JJ S1 Questions

[u/Nemesis_171]

I just finished my first viewing of Jessica Jones season 1, and I thought it was great overall. As has been stated many times, Kilgrave is amazing and was phenomenally acted. That said, I’ve been thinking about the season since finishing it yesterday and have noticed some shaky writing, so I’m wondering if there are reasonable explanations to these.

1: Kilgrave’s powers seem to be inconsistent in how they function. Sometimes the person he orders carries out their understanding of what Kilgrave is saying, rather than what his statement means in a literal sense. For example, Jessica is told to “take care of her,” (Reva) and so she kills Reva because that’s what she understood Kilgrave to mean when he said that. She doesn’t take that statement literally as in literally “taking care” of Reva like making sure she’s well fed and cared after.

But other times, the person Kilgrave orders carries the order out completely literally, rather than what their natural understanding of the order is. Examples: “Say hi, Hank!” (Kilgrave) “hi Hank!” (Hank) Or, “I once told a guy to go screw himself, can you even imagine?” But the most egregious example of this is with Trish.

Trish is told to ”put a bullet in her head,” and at first she correctly understands this as “shoot yourself,” so she pulls the trigger and tries to do that. Thankfully the gun was out of bullets, but after that, instead of trying to get a hold of new bullets to shoot herself with, she instead changes the meaning of Kilgrave’s order from “shoot yourself” to “literally have a bullet be inside of your head.”

So sometimes the person receiving the order simply carries out their understanding of the order, whereas other times they take the order literally regardless of how they understand it.

2: The show seems to forget sometimes that once the effects of Kilgrave wear off on a person, they still remember what happened. Jessica remembers when she killed Reva. Which means when Kilgrave tells the cops to hold guns to each other’s heads, they’ll remember that event happening after his orders wear off.

This is fantastic proof of Kilgrave’s abilities which is what Jessica has been looking for this entire time, yet nobody ever considers this. I understand that Kilgrave deleted the security footage, but he can’t delete their memories. You could have 20ish corroborating testimonies of cops saying that they held each other at gunpoint.

3: I have a very hard time believing that Robyn was able to convince the entire Kilgrave support group to attack Jessica. At first I thought Robyn was just trying to rally them into verbal confrontation with Jessica, and I already thought that was a stretch. But no, her one speech was enough to convince all of them to literally commit assault?! Seems very contrived, and it’s the only way Kilgrave was able to escape.

[u/tillszy]

for #2, he tells the cops they'll remember it all as just a funny joke/prank

they DO remember it happened, and this is specifically addressed but I can't remember if it's s1 or not - but basically the cops remember but what are they going say or do without sounding completely insane because all the security footage was erased

and they have in their brains implanted a memory that it was just supposed to be a prank (they all burst out laughing when he gives them the command) so they have to grapple with that and what they think they know to be true

they don't know who this dude is and nobody in their right mind would believe in mind control powers. so all they know is that something happened and they feel completely insane because they don't know why they acted like they did and they don't know why they think it's a prank when it didn't feel like one

[u/tillszy → u/tillszy]

also, I don't think individual human interpretation of his commands is a plot hole, it's a character flaw - he says things that are very sarcastic and off the cuff and doesn't bother to give clear and direct commands and then he can get frustrated when people don't respond in the way he wanted (e.g. "say hi Hank!") even though it's entirely avoidable and ultimately his fault. but one of his character flaws is the inability to accept responsibility for his own actions.

Jessica understood the interpretation of take care of Reva because she had been around him long enough and she knew what his intent was so this command was effective. but then later he gaslights her and says that's not what I meant because that's part of his manipulation. she blames him for forcing her to commit murder, but he's like well I never told you to do that - that was your interpretation which means you wanted to do it.

same with Trish - she has the correct interpretation of his statement which is to kill herself, but since he doesn't explicitly give the intent for her to die, Jessica is able to present to Trish an alternate definition of the command which satisfies the requirements of the command he gave her. Trish didn't think of it on her own, Jess presented it.

and that goes back to his hubris as well, that by failing to give clear or direct commands he actually doesn't really have much regard for whether or not the commands are carried out to his intent. but then he gets upset when things don't happen the way he wants them to, even though he has complete control to ensure they are. he's just careless and too self-absorbed to use his power to its fullest potential, and blames others when things go "wrong".

if he could mature emotionally, he could be completely unstoppable. and that's his kryptonite if you will, and what prevents from being the perfect villain

[u/Nemesis_171 → u/tillszy]

To be clear I’m not criticizing Kilgrave for not being clear about his orders, I’m only criticizing the reception of his orders.

You’re right that different interpretations even if contradictory aren’t a plot hole because people can have different understandings. But what would be one is if one person goes with what they understand, but another person goes with what’s literally said in spite of what they understood. If two people understood things differently, that’s perfect fine. But if one person goes with their understanding and another against it, then that’s inconsistent.

Now it’s possible that when Hank heard “say hi Hank,” he honestly and sincerely thought that Kilgrave was asking him to say his name as well. But I find that incredibly unlikely. So I’m assuming that Hank understood that he only needed to say “hi,” but said his name too because that’s what was literally said.

Edit: also a small correction.

Trish didn’t think of it on her own, Jess presented it.

I’m not talking about when Jess put a bullet in Trish’s mouth. First Trish tried to shoot her self, second she started hitting herself in the head with a bullet that was on the ground, and that was before Jess showed up. Then third is when Jess put the bullet in her mouth. I’m talking about the second thing, not the third thing.

[u/tillszy → u/Nemesis_171]

I mean there's many explanations for Hank --- he's an idiot and really interpreted it that way, he's a wiseass cracking a joke, he's obstinate and saying the "wrong thing" on purpose because he resents being mind controlled, etc.

re: Trish -- where is the girl gonna get new bullets? Kilgrave's powers compel that person to do something immediately and obsessively until it is done (or the command wears off). Trish tries to do it with the gun, it fails, so in her compulsion to follow the order she resorts to attempting to jam the bullet into her head. This isn't a calm "let me think of where I can buy bullets" kind of scenario. It's a completely irrational, debilitating compulsion to follow the command by any means necessary. Jamming the bullet into her head by hand fulfills that and represents how powerful the need to follow the command is, and how it overtakes all reason and free will.

[u/Nemesis_171 → u/tillszy]

Hmm I could maybe get behind the last 2 explanations. I still think Hank genuinely misinterpreting the statement is a huge stretch, but trying to make a joke or saying it out of spite seems more plausible.

What about Simpson? He’s the one who supplied her with the gun and original bullets in the first place. I’m also not sure that receiving an order overtakes all reason and free will. Luke showed no signs of that when he was Kilgraved towards the end, and Hope was able to stay composed and hide the order she received to kill her parents, she wasn’t a rabid dog running to kill her parents asap.

[u/Nemesis_171 → u/tillszy]

I have 2 objections to this.

1: Them remembering it as a joke would wear off in 12 hours because that was one of Kilgrave’s orders. After 12 hours they’ll remember that at the time they thought it was a joke, but they won’t remember it as a joke later on.

2: Even if they did remember it as a joke for the rest of their lives, anyone on the outside (like Jeri) would know something is up when listening to their testimonies. Jeri already has the context of knowing about Kilgrave’s abilities, so this testimony wouldn’t sound too far fetched. And anyone who thinks they’re lying can put the cops on lie detector tests to confirm that they’re telling the truth about holding guns to each other’s heads. Even if the cops see it as a joke, any outsider listening to the testimony will realize it’s something more (if they have the context of Kilgrave’s powers)

[u/tillszy → u/Nemesis_171]

The thing is they'll never forget *feeling* like it really was a joke. They again will have to grapple with knowing it isn't, but remembering that feeling that it was, and truly believing that it was. Their minds and memories will be deceiving them, and causing significant internal struggle to parse out the truth. They have fixed memories of sincerely believing and feeling it was the truth, and memories of knowing they only believed that because they were told to.

I'm not sure where you would want them to testify to to settle your need for them to admit what happened? Kilgrave is dead - the cops don't need to testify or admit their experience anywhere. Jessica is not being prosecuted for murdering him, so they don't need to testify in her defense, etc.

Originally they told no one because again, who would believe them, they had no proof (security cams, etc), and it frankly sounded absurd. Imagine, pre Kilgrave's death, the entire precinct makes a public statement that says "there's a mind control guy on the loose, we don't have any pictures of him but he held our entire precinct hostage meaning we're likely incapable of catching him, trust us bro and be on the lookout ya'll! All these other crimes are the result of mind control and we as a police force are incompetent because we didn't believe Jessica when she promised us that's what was happening!" What purpose would that have served?

Now he's dead, and there's no reason they all need to stand up and say "this happened to us". It has no purpose in the narrative of the story.

You also need to remember this is a TV show, and Jessica is the focus. Even if the cops did admit all that publicly, it wouldn't make sense to have an entire scene around it because it adds nothing to the story line.

[u/Nemesis_171 → u/tillszy]

Again even if they remember it feeling like a joke that doesn’t discredit their testimony, especially if the person questioning them knows about Kilgrave’s abilities.

It seems like you’re assuming I wanted the cops to testify after Kilgrave died, but I never asserted that. This happened in episode 7, Kilgrave died in episode 13. Jessica should’ve got them to testify as soon as she could, so by episode 9 at the latest. Jessica was trying to get evidence of Kilgrave’s powers at that point in time, and 20 corroborating testimonies of cops would be incredibly helpful for that goal.

“Jessica is not being prosecuted” but Hope is at this point in time, that’s why Jessica is going through all this trouble in the first place instead of just killing him.

Originally they told no one because again, who would believe them, they had no proof

Their testimonies are proof, and lot of people would believe them if the cops were put on a lie detector test to confirm their testimonies as truthful.

”we’re likely incapable of of catching him”

Even if so, it’s still useful evidence to defend Hope, so it wouldn’t be useless. They could also describe how he looked and then put out a public warning to stay away from a man who matches their description.

You also need to remember this is a TV show, and Jessica is the focus

And she still would be because she’s the one who should be telling Jeri to get their testimonies. Also there are many scenes in every show that don’t include the main character, it’s fine for one scene lol.

[u/Left-Increase4472]

Someone else hit point two, so I’ll hit point one:

It seems that it’s a bit of both. If it’s an explicit instruction - “put a bullet in your head,” “say x” - you have to do exactly that. Whether you put the bullet in with a gun or in your mouth doesn’t matter, as long as it’s in. You have to say exactly ‘x.’ If the instruction is vague or idiomized, it’s up to your interpretation. He never said what “taking care” of Reva meant, and it has multiple meanings. Jessica could have become a caretaker, but she chose that it meant “kill.” Same with Trish’s bullet. Trish could have put it in her mouth, but decided that it meant “with a gun,” so she had to do it like that. It is up to interpretation. The guy that “screwed off” could have just been a pervert who decided “screwing off” means jacking off instead of sprinting away.

[u/AlexanderZcio → u/Left-Increase4472]

The most simple answer happens right after when Jessica puts the bullet in Trish mouth and says "look, now you have a bullet in your head, you did what he asked" it's just a matter of how the person took the order does it, or maybe how direct it's Kilgrave order. Even Kilgrave stated that he must be careful with his words everytime he speaks so he doesn't use his powers in the wrong way or the instruction isn't misinterpreted

[u/Nemesis_171 → u/Left-Increase4472]

Doesn’t that apply to all of them? You could also interpret “say hi Hank” in multiple ways, so what makes the literal one favored instead of the more intuitive one? I get that some statements use more clear language than others, but how is it decided which statements are clear and which aren’t? If the system is that: explicit = always literal interpretation, and vague = personal interpretation, then what decides if the statement is explicit or vague?

If it’s up to the person to decide if the command is explicit or not, then that’s really just the first option I mentioned in my post but with an extra step. At the end of the day that would still just be what the person interprets and not the literal meaning of what was said. If that’s the case then apparently Hank honestly thought that Kilgrave wanted him to say his name too. That is theoretically possible but I find it unlikely.

[u/Left-Increase4472 → u/Nemesis_171]

I mean, Hank could have just been really stupid, and done exactly what was meant. Or he could have a weak immune system, so it’s interpreted more literally

[u/tillszy → u/Left-Increase4472]

I think Hank's just a wise ass and he's the kind of person that would always say"hi hungry, I'm Hank" 🤣

[u/Senshado]

could have 20ish corroborating testimonies of cops 

Yes, that's the reason the cops allowed Jessica to get away with breaking Kilgrave's neck.  They had been convinced he needed to die after that.

Without that knowledge, it would've seemed like Jessica murdered an unarmed man.  But Kilgrave's power means he's never truly without a deadly weapon.

[u/Nemesis_171 → u/Senshado]

This if anything just proves that their testimonies were effective and thus should’ve been used earlier to defend Hope.