Join me as I make some wild guesses about where Defending Jacob is headed based on what little I know about movie language. Truth is, I haven’t read the book that the series is based on and therefore, my guessing is probably just as good as yours. Spoilers for all four episodes and some minor spoilers for Gone Girl.
Due to the lack of new cinematic content being released (thanks Corona!), I thought I’d give Apple TV’s new limited series “Defending Jacob” a try. The series stars Chris Evans as the inexplicably buff district attorney Andy Barber whose son Jacob (played with something hovering between teenage secrecy and almost sociopathic removedness by Jaeden Martell) is the main suspect in a murder case. Now, I’m always on board with a murder mystery but with Defending Jacob, I was undecided at first if I really wanted to continue watching after the first two episodes.
The main reason was that I felt that there was something fundamentally off with Defending Jacob and it really irritated me from the beginning: I’m talking about the production design and, more specifically, the set design of the interior of the Barber’s house. Now, the whole look of the series is pretty dark: the colours are cold and muted, making the events surrounding the investigation feel like they take place in autumn or early winter, yet from the court scenes between Andy and Neil, we learn that it is actually supposed to be May. But absolutely no spring feelings there (on the other hand, Massachusetts is maybe a place where the seasons are weirdly warped).
The set design of their house however takes it to another level: It is so cold and soulless and comes off as so artificial and manufactured. The whole place feels unnatural, everything is so perfectly clean and orderly and new and shiny. Nothing really seems to have a personality. In short, it doesn’t feel like anyone actually lives there. It rather seems like the Barbers live in a showroom. (Unfortunately, I couldn’t find any pictures of the interior of the Barber’s house for some reason – none that Chris Evans being domestic wasn’t the focus of anyway – but if you’re reading this article, chances are you’re watching the series and therefore know what the house looks like.) I found the “generic-ness” of their home space really disturbing and I repeatedly asked myself if the producers really think that people actually live like that. It almost put me off watching the series. However now, half way through, I changed my perspective on the set design. And by that I mean, I still feel like it is unnatural and cold and uninviting, but now I think that this is done intentionally.
With its interior design, Defending Jacob is giving me serious Gone Girl vibes. I mean, look at these pictures from the interior of Nick’s and Amy’s house in Gone Girl:
Besides the set, there are more similar elements between the two: both are crime mysteries focused on the family lives of white, privileged Americans, one of which becomes the main suspect in a crime investigation (in Gone Girl, protagonist Nick Dunne is suspected to be responsible for the disappearance of his wife, Amy). Moreover, both narratives make you question the intentions and the story of the protagonists. Gone Girl famously turns a seemingly simple missing person-case into a tale of domestic abuse that slowly unravels the toxicity of the relationship between Amy and Nick. The set design plays an integral part in (maybe just subconsciously) conveying that toxicity and tension. Production designer Jon Hutman points this out in a YouTube video that I just so stumbled upon (it’s totally awesome, you should definitely check it out) and calls this design principle the “veneer of perfect domestic order“. Hutman points out that the production design is used to create tension and suggest doubt to the viewer because the home space, which should feel safe and familiar, looks so cold and empty.
“The house and the interior and the furnishing are so intentionally generic. [… ] It looks like no one lives there, there is no history, there’s no sense of life there.“
Jon Hutman in Vanity Fair’s Production Designer Reviews Movie Mansions, from ‘The Royal Tenenbaums’ to ‘Clueless’
So in Gone Girl, the set design is a subtle clue to the dysfunction of Amy and Nick’s relationship. Can this be transferred to Defending Jacob?
Well, there are two, possibly contradictory aspects that should be mentioned. First, it might be that Defending Jacob‘s look and feel is just Apple’s aesthetic and for all I know, that could be true. I haven’t seen any other of their shows and maybe they look equally cold. Secondly, you might say the house is made to feel like a cold and unnatural space because the Barber’s family life is turned upside down and they essentially become imprisoned in their own home, making them experience it as a rather hostile space. Could be, but seeing that the house looked and felt cold and uninviting ever since the beginning, I’m not very inclined to support this argument. Plus, even emotionally lighter and more wholesome scenes, like Andy and Jacob’s movie night, are set in the equally generic and artificially furnished living room.
So, with what I know, I do think that the set design is hinting at some kind of family dysfunction. I’d be really surprised if it weren’t and if it turned out that the set design just expresses how Apple executives/ the show producers (idk who’d be responsible here) envision actual, normal home life. On the other hand, the Barbers are a higher class, American family, none of which I am, so maybe home decoration just works a little different across the pond.
Anyway, congrats if you made it this far. Now, here’s my take on who’s suspect in Defending Jacob. As previously elaborated, the set design prompts me to the theory that something is up with the Barber family. Like, there is something seriously wrong or messed up within the family. And I don’t just mean Andy’s father, which has already been established as a plot thread about a conflicting family background. I think the conflict is a lot more closely linked to the relationship between Andy and Laurie, his wife. I sense some impending doom relating to these two. I don’t think they are in a good place as a couple. Generally, they don’t have a lot of chemistry (and I won’t attribute this to a lack of acting skill on Evans’ and Dockery’s end, I think it is meant to come off as cold and distanced), and obviously, they both weren’t/aren’t upfront about themselves and their actions (Andy about his father and Laurie about contacting the Meredith Messenger for additional details). So, do I think that someone in the family is responsible for the murder?
First of all, I don’t think Jacob did it. That would be too easy and I’d be really disappointed if that was the resolution in the end. Instead, I’m super suspicious about Andy.
A really interesting minor detail I noticed was when Laurie’s best friend Toby calls her at some point in the first (?) episode, Laurie’s phone displays a picture of both of them together as the caller ID. However, when Andy calls her in episode 4, the caller ID only displays “Andy” without any picture. The fact that Laurie didn’t choose a picture of her husband of 14 years for the caller ID seems super suspicious. Additionally, Laurie mentions how Andy practically has no close friends which is – you guessed it, also suspicious.
Now, let us get into deeper spoiler territory for some more supporting evidence of my theory:
I first became really suspect of Andy when he threw away Jacob’s knife. Now that is not a smart move and Andy is a lawyer who should have known that this might be potential evidence. And I’m not buying his excuse that “any parent would’ve done that”. Moreover, the story is told from Andy’s perspective – he is questioned in court ten months later and basically retells the story of what happened. This of course gives him the opportunity to mould the story in a way that benefits him. He constructs the narrative, so he might just put himself into a better light. Plus, the fact that Andy didn’t tell Laurie at some point in the course of their 14-year marriage that his father was convicted for murder makes me belief that he has more to hide. His reasoning – not wanting to be stereotyped or prejudiced against for being the son of a criminal – is understandable but with all the other suspect stuff he’s, it doing doesn’t speak in his favour. Other than that, the show is trying at all costs to make him out as a supportive, unwavering father who is so convinced of his son’s innocence that he might just do anything (after all, his investigative measures are highly questionable) – so why not also murder for his son? Of course, there’s a lot of incomplete reasoning here on my side and I don’t see a motif yet but so far, Andy is highly suspect to me. We certainly don’t have the complete picture yet.
Also, quite unrelated, Leonard Patts checks all the boxes for a red herring. Just saying.
Now, what do you think? Do you have any predictions or theories? Who do you think is suspect?
Lee's Brain Dump 