|
Post by Techguy on Mar 14, 2005 17:22:17 GMT -5
The more I think about this episode, without seeing it for a second time, the more I realize there were a few parts--very few--that I enjoyed but overall, the story really didn't come together for me as a cohesive whole.
I still don't completely understand Tommy's motive for murdering the food critic prior to killing his son-in-law Josh. Was it to frame Josh for the critic's killing, or to prevent Josh from finding out the food poisoning was a hoax? I'm leaning toward the idea that Tommy wanted to provoke Josh (I recall an early scene in the set-up when Josh is on the phone and gets very angry) to come down to the restaurant to confront Tommy, which gives Tommy the means and opportunity to kill and butcher Josh. But whatever the motive, the logistics of committting two murders close together in time on the same night and covering his tracks is a bit too unrealistic for me to accept.
Another problem I have is the abrupt turnaround by the daughter to turn the tables on her father and be in position to control him. I feel this puts the daughter in a very unsympathetic light and makes her seem less like an incest victim and more like a greedy manipulator. If she were content to "work up front" in the restaurant, I would be a lot more sympathetic. But having her father turn over complete control of his cooking empire to her is a bit too much and is counter productive to maintaining sympathy for her as a victim.
I also have problems with how Duke's wife treated the suspected abuse of the daughter. No matter how controlling and dangerous Tommy is, Duke's wife had an ethical and moral responsibility to (anonymously) put the authorities wise as to what she knew or suspected Tommy was doing with his daughter.
About how Tommy's daughter turned the tables: it sure seems risky to take the chance of Tommy seeing what she has in her silver box. Given Tommy's lust for her and for control over her, it would have been better to have hidden the screws from Josh's leg implant prior to confronting Tommy.
I'm also confused about what I saw, or rather didn't see, in the scene with the hospital medical report for the serial numbers to the titanium screws. In the closeup of the serial numbers on the screws, the medical report in the background looks blank. Does Eames have the matching numbers or not? I couldn't tell while I was watching, so I'm not sure if it's a function of the quality of my TV picture or not.
I did enjoy how Eames aborted Goren's imbibing with her "We're on duty" remark. And the one with Goren playing with the human model in the Ob-Gyn's office. As an aside, this doctor needs to be brought before a medical review board for allowing his familiarity with Tommy to compromise his medical ethics and violate doctor/patient confidentiality.
I do have reservations about Goren's statement about having worked in a restaurant one summer when he was younger. Considering he's addressing his comment to Tommy, this could be a case of Goren leading on the suspect with a made-up story. So I'm not 100% convinced this aspect of Goren's background has any basis in fact.
The final scene of Goren humiliating Tommy by placing him face down on the butcher table is one of two highlights of this episode for me, but it is too little and too late. The other highlight is the final shot of the wine spilling off the table into the bowl on the floor, which is the perfect add-on to Eames' statement, "Gluttony. Now I know why it made the short list of deadly sins." But again, too little too late.
|
|
|
Post by LOCIfan on Mar 14, 2005 17:51:48 GMT -5
Techguy, I think the purpose of killing the food critic was to frame Josh. If the food critic had lived, Tommy was banking on the fact that she'd have written a bad review of Josh's restaurant (due to the food poisoning). Tommy was wrong, since she decided to give Josh another chance, but Tommy didn't know that. In fact, the only people who did know were Goren and Eames, after her death. The impending bad review was supposed to look like Josh's motive for killing the food critic. I don't think the critic knew the food poisoning was Tommy's doing, so there wouldn't have been any reason for him to kill her to cover that up.
Either way, without a partner in crime (remember, he even used Josh's boots to kick the critic, then had to ditch Josh's bike, grind up the body, eat three meals at three different restaurants) it just doesn't work.
My problem with the scene where Duke's wife reveals the fact that Tommy raped his daughter and that the abuse was ongoing was not so much that Duke's wife was nonchalant about it. I found that repulsive, but not knowing that character, I didn't have expectations that she'd do the right thing or find it shocking, whatever. But I DID expect some kind of negative reaction on the part of Goren and Eames. They both take it all in stride that this was going on and she did nothing to intervene.
All in all, this episode doesn't add up. It's a bunch of bits and pieces that don't fit together as a whole. Even the title, DEATH ROE, is inappropriately jokey. A silly pun that doesn't have anything to do with the meat of the story.
|
|
MelTex
Detective
"I want a Jonny 7 all-in-one gun..."
Posts: 336
|
Post by MelTex on Mar 14, 2005 20:00:53 GMT -5
It looks like lots of us here agree this episode lacked a LOT, and needed work in several areas.
Yea, LOCIfan, I agree about the fact that without a partner, there was no logistical way Tommy could have killed Josh, used his boots to kick the food critic's head in, dumped the bike, and gotten back to the restaraunts.
