyyyy?

That still was taken as the actors set up a shot, we never shot the cut scene. I don't remember what got cut in "Three Card ..." I think there's a lot of Nate/Sophie in this season, but much like I will never get enough Eliot/Mikel or Hardison/Chaos action for my personal taste, we can never make everybody happy.

@Linn25: You're not really trying this season with Nate and Sophie, are you? I mean, last season Sophie was gone but then we got that fabulous kiss. I was looking forward to see more of the sexual tension after THAT kiss, looked so promising. Okay, we got a couple of moments early in the season but now you've totally abandoned them, the romance between them. This season should've built on that kiss. Such a shame and a missed opportunity after the kiss. Almost too late but is there anything coming up for them at all?

You see, I never get this right. But I'd say the entire season is built off that kiss. It discharged the energy, like a spark, and reset the relationship. A lot of the Nate/Sophie stuff this season is them figuring out "well, what are we now?" Sophie's his partner and equal this season in ways she's never been up to now. That's going to change the relationship, but in my mind only make it more mature.

@OhShinyTomato: Please tell me that you'll work into another episode all of Parker's "notes" she has on each member of the team. That would be hilarious.

We may put them on the DVD.

@Beige: There were lit lanterns all over the mine in addition to the electric lights. It sure looked cosy, but am I right in suspecting that lanterns are TV shorthand for 'old and unsafe mine'?

Close enough. But were those "lamp" lamps or electric lamps? I'll have to go back and check. Frankly, you may have just caught us out.

@Tom Galloway: One minor hitch in the fun train; I got the impression that the miner came to the team, not them finding out about the problem and contacting him. So now random folk from small, usually socially isolated, backwoods towns 500 or so miles away known about the Leverage crew and how to contact 'em? These guys are almost as easy to find as the A-Team! : -)

This is funny, because I had lunch with the fabulously talented and amusing Matt Nix the other day, and as we genially gave each other shit about our shows, the clients finding the Leverage team was one of his bugaboos. However, he admired it: "'How did you find the team?' Who gives a shit? We're Leverage! 'Why do you trust these people?' WHO GIVES A SHIT?! WE'RE LEVERAGE!"

At the same time, if I had to write what he had to write every week, I'd put a gun in my mouth. "Michael, my Yoga instructor's second cousin's niece got involved with meth dealers. You have to help her."

We actually did, way back when, write an explanation of how Leverage found the clients. It was in "Homecoming", where Hardison explained how his new tech setup scoured legal aid websites, headlines, etc, for potential clients, then contacted them through proxies. Not sure if it ever made it on the air. To tell you the truth, Matt's right -- who gives a shit? Our job as pulp writers is to deliver you the most interesting moments from the case of the week. We dug in early that we'd never reveal the client process, for both that reason -- it's boring -- and for a larger philosophical reason. We always wanted the audience members to feel like, at any time, the Leverage team could swoop in and help them. Details in this case would accomplish nothing but disillusionment.

@Kevin: I didn't see it in the comments yet (sorry if blind), but I don't understand how the AG knew sophie was tricking her. One moment she's stunned that "sophie" is sleeping with her man and taking the pac money out (away from blackwell) and next she's telling sophie she's on to her and cancelling the transaction and threating to send her to jail.

She knew that (Sophie) had pretended to be a mine inspector as part of her con, and threatened to reveal it AS part fo her jealous retribution.

@Stacy: 1. Loved having Tim bring back the Gibson character. I would really love to have you bring back his Karl Lagerfeld impersonation, though I have no clue how you would fit that in. 2. I really appreciated how Parker has to equate grifting to be 'stealing souls' just to fit into her frame of reference. 3. Was really shocked that Eliot actually swung a killing blow in the mine fight scene. I don't think we've ever seen him actually try to kill anyone before. He usually just goes for the knockout. Kinda disturbing, but wholly sexy. I know, I'm sick.

1.) You ain't seeing that frilly fan again. 2.) We're working on another nice Sophie/Parker beat for S4 even as we speak. Sophie's finally figured out how to explain things to Parker in a way she understands. 3.) Yes you are sick, but that blow was meant to break the other pickaxe, not kill the guy. He's trying very hard not to kill people. Yet.

@Erin: Question 1) Obviously if Eliot really wanted the guy dead, he'd be dead - but would it be safe to say that at that moment he didn't *care* much if the guy took a terminal pickaxe to the skull? Or was it just a very cool-looking move with no particular deeper meaning? And 2) If the mine was basically a death trap, how could the team risk even that small explosion? Was "Section C" supposed to be a little more stable than the rest of the mine?

1.) Noted above. 2.) More stable, and they're very good at their jobs.

@Stacy: One last question (well, maybe the last). Has anyone ever addressed the question of why the seasons are split? I really dislike it and would like to know if there is actually some sort of logic behind it. KTHXBAI.

All the networks are struggling with ways to retain viewers in a very crowded marketplace. The theory that by spiking winter episodes you create a kind of, ah, "enthusiasm bridge" between seasons is a popular one, and actually makes a fair bit of sense. I'll be interested to see if Walking Dead holds its audience after a ten month break, for example.

@RevTrask: I have a question concerning the "group gloat"...isn't it smarter *not* to let the mark know who took him? If it's to protect the client by diverting attention, how difficult would it be for the villain to follow the paper trail? Does Hardison erase all records of the client's travel to Boston or phone records, etc? I know that it's a popular element of the show. It just seems kinda cocky and the sort of thing that could turn around and bite a grifter in the ass.

Dean has a formula for the show to be emotionally engaging, which we hew to and I do not disagree with: 1.) We must like the victim, no matter how small the role may seem. 2.) The villain must suffer. 3.) The team must deliver a moment where the villain knows it's not an accident, he has been brought down because of his bad actions. I assure you, they are in no position to chase down the Leverage team after the missions.

Most of them, anyway.

@Odie: Now for this week's: 1.) Why did the scene with Nate getting whacked on the head get shown twice? That would have potentially allowed time for the 'missing' scenes. 2.) Just how big is 'Lucille II'? 3.) We know that Hardison makes costumes and gadgets on his weekends, and Parker scouts out banks and other potential targets' alarm systems and security measures. So what do Nate, Sophie and Eliot do on their weekends?

1.) An old movie serial technique, just to reset. 2) Big enough. 3.) Nate reads and drinks, Sophie flies to fabulous locations and hangs with grifter friends, Eliot works for Miranda Zero.

@Tom Galloway: Different tack. Does Hardison have any friends? I could be misremembering, but we've seen Nate's ex-wife, former work buddy Sterling, old friend who became a priest, Parker's mentor, Sophie's whatever connection to Tara, and folk from Elliot's past. But I don't think we've seen anyone who Hardison knew pre-Leverage other than Chaos, who hardly counts in the same way. Still think he and Parker should be hanging out at MIT a lot.

You will see some people from Hardison's past coming up. But to a great degree, Hardison's friends are not people who he physically spends time with.

I'm certain you've heard this story before, but when Cory Doctorow was lecturing in LA, I invited he and his awesome wife Alice to Lucha Vavoom one night. (I actually knew Alice slightly better then Cory at the time) Waiting with the tickets, outside in the crowd. I realized I had to call Alice and find out what they were wearing -- because although we'd been trading e-mails and blog references for months I had no idea what they looked like as humans.

@Lydia: 1) Any significance to Eliot wearing a white shirt at the beginning of the episode? After watching Lost, you start noticing stuff like that...2) During the briefing, why Sophie is twisting/playing with the ring on her finger? Some kind of nervous habit? 3)When Blackwell is sitting in corner of the corner watching Nate and Sophie, there's a guy sitting next to the coffee machine with is back to the camera who looks a lot like Eliot, who is supposed to be down in the mine. Is it really Christian sitting there because no one can see his face, or just an extra?

1.) Nope. Just remember Nate's Apartment is Purgatory and the Bar is a parallel timeline, and you'll be fine. 2.) I think Gina was just fiddling. Actors and their hands. 3.) An extra.

@Sarah: 1) We have diamond mines and coal mines that resonate w/ Eliot. More background that we're supposed to connect or purely coincidental? 2) Hardison grew up in foster care w/ 'Nana' (will she ever be referenced again? She kind of fell off the planet after s1) and no mention of any kind of father figure. Looks like he finally got his dose of "walking in on his parents" that he may have missed... 3) Suppose ParHardikerson, SoParphiker and HarEldisoniot each took on the Mof's SherWatlockson in a dark alley, who would win? Or would FoSterdling swoop in and claim victory?

1.) Two different parts of his background. 2.) Nana will show up. 3) To be fair, everyone in those pairings would be making out so hard, you could never resolve the fight.

@WWWweaves: This episode was really good. I want to know where the exterior of the mine scenes were shot. AND were the big digs roaming around in the final scene actual mining equipment or just what was 'around'? (Big Digs is what my nephew called all large yellow self-propelled machinery. Is there a better name for it?)

Shot just outside of Portland, at a quarry. We built the mine entrance on a hillside, and the equipment was the equipment onsite.

@Tori Angel: 1.) What area did you find that looks so much like Appalachia? I felt like I was home again! 2.) What are your feelings about TNT airing "The Rashomon Job" in a different order than you intended? Does it work? 3.)Does Eliot's aversion to hugs come from a general sense of wanting to keep his personal space (as I've been assuming) or his military history (as a hug may be a decent time to put a knife between someone's ribs)? 4.) Was it Sophie or Nate who coached Parker in the accent? It may not have been an Appalachian accent, per se (Sophie's in "Two-Horse" was WAY further south than KY), but at least it was consistent, which is (to me) the most important thing (and more than you can say for the cast of True Blood in its first season).

1.) That's the Oregon Film Commission earning its keep right there. 2.) "Rashomon" stands alone pretty well. We'll discuss in its write-up. 3.) He's not a hugger. 4.) Sophie.

@AliKatKaniac: 1. We've now seen Parker and Eliot both have mentor moments with a younger person. And Hardison kinda did with the vic on Double Blind. Is this because they're growing as people or developing more of a heart?

2. Eliot has made a few comments over the series that imply that he's from a working class family to the point where now I wonder if his family wasn't victimized by these types of people. (defending the miners, making comments in the Jailbreak Job about honest people, etc) Am I off base? You're hinting we're going to get some background story on him but how far back will this go?

3. Was Nate a 'normal' guy before his son died? He's been chasing Sophie for years and referred to her as his compass in The Maltese Falcon but that would have been during his marriage. We know his dad's past affected him, - how 'broken' was he already when his son died for him to go from criminal's son to seminary school to insurance agent.

4. As much as I LOVE this show there are two things that seem far-fetched - Eliot's injuries never land him in the hospital (other than a mention of a CT in The Tap Out Job) and the fact that everyone seems capable of doing anything. As much as we love Eliot's toughness, he got hit by a car and didn't even get a band-aid (Or even sympathy from Parker which btw LOL). And eventually there is going to be something he or the others can't do - so far he's able to excel at Baseball despite never having played it professionally, a singer - which yes, Christian Kane is but Eliot was not prior to that episode that we knew of, etc. Hardison can literally hack anything. Parker can do almost anything. You get where I'm going. I don't want to see my favorite team fail at things either but once in awhile it'd be more realistic to have one of them not be able to do something.

1.) Growing as people, and also, you're just seeing those cases. There are a lot fo cases, both broadcast and not, where that never happens. 2.) You will not see Wolverine run into the wood sin his poncey nightshirt. By which I mean, you will never learn about Eliot's childhood. You will, hoever, learn some rather nasty stuff about his past. 3.) Nate was always a broken guy living as an honest man. I think part fo the fun of the show is how you viewers interpret his journey to thief. 4.) Eliot's been nursing his wounds for a while now, and you could go through and pick out, in the 44 eps, where they've failed (and we never aid Eliot could THROW...), but you can generally chalk it up to Nate's planning. They rarely do jobs they;re not good at, because why would you assign that job to the person who can't do it?

@Jason Taylor: Where was Parker's bunny when she went to catch some soul-stealing rest in Lucille 2.0?

The Bunny does not leave the Lair. Ever.

@Donna: My question: What did Hardison say to Eliot after the hug that caused Eliot to smile at him? I went back and played it over and over but couldn't suss it out.

"For morale", a callback to their bonding in "Gone Fishing Job". I believe Aldis improv-ed that, which is why Kane cracked.

@Anonymous: 1.) My first question is will we ever see good character development in Nate?

As an aspiring writer myself when I create characters I want to see them succeed. Rock bottom isn't the end of their character development, or story lines. I understand that Nate isn't a good person, and will definitely get worse before he gets better. Will he get better is the question I’m asking. 2.) Also, will there ever be a season finale that doesn't focus mostly on Nate? More specifically I mean a season finale that comes about because of one of the other characters actions or choices, past or present. Thank you for the time you take in answering our questions :)

1.) Nate will continue to evolve, but who says Theif Nate isn't the Best Nate? What's that Chandler quote from "Simple Art of Murder"?:

"In everything that can be called art there is a quality of redemption. It may be pure tragedy, if it is high tragedy, and it may be pity and irony, and it may be the raucous laughter of the strong man. But down these mean streets a man must go who is not himself mean, who is neither tarnished nor afraid.

The detective in this kind of story must be such a man. He is the hero; he is everything. He must be a complete man and a common man and yet an unusual man. He must be, to use a rather weathered phrase, a man of honor -- by instinct, by inevitability, without thought of it, and certainly without saying it. He must be the best man in his world and a good enough man for any world."

Maybe Nate's just the best man in his world?

2.) The S3 two-part finale focuses primarily on Eliot and Sophie.

@Kati: Did Maggie know anything about Sophie during their marriage? Even as simple as that's who Nate was chasing? And when exactly did Sam get sick enough to the point where Nate stopped working to be with him?

Maggie knew about Sophie, both through Nate and by rep. They'd actually met once or twice. Sam got too sick about two years before the show started. He died very quickly when that happened.

@Anonymous: I guess Nate and the audience won't get to know Sophie's real name this season since Nate has done nothing to deserve it, to win Sophie back. More like the opposite.

Heh. That would be incorrect.

@Blaze: Well, I have to say I'm finding this season really uneven. You guys are getting really sloppy. I realize our heroes are the best of the worst, but you still have to show some of the prep work and background "infrastructure" in these jobs. The hand waving of details is getting too broad in some episodes.

Sofie and Nate are the worst. Apparently the Power of the Grifter is so strong within them, that the marks will believe any horse crap thrown at them.

"We're from the Department of Bamboozlement. We'd like total access to your office/bank/mine."

"Uh...okey dokey."

"And we don't want you following us around. We want to privately muck with your computers."

"No problem...wait. I forgot to read the tag pinned to my suit. It sez 'don't forget to ask for ID and stuff.'"

And don't get me started on Hardistan's computer wizardry. It's a trap many different shows fall into. The computer hacker/genius can do ANYTHING from ANY computer he sits down at. People would scream in protest if Elliott blew a vault door off its hinges with one kick, but will nod along at Hardistan doing the equivalent superpowers with a keyboard.

I don't need to see extended scenes of handicraft time, making fake IDs. Or lengthy explanations of Hardistan's creation of fake computer backgrounds. But there needs to be an acknowledgement that this was done. If the villains are to have any sly and fiendish credibility, they have to make our heroes jump thru at least some basic hoops. I've been a keen fan of the show from the first episode, but this season...please pull up your socks.

I hate to be Captin Buzzkill, but the number of things we've shown Hardison do that you CAN'T do in real life is close to zero, particularly when he's using his own computer. When he's using other people's computers, he's running his own custom OS off a flash drive, which is what all the hackers are doing lately. We may well fall into the trap of making Sophie and Nate very effective at grifting, but then, again, it's probably because we're soaked in grifter research. We've had cases of dudes pretending to be federal agents. For MONTHS. Fooling the SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT. We've found cases of people conned into going to fake courtrooms for fake trials.

All we do is take away the boring bits. Your mileage may vary on the boring bits. I'll admit, there's always a struggle between "what is infrastructure?" and "what is competence porn?"

@la_ma: 2.) Clearly, something major is a brewing with Eliot and you seem way too excited about it. Since it will probably have already aired by the time you answer this question: is/was the intent to simply significantly develop/reveal the history of the character or is/was it to change our view of Eliot? (Clearly, he is THE fan fave, as Nate was in season 1 (or at least part of it). You made us loathe him, and so everyone was forced to pick a new fave, making it a true ensemble cast rather than the Nate and his team show)If you want our view of Eliot to change, WHY? (Please don't answer: 'I think you know why' I hate it when you do that:) Question 3) Not a shipper and really, really hate the unnecessary merging of two names...that said, I really want Parker and Hardison to hook up. Can/will that be done without feeling the need to add in relationship drama? I mean, can they have feelings, have sex, enjoy each other, but the show still be about the cons, or will we have to sit through scenes of 'discussing emotions'? Question 4) Hardison has been established as an extremely competent hack who obviously has cashed in on that skill. At least one flashback had him as a geek teen, presumably from a reasonable family. And he seems to have a conscious--like the kind of guy who, with a glimpse or two at the effect of his thievery on (good/innocent) others would have redirected his skills. What am I missing?

1.) cut for clarity, moving on to 2.) It was to showcase another reason why somebody might choose the redemption arc. Nate is, to a great degree, fueled by vengeance. That is a very destructive, non-growth motivation. We've never really explained why Eliot is still with these people, and this will help. I didn't think we were making people loathe Nate, though. Just acknowledge he puts the "anti" in "antihero". 3.) God, I hope so. But trust me, there will never be "The First Date Job." 4.) Hardison comes from a different moral framework. People With Power hurt the people around him. But there's a reason he chose the most legitimately "victimless" crime field.

@briddie: Isn't Parker exceeding her dresses-per-season quota? Or am I confusing that with Eliot's suits-per-season rule?

Suits per season. And we only count evening gowns. The S1 finale dress really sets the bar on that one.

@Piratecat: From a friend, via Facebook - "Please explain to me, from this week's ep, why blowing up his mine would aid the owner with his plan to harvest the coltan? Made no sense to us." To that I'll add that the owner slugging Nate didn't make any sense. I could see him killing him to save air, but knocking him out seemed a bit odd. I' too, was surprised by their lack of hard hats. Thanks, John!

1.) He needed to harvest the coltan under another corporate identity, and needed the worker's payrolls to close the deal with Nate. It was an insurance scam, not related to the coltan. We could have made that clearer. 2.) He was actually about to kill him when Eliot intervened. Again, we could have cut that different. Looking back at it, that's very unclear.

@Kris: I don't mean anything really specific like "did Eliot have X or Y experience." I mean, rather, is he starting to feel anything like a prodigal son? Does he feel like his enlistment (or whatever) was somehow immature? Not in a general "joining the Army for adventure is silly" kind of way, but for him personally, as if maybe instead of liberating Croatia he should've found a way to fix problems closer to home.

Objectively speaking, I'd guess that for whatever reasons with which we're not familiar, if he'd stayed home he would not have in fact been in a position to exert the sort of power he can now. But that wouldn't necessarily make him feel better about "running away" (if that was indeed any part of his emotional motivation for taking up his line of work).
I guess what I'm trying to ask, in a really rambling way, is, would it be a stretch to suppose that the "thawing" of Eliot Spencer can be traced all the way back to Two-Horse? Despite the fact that being interrogated about the whereabouts of a monkey was a pretty legit reason not to have been in contact with Aimee, has he been wondering this whole time if her anger was not merely understandable but right in ways even she might not have known?

Well, somebody's been paying attention.

@T.J.: Lots of questions on this one - I'll separate them into chunks....

A)Purchase your own politician-
This is another case where buying an politician is better than doing the actual work so I wanted to know if you could fill me in on the
Attorney General vs Congressman comparison
Which is...
....cheaper?
....more effective? (bang for your buck)
....more wrong/evil?
....more useful
....more likely to make Hardison throw up a little in his mouth?

B)Parker: Baby Grifter
Will Parker ever be the head of a con?

C) Scary Sophie

How do the marks miss the "You are digusting" tones i.e. Sophie's "You're going to make a lot of bucks" I know it's T.V. but she gave me chills. Do marks not have a sense of self-presevation?

D)Eliot the Miner
Why is it always Eliot who gets lost in the con (baseball, singing, coal mining?) Do you chose him on purpose or does it just happen organically?

A.) Senators, actually, are the best value for your dollar. Disproportionate influence in a a fundamentally undemocratic institution. Lacking that, you really want to jump down into the AG and judges of your state.

B.) That ... is literally the most important question in the show.

C.) They are blinded by greed. And her hotness.

D.) Although Eliot really doesn't go more whole hog than Hardison, you just tend to remember those moments. You could argue t's because, when grifting, he actually relaxes and has a little fun.

Whew. Okay, I'm going to crash, and MAYBE I catch up before the Christmas episode. We start shooting the new pilot Wed, and I make no promises. As always, thanks for watching and reading.

Quality Hate Mail

Seriously, people, if you're going to do hate mail for a show, this is the GOLD STANDARD. It appeared last summer in the Portland free weekly, the Portland Mercury. I am thisclose to making an offer of a writing staff gig to whoever wrote this:

Jesus Christ, Leverage! How many fucking parking spots does your crew need to take out of downtown lots to film your piece of shit sorry excuse for a third-rate cable network void of a fucking show? I rarely drive to work, but when I do I expect at least one spot to be open in a two-mile radius of Old Town. What the fuck is your problem? Does each person on staff drive five cars to work? If you're going to take our lots, pay for our street parking and the tickets we're bound to get when we forget to feed the meter every 90 minutes. Or maybe you could do what the rest of us do and take the first spot available. And fuck you to the lot owners that exiled local business employees to street parking. Closing off a good 20 spots to make room for a catering area for these fuck necks? Are you fucking serious? I've only met one person who actually watches Leverage and he's a fucking idiot.—Anonymous

I love you. Seriously. You'l be happy to know that the producers of the show are now addressing each other as "Fuckneck" in all internal correspondences.

Snake. Bot. Two Words You Never Want to Hear Together.

Great. The big tree-climbing 'bot has already morphed into a slick, camouflaged "snake 'bot".



I would like to remind our incoming robot overlords once again that I have always supported Robot Marriage.

LEVERAGE #309: "The Three Card Monte Job" POST GAME

Well this one was a bitch.

As we've occasionally discussed, we left the backstories of the character in Leverage intentionally vague. Shows are living things -- one of their advantages over movies -- and you never know when some spontaneous moment either on set or in the writer's room is going to deliver a cool moment to you. You don't want that gift crushed by a story bible.

That's how this episode came about. During "The Bottle Job" we introduced Nate's criminal father as a way of filling in Nate's personality. It was a throw-away, to introduce the idea that Nate has been fighting the duality of his nature for his entire life. Hell, right up until the last day, we weren't even sure if we'd establish whether Jimmy was live or dead. At the end of the episode as Cora toasts to fathers, Tim Hutton threw an unscripted look at the barstool where his father used to sit ...

... and watching that look in the first edit, we said "Wow. We're going there again."

So Jimmy Ford was born. He started as a much more genial character, kind of a rogue, who led the team on a convoluted con to build his retirement score. (A really great little con, by the way, we will eventually pillage for another episode.) But we kept going back to that look. I'd seen that look in bars, in Irish families. That look says "If I see you again, I will fucking put hands on you," as an old bouncer friend of mine would phrase it.

On a meta-level, genial Jimmy didn't give us a great threat., Knowing "The Rashomon Job" was coming up, we really didn't want to do two off-speed episodes that close together.

And so, over weeks in the writer's room -- a chunk of it done, admirably and efficiently, while I was up in Portland directing -- the entire concept was recrafted, and bad Jimmy Ford was born. It would be father vs. son, no holds barred.

Now here's why you don't want to do that.

In police procedurals, the cops are usually chasing a murder or crime that's already committed. In particularly awesome episodes, there's some counter-plot by the villain that's still in play. But generally, in 99% of television crime shows, it's a straight chase. The bad guy is either trying to lay low or escape with the dog's end of his plan.

In shows like ours and, say, Burn Notice, we generally intersect a bad guy's ongoing life of corruption or crime with an intense, short-term crime, and play into that. Not necessarily harder, but trickier. Psych actually does this a suprising number of times for a straight investigation show, btw.

What makes Jimmy Ford come back to town? Well, he'd want to commit his own short-term crime. Annnnnd he 's Nate Ford's father, which means to make this a fair fight, he has to be as smart as Nate, and his plan as tricky.

That means we need to create an intense short-term crime that legitimately appears to be one thing (or can be read as multiple possible plots), intersect it with our protagonist's short-term crime to wreck it, reveal (and, if you can pull it off, it's a proper reversal) that there is in fact another short-term crime in play, then derail that crime with another short-term crime either by coming up with it on the fly or showing that it was in play during the entire episode -- which requires you to make sure you track dialogue that can be interpreted multiple ways and/or who knows what when.

That's four plots burned in one episode. Ouch. All this and the emotional beats to give a great actor like Hutton a chance to swing at a great actor like Skerritt. Screen real-estate gets a little tight.

We'd had the "police station heist" on the wall since Season One. It seemed appropriately ballsy for Jimmy Ford. Looking for inspiration, we considered when he would be at his prime -- the late 60's and 70's. We'd just had a little crime-movie kick in the room and so what came to mind as a reference was The Friends of Eddie Coyle. The informant in our plot, as a matter of fact, is actually one of the characters from that movie.

Doing the math, Jimmy would need some muscle. That gave us the Russians, and all the beats there -- using innocent people as throw-away criminals, the phones, the tattoos -- came straight from copious research. The idea of Jimmy Ford being a legendarily smart guy in prison, teaming up with young hungry thugs looking for a brain, came together.

The mechanics of the heist came together ... gruellingly. At one point we had the entire episode up on the wall except for the third act. Just a blank space. We knew the hook, the meeting, the mystery of multiple innocents. Boylan had come up with the "Three Card Monte" motif, so "three targets" seemed to make sense-- but no idea what the hell they were breaking into the jail for or how they were going to do it.

Again, research saved us. Two facets, in this case: the evidence room, and bank alarms.

For all you Spec-Monkeys out there: never be afraid to call someone. A very nice lady from the Boston PD Public Relations Department spent a good hour with us on the phone explaining how evidence is stored and transferred in the Boston PD system. The valuable stuff is indeed cleaned out of the precinct basements and hauled out to Holyoke every so often. (We briefly considered hitting the storage facility in Holyoke, but it's not full of police. Being "full of police" is a prerequisite for location to host a fun, challenging heist. Also, wide air vents. And lasers.) The whole indexing with UPC symbols -- real.

Then, we got some vague answers from bank-alarm companies about the protocols for bank alarms and how police deal with them. There's a very fine line between "quick response" and "waste of time" ... by cross-referencing the answers we got from the companies to fill in the blanks, we got a very good sense of how these things go down.

At which point Boylan and I, who were the ones working on the script (the rest of the room had moved on to #310), realized we should totally go rob a bank.

Sanity prevailed, but yeah, that turns out to be one of those "wish I didn't know that" fields.

All this done in about two weeks, to create a plot you kind of never really notice while Tim and Tom Skerritt are doing giant scenes of pain. (Boylan, always the playwright.)

Right then, let's see what you guys scrawled in the margins:

@Sherri: I'm guessing we won't get any more details about Nate Ford's past -- he's his mother's son, eh? THERE is some space for speculation. I can't think of a question right now, except, really -- what was Elliot smiling about? Comment -- more Sophie with Parker! They are such a COOL pairing! OH! Question -- how did you guys fake the crowbar to the head thing? I mean, was it a fake crowbar, a feint, CG, a fake skull on Christian Kane, or is his head really that hard? I felt it!

When you need to know about Nate's mom, we'll go there. You still have to meet his sister ...

Beth threw the fighting rubber crowbar at Kane's head. Without warning him. And by "rubber" I mean "soft enough not to kill you, but really frikkin' hard to fake the fight properly". BTW, CGI sparks in that fight.

@Mandi: I may have missed this due to the fact that I was slightly distracted, but - what happened to the ledger? Did Jimmy Ford just hop on the boat with it in his pocket and the cops never saw the evidence again?

Nate returned it. He of course, made a copy for his own use.

@Sarah W: When Jimmy was talking about his wife, I wonder if Nate was thinking about Sophie . . . the parallel is perfect. Especially since, as you've said before, Nate isn't a nice guy.

Well, Sophie isn't that nice either, to tell you the truth.

@Christina Lollobrigida: They turned the corner to look at McRory's and I'm hoping that this'll get answered in an earlier Post-Game that I asked about the exteriors, but man tonight? That's got to be a physical location that's somewhere in Portland unless you guys really expanded that set. It looked FANTASTIC with that long hallway. I'm hoping it's a practical location though - I just want to know WHERE. Google Street View shows some other building where they're looking, but I know that could be years old and the way things change downtown...

We extended the set for "The Bottle Job", and Dean had us keep it. That's all on Stage A in Clackamas.

@Stacy: Watching Tim Hutton and Tom Skerritt play off each other was like watching an Oscar nominated film. I am in awe.

Weird tricia: Skerritt was originally up for Donald Sutherland's role in Ordinary People. So you kind of did.

@Sean Fagan: Why does the upstairs not have access to the back door?

Refitted building. It has access on the other end of the corridor, but that bar door is the easiest way near Nate's apartment.

@Taellosse: This isn't a question quite so much as a plea: do whatever you can to get the current season back on Netflix Watch Instantly, please?

We're working on it. It's corporate stuff.

@briddie: I'm loving the reveals with the crew, or the bad guys, or whoever. It's like they suddenly appeared out of thin air. Y'all have used that really well this season, tonight included. My other favorite time was on Inside Job, when Parker runs into a room and the camera turns to show us the bad guy, who magically appeared just after Parker disappeared. Are the actors there the whole time, or do they run into scene while the camera is turned the other way?

It depends. Sometimes it's just a camera angle, but usually they step in from OS. Always love in-camera tricks like that.

@Joe Helfrich: Did Nate just leave a pistol with his prints all over it in the Organized Crime office? Because it was still on the table as he was headed to the air shaft.

He, ahhhh, went back for it before he climbed in the vent. Yes.

@Jordan: I was just wondering, since this episode dealt with the police, when our two favorite FBI agents, Taggert and Mcsweeten, were coming back?

As I've said, the trouble with TV is actual human beings with schedules are attached to these characters. But by now you know somebody's swung by for a visit ...

@Oona: 1) Beth totally almost cracked up in that scene where Parker and Eliot are sneaking up the warehouse. Parker is looking around furtively, looks offscreen, and a little smile appears that is quickly supressed. Do other cast members just stand offscreen making faces? (cause I could totally see this cast screwing with each other that way.) 2) The three Irish mob families probably have a fair amount of international ties. Do we see any of those names popping up later on. For instance, in connection with a big crime financier?

1.) They do screw with each other, but that one was just Beth having Parker enjoy sneaking. 2.) No, they don't show up later in this season ...

@Gentry: Great episode! Question though...the McTeague family mentioned in the episode, is that the same McTeague family who ran the McTeague Capital Investments in LA that Jack Hurley worked at in The 12-Step Job?

No, pre-cleared name.

@Calla: My question: You seem to have a long list of excellent actors who want to be on your show - so, basically, what was the thought process/casting process that lead you to Tom Skerritt as Jimmy Ford?

Our fine casting humans put together a list of suggestions. We knew we wanted a name, somebody with big acting chops, and also promotable for the network. Then it's a matter of checking availabilities, submitting scripts, and conversations with the actors.

@Dan Reads COmics: So I noticed as he spent more and more time with Jimmy and the Russians, Nate's native accent became more and more pronounced, until he dropped it completely when he confronted his Dad at the police station. It was a subtle, yet effective way to demonstrate Nate's return to (and denial of) his roots. Was that written into the script, or was that Tim's idea?

Tim's idea, although we did have a conversation about how that accent creeps back whenever you're home. I get about two days back before I'm dropping r's. Or "ah's"

@Katie:Throwback question to 302: Was the 'trimmed a banzai' thing Eliot was talking about as filthy as it seemed or am I just a pervert? And is it just me or is Sophie a big sister to Eliot, well everyone except Nate?

Precisely as filthy. And Sophie is one hot sister. But it's a decent characterization.

@Kate: My question on #309 is this: How did you decide on which direction to take Nate in emotionally throughout the episode? Was there a moment where things kind of came together and you knew how he'd react to his father in this situation and where he'd end up or was it a process of building the progression?

As above, the relationship began in that look in "The Bottle Job." Then it was a matter of finding a plot to set them against each other.

@Larry Fleming: 1) Why not get a black box with 2 remotes? 2) They are being seen too much by the local police, aren't they afraid someone will remember them. 3) How is Jimmy going to retire with no money? This job was going to be his last. 4) What was the crowbar made of?

1.) Hardison didn't build it, and he is suspicious of redundancies. 2.) There are 2000 cops in Boston. They should be okay. 3.) He's set up with a little fund, courtesy of Hardison, to match his new ID. 4.) Hard rubber. Like you use to subdue rioters.

@JoJo Dancer: What happened to the phones to keep the cops from calling each bank to confirm that acutual bank robberies were underway before sending the whole force? Did I miss something?

Multiple alarms freaked them out, making it more weirdly viable than a single alarm. I don't want to get into the details we found out in the research, but they roll cruisers out in the "dead zone" of confirmation.

@pkate3: I do have one question about McCrorys though. Hardison owns the building with the apartments and the bar in it but did he buy the bar itself? Or does the grateful owner allow them free run of the place? I remember last season them helping the ...daughter? granddaughter?... of the late previous owner. Just not sure of this point.

No, they own the bar and the liquor license.

@Sherri:

Yes, Nate is as screwed up as you think. And yes, we put work into it, but a lot of times we just say "What is the most screwed up choice Nate could maker", and let character consistency do the heavy lifting of character continuity.

@USRaider: 1) Sophie (Gina) seemed to be the "voice of reason" in this ep, stating several times to Nate (Tim) that he didn't have to be the one to take his father down. Will this have some "foreshadowing" of a future con where perhaps Sophie is in Nate's place? 2) Cora owns McRory's and is well versed in what the team does. I wouldn't think that she would allow anyone, even Nate's father, to set up shop there. Was there something we missed along the way? 3) Jimmy stated that, at one time, he was the best fixer in the city. Isn't that what Nate has become, albeit in a different sense? 4.) By the way, Sophie whipping out handcuffs on call. You've probably sent fanfic writers into a frenzy with that one!

1.) It's more representative of Sophie's new peer relationship with Nate. 2.) Jimmy probably conned Cora into thinking it was okay. Also, Cora grew up in that world. Jimmy is a very famous person in that bar. it owuld be like saying "no" to your dead dad's best friend. 3.) B-I-N-G-O. 4) I did not anticipate the ... casual appearance of the handcuffs in actual shooting. But come on, we're not that vanilla a show to begin with ...

@Bigu2fan: Usually the victim who initiates the story gets rewarded in the end. But for this episode, there is no 'payback' for the victim. What's to stop the Russians from going after him? Is this an untied loose end for the episode? Just askin'

The Russians are shut down, and with the conspiracy unmasked the vic will receive protection. Also, they prevented the vic from doing an actual crime, keeping him out of it. Blame shoudl fall, in fact, on Jimmy for involving his son.

@Lydia: Questions: 1, who's idea was Parker's bad aim with the crowbar? I had to rewatch that part several times because I was laughing so hard (and cringing for Eliot, of course). 2, there's really only one way out of Nate's apartment? I admit I'm a bit surprised that they'd set themselves up to be trapped like that...

1.) Beth. 2.) They never retrofitted the way Eliot insisted they should. The Leverage offices in LA had multiple Stainless Steel Rat-like exits.

@Dea: Also-- The best scene of the night for me was Nate and his Dad conning the guy for the papers from his briefcase. It seemed a really complex moment, because it was obvious that both Nate and his father enjoyed working together and yet Nate was trying to take down his father and deny that he had anything but contempt for him.

That's really the most important scene in the show. These men could have been friends, but time and blood stopped them. Great work by Boylan.

@Kenderman: You also keep saying Nate is a bad, bad man, and yet he's not arrived in bad-town yet. He burned his own father, yes, but didn't shoot him, or send him back to jail, or let him steal fake evidence. Maybe he's not as bad as you want us to think?

He may not sin, but his soul is black. And "not" shooting him was a near-run thing.

@Zenkitty: My question is, how did Hardison get out of the evidence locker before the door locked without being seen? Maybe I'll catch the answer when I watch the episode again... shortly.

Watch again, he's on the other side of the door already, by the second exit to the room. Weird blocking on that, forced on by shooting from both sides of that chain-link. Totally confusing, I admit. Just happens sometimes.

@Video Beagle: So Cora nor Frank the Bartender mentioned "Hey, Nate, Jimmy's back in town." And no one noticed a big production going on in the poker room? I'd almost think that Hardison would be scanning everyone who walks thru the bar doors in case cops, feds, or crooks walk in.

I'm not sure how the "scanning" would work, but assume that Cora left a voicemail on Nate's phone that he blew off. Because he's bad that way.

@Modern day Molly Brown: Who chose the music for this episode? It was seamlessly perfect for each scene.

As usual, our amazing music supervisor Joe LoDuca crafted every bit of music you hear int he ep.

@Anonymous: 1) How old was Nate when his Mom died? 2) Was it Jimmy’s fault that she died?
3) Do people really ever do the Three Card Monte by switching out the queen? This fit in nicely with the plot (and I loved that you didn’t really reveal the trick), but when I learned this trick the queen was always among the cards on the table, just not where ... 4) Watching this reminded me about a scene from the Two Horse Job: At the beginning of the poker game in that episode, did Hutton do the hot-shot cut himself or was it someone else? 5) Was this Jimmy Ford's first "job" since he got out of prison? When did he get out of prison, and how long had he been in?
6) Has Nate been estranged from his dad since he went of to priest school? Or did Maggie make sure they kept in touch for Sam’s sake? 7) It seems that Nate sees it as a weakness that he “only” ran his father out of town and didn’t put him in jail. What does the rest of the team think? It was Parker’s “Is Nate gonna be nice now” comment at the very end of the episode that confused me. She seemed to so get him in that scene where she came to get Nate out of the police station (btw, I loved that parallel to the times when Nate went easy on her because he got why she made the choices she did), but she seemed to so not get him with that last comment. Why was it so weird that Nate “just” ran his father out of town and didn’t put him in jail? The team doesn’t always put the bad guy in jail they sometimes have alternate punishments.

1.) Not sure, but I think when he was in the seminary. He was training to be a Jesuit, btw. 2.) ... not really. 3.) Yes, this is a variation where the queen's lifted. Apollo's shown it to us. To be fair, when he showed it to us, the Queen wound up in my shirt pocket. But I think he was just showing off. 4.) That was Apollo for some of it, but mix of Hutton in. He's a pretty good card player. 5.) First job since he got out, hes been out for a few months, and I don't want to nail down how long he was in for. 6.) They stayed in touch for Sam -- there's actually a very nice beat that was cut from the script about that. 7.) Parker thinks that's what humans call "closure".

@Anonymous: So was the Mob ledger "black box" and was the police security alarm black box "ledger"?

Okay, meta and hilarious.

@xjill: I'm always amused when you throw in Con names (Orphan Annie, Pill) - are the names really so common that all the team would know them without asking or is just a nice shorthand way to show they're cut from the same cloth?

We use a mix of real ones, complicated ones that are real with no name where we coin the name for shorthand, and made-up ones. The "Orphan Annie" is a real con, but we came up with the name.

@workworkwork: Does Parker's line at the end ("I know") when she finds that Nate let Jimmy go relate to her own experience with Archie? Leach was not as nasty as Jimmy but he was still not the warm fuzzy type.

No, more about how she understands Nate a little better than Nate understands himself sometimes.

@Sullivan: Funny thing though, Nate's crazy schemes always do seem to work out somehow, while everyone else is rolling their eyes and saying "not again." This is becoming a little bit annoying. I'm reminded of Eureka, where everyone always says "Carter, that can't be right" even though Carter has nearly always had at least a piece of the puzzle.

Nate's schemes ... do not always work out. But it's more Nate's behaviour during the scam than the plan itself. if Nate were smiling these in, they'd be perfect and the team would be happy. But being tied to the angry functioning alcoholic who comes up with these plans -- not always fun.

@Mktackaberry: 1) It occurs to me that most of Nate's back story was about trying to reconcile the "bad things" his father taught him to do with some "doing good" drive. Was the insurance co. incident just the final straw of a series of incidents when witnessed people claiming to be good actually hurting people (being bad), leading him to choose to "do good by being bad" instead of "doing bad by being good?" 2) Any chance we will go back to Nate's journey as a priest? I suspect Nate saw something seriously off in seminary? Which also prompts me to ask, would you ever go anywhere near the subject of pedophilia scandals in Boston, or would you rather be boiled in BP crude?

1.) It was the final straw, but go back to the pilot. He wasn't on this crusade when we met him. He was five months off drinking himself to death. The team saved his life. 2.) No, no, no way are we doing that story.

@Nic: 1.) I've noticed when rewatching the episodes in season 1 and 2 on DVD, the cons seem more obscured, the execution flashbacks more hint than explanation. They require you to watch carefully. By contrast, in this episode I guessed the gag based on the map graphic with arrows leading to the three banks and away from the police precinct. I feel that this season there's been more explication and less room for inference. Am I wrong? If not, is there a reason for that choice? 2.) Second, when in the con did Nate make his choice about throwing his dad to the three families? I replayed the flashback and couldn't identify the room. (My fave personal explanation was that he threatened him with the gun as a frying pan to distract from the giant fire Jimmy was about to enter, hence the "I had to let him go (so the trap could snap)" but that's because I like to think of Nate as infallible.) As always, thanks for your time and attention!

1.) We do spell it out a bit more in certain episodes. We had a real issue in feedback form first season, where a giant chunk of casual viewers just were not getting the con reveals. In this one in particular, though, I think WE had to work so hard to track the plot, we put that stuff in the script to make sure WE understood it all properly. 2.) ... whichever choise makes Nate Ford more interesting to you.

@JonS: I have to ask this: 1.) Jimmy Ford mentions to Nate that they have some "pretty cousins" in Ireland. My question is, are they, the cousins, also involved in crime? Is this a setup for future storyline and will we expect to see Nate's Irish (and distant, I suppose) cousins sometimes in the future? 2.) Also, considering the fact that Nate's grandfather, as Jimmy stated, came into America, what decade would the Ford have come into the America? I'm guessing somewhere in late 19th century to early 20th century.

1.) We're thinking about it. 2.) This branch of the Fords hit Boston right after WW I.

@Anonymous: It was great to see some more Nate and Sophie scenes this time, I love their connection, how they care about each other and are there for each other. Is there any chance we get a nicer Nate once he and Sophie get together? Would love to see a softer side of him with Sophie. He has that inside of him and Sophie is the one to bring it out of him.

No.

Now, which question I'm answering is entirely different matter.

@Murphy: The one question I have is this; this is the second season and the second year the team has been in Boston, and a lot of their jobs have been in the city. They've ventured some distances (Ukraine in season 2, other cities in Massachusetts, and I think Vermot in The Gone-Fishing Job) but because they're not moving a lot, doesn't that mean they've made a lot of enemies in their base town? Are they worried about not just the cops but other criminals and villians in the city recognizing them and muddying up the waters?

They tend to tackle white-collar criminals, so they have a "look, but don't touch" rep with the local CrimeWorld.

@SKEMERGrrl: So we've seen Nate's dad (his mom has passed on). Parker and Hardison were foster kids. Sophie has never mentioned her family. Eliot has mentioned a nephew and he even went back to his hometown for the "Two Horse Job". Does Eliot see his family? He seems like the only one that does. Will we see them?

He does see them, but we probably won't. until we think of a cool reason to do so.

@Kris: Bit of a flashback question, but applicable now because of the content of this ep - did you intend from the very beginning to reveal Nate's 'dark' side? Just wondering because I re-watched the pilot today and there was SO MUCH emphasis on how he was the "white knight"/"honest man" in that episode.

He was an "honest" man, but we always meant to explore how tempting the dark side was, and how close he was to crossing over. Admittedly, I don't think we'd established what a bastard his father was, but we always intended that he came from the "cop or crook" culture.

@LynnM: 1.) The bonding scene with Nate and his father at the bar. I know it started off with Nate conning his father into believing he wanted to be like him. I haven't yet figured out how it ended... Did Nate buy into his father's wishes to retire, drop guard and actually get conned? Or did he continue his con, only to get outconned by dear old dad? I lean towards the later, it's subtle, but telling. 2.) Second, the whole gun scene. Jimmy would have outright shot Nate had the roles been reversed, he even said as much. Jimmy isn't just a bastard, he's a heartless bastard. When Nate said he couldn't, it was more saying he couldn't BE his father. Instead, he went 'Nate' on him. Set him up so that everyone else would kill him, AND took away his respect. It's elegant, and far crueler (and maybe it's the protestant in me, but so much more Catholic). The out to Ireland, well, that just seems to show that little bit of heart he does have. I guess that's the question - does Nate have a weakness, or a heart?

1.) I think he genuinely WANTED to believe his father, but he still went downstairs to shut him down. Complicated. 2.) A weakness or a heart? Who says you can;t have both, or they're not the same thing in Nate's head?

@carol: I have a kind of general question - do you have fantasy story lines in your head for certain actors? Like, do you think, 'oh, if I could ever get Bernard Cribbins, I have a good plot for him'. Or any other favourite actor of your choice. (As an aside, I'm personally campaigning for something starring Betty White and Bernard Cribbins, cause...awesome)

David Tenannt. As Sterling's best friend in Scotland Yard ... never going to happen, but it's been cooking for a while.

@Anonymous: Why was Sophie so adament that Nate sit this one out? I understand the Dad is blood, but with the history they have and Nate's feeling she had to have known not to ride him about it like that...I just found it odd the whole team was so conscious of it especially with their own family issues. What prompted that response choice?

A mix of the team's own daddy issues and Nate's tendency to melt down on a graaaaand scale.

@AliKatKaniac: It seems this season to expand on the growing trend of actors known for playing 'nice guys' roles lately showing up as 'bad guys' on Leverage. Christian and Aldis have both played bad guys on popular 'cult' type shows. (Have the others?) Anyway, is that a draw for some of the actors to guest star - the fact that they play against type? Also, there has been a lot of 'six degrees (or usually less) of separation' between Leverage and some shows that are popular more in the sci-fi/fantasy world (Lost, Supernatural, Buffy, Angel, etc) than the crime/drama type world. Is that more because of the creative teams roots?

To tell the truth, yes, we're one of the few shows with out and out "villain" roles rather than "suspect" roles in crime procedurals, so we've gotten some great actors who just want a chance to do the Evil Speech of Evil. His speech in part 2 of the finale is what hooked Goran, actually.

And I think yes, the crossover's from shows we geeks writers watched.

@Oona: 1) How long has Jimmy been in jail? 2) Were he and his wife divorced? 3) In the flashback, Jimmy says something to the effect of, don't piss me off. I read Jimmy as the kind of guy who was not a serial abuser but who certainly wouldn't blink at smacking his kid when feeling provoked, correct? 4) At the briefing, it's clear that Hardison and Sophie are uncomfortable about having Jimmy as the mark, and Eliot could care less. Parker never really states her affiliation. What's going on in her head there? . . . And don't say "the pros and cons of various bank security systems." ;)

1.) Not long, but longer than a year. 2.) No. 3.) He had a fast hand. 4.) Parker knows, objectively, that this is a bad idea, but she's more concerned for how she understands this would affect Nate. It's not "empathy" per se, but ... she's making a best guess.

@Macie: Okay, so I don't know if anyone else noticed this, but Jimmy NEVER ONCE in all the series (Even in the Beantown Bailout flashback) calls Nate 'Nate.' He ALWAYS calls him Nathan. WHY?

The same reason my mother calls me John Michael. Every time.

@Kris: My question isn't really related to the episode. I assume it's been said before, but Christine Boylan has a GREAT voice for, well, anything. Listening to it on DVD commentaries has convinced me that Ms. Boylan has hidden grifter powers herself. True or false?

She has a theater voice, honed with booze. I don't think she could go on the grift because, well, she'd spend WAY too much time picking out the properly theatrical hat.

@Kathy432: Was it a conscious decision to make the team's wardrobe all black, gray and white colors (except when Sophie was playing the drunk)until they determined that they were going to take down Jimmy Ford? Nice touch.

That's the amazing Nadine Haders, keeping the wardrobe subdued to match the emotional tone of the ep. Great choice, eh?

@Dawn: 1.) Noticed when the Russians were scanning the evidence boxes, there was a timer on the leader’s device to let them know how much time remained to get things. After the gate closed & locked the men in, why did the device’s timer go from 01:01:00, to 01:00:00 then to 01:59:00 instead of 00:59:00? Any significance? Did Hardison maneuver that too? 2.) Did Nate call the families to let them know his dad wanted cash for the ledger before or after he held the gun on Jimmy? If before, how did Nate know the families involved without seeing the all the info on the investigation boards in the Organized Crime office? Newspaper?

1.) That was Hardison hacking their phones to throw off their sense of timing. People really should keep their watches, even though their phones tell time. 2.) After, but he knew those families from his time in Boston.

@Odie: When they're in the police station installing the alarm sensor, why is Sophie's 'way out' with Parker?

If you think Sophie's going to trust anyone but Parker to get her out of a police station, you're high.

********************************

Whew. Forgot how long that takes ... and how fun it is. We'll be all caught up by the time our Christmas episode rolls around, so stay tuned and see you soon for the next write-ups.

Idoru. Really.

I love you Hatsune. I LOVE YOU!

BRUUUUUCE!

You know I love me some Bruce. BRUUUUUCE!



Ah ... slightly different Bruce than you may have been expecting.

AOTS v Twilight

Because it makes me laugh. Every time.

Okay, Back ...

... and squeezed a little break into the sorta-hiatus. Positano, with an iPhone camera, of all things. Surprisingly nice lens.

And a funny little essay about the town by John Steinbeck. Who you don't, honestly, think of as always that funny.

Jetwing Action

So this is what it's like to be Supeman ...

Jeb Corliss wing-suit demo from Jeb Corliss on Vimeo.