Unless, Tommy has perfect the art of teleporting (with some help from George Lucas and Stephen Spielberg) Thats the only way that I can think of , that he was able to pull this all off. This had more holes in it, than 1st avenue after the winter snow tire season gets done with it. (actually, I'm taking the remark about the condition of 1st ave in NYC from "Ghostbusters II", when Peter Vankman says, "There are so many holes in 1st ave, we really thought no one would notice.")
Well, we did...in this episode anyway... ;D
|
|
|
Post by LOCIfan on Mar 14, 2005 20:29:53 GMT -5
LOL, Mel! ;D I got this image of Chris Penn racing around in fast forward speed putting on boots, kicking, pulling off boots, eating, grinding up a body, eating, riding the bike out to a road, eating. Too funny!!
|
|
|
Post by kawaiidragonfoe821 on Mar 15, 2005 12:12:50 GMT -5
oh man, i loved this episode!! I liked how the daughter 'got' the person who hurt her for most of her life in the end. i think that she didnt leave b/c he was controling every aspect of her life, she was afraid that if she left, he would probably try to find her (& probably would suceed). It really made me sad to see how his abuse effected her mental state, i'm almost glad that she didnt have kids after all.
|
|
MelTex
Detective
"I want a Jonny 7 all-in-one gun..."
Posts: 336
|
Post by MelTex on Mar 15, 2005 13:03:03 GMT -5
;D *snicker* That is a pretty funny image LOCIfan. Like a fat Speedy Gonzales...a murderous Speedy Gonzales! LOL
|
|
|
Post by bdbrowski on Mar 15, 2005 17:18:27 GMT -5
I agree with most of what has been said about the holes in the episode. I will not repeat them here. I would add that having the critic speak in code, and having Bobby decode it readily, was absurd.
I really liked the fact that Bobby looked so sympathetic and pained in his eyes and face, and looked down and then waived off any effort to get unnecessary, prurient details about the wife's rape. I would like to see that a lot more on tv in general.
I also liked how Bobby enjoyed himself with the food and liquor and the steam. His playful, boyish joy and smile often stand out to me.
I think that the daughter stuck around not just from fear but also from confusion about love and approval which derived from the conflict between the unending need for parental love and approval and the pain and suffering and hatred from the abuse. Remember, this is a girl who responded to the abuse by becoming hypersexual rather than withdrawing.
I tend not to like tv shows about incest because I think they are too pervasive and I conclude they are written too often to titillate or as an easy behavioral explanation. Sorry for being so cynical.
-Beth
|
|
|
Post by twilight on Mar 15, 2005 19:39:25 GMT -5
I did not enjoy this one very much. As LOCIFan said:
I think this is very true. In addition to the limitations imposed by default (i.e. that this is a one hour TV drama,) this episode just didn't cut it for me. There were many gory details, but the ramifications of the acts portrayed weren't explored in depth, which made me feel like they were just being used for shock value. Murdering someone and grinding up their bones is gross, but I suppose it might happen. Incest is a heavy and disturbing topic to take on. To then add these two things together with poisoning a food critic to frame the girl's husband is just TOO MUCH.
After having watched a bunch of old school Law & Order episodes, I've come to the conclusion that if CI has any fault it's that some of the plots are, quite frankly, rather implausible. Naturally, that's part of the appeal; they've got to be tough enough to entertain us for a whole hour and leave us pondering the psychological motivations of the characters. Whereas the original Law & Order can add complexity by discussing the ethics involved in police procedure and/or the courtroom, Criminal Intent revolves around the psychology (or rather psychopathology) of the criminals and how it is that the detectives (Goren especially) profile them and then track them down. This means that the criminals can't just be any old guys, so to speak. There has to be something about the crime that's puzzling, facinating. It'd be entirely anticlimatic if it jsut turned out to be some simple, careless or random act of violence in CI. In the original flavor that's fine, because other elements can still be brought in.
Subsequently, CI crimes tend to be weirder and more complex. Sometimes the show pulls the off admirably; when it does the result is excellent. But if the plots are either too bizarre (like that one about the apartment building) or too sensationalized, I for one don't really enjoy it much. So far the former problem has been more common. I really do hope the latter won't start to become more prevalent. That'd be really disappointing.
Anyway. Sorry for the long somewhat rambling post. I haven't been around much due to exams etc. but I really enjoy reading and posting here when I have a chance!
|
|
|
Post by Sirenna on Mar 19, 2005 16:32:33 GMT -5
I will say I liked this episode for several reasons.
I can appreciate that the motivation - incest - fuelling the crimes the father and daughter and partner's wife committed is a difficult subject to explore in a one-hour crime drama fiction either realistically or at any deeper level than dissatisfyingly superficial.
So they didn't.
Instead the writer's, actors and director's focussed on what the show was about - solving a crime and, yes, exposing the bad guys.
I saw Eames as a strong woman protecting another woman when she placed herself between the ogre and the child,unflinchinly staring him down. She made the completely opposite choice in the dilemma that the partner's wife faced when she suspected abuse but let it continue.
I also liked the final scene. It illustrated one of the themes, for me, which was control very adeptly and I definately saw that Goren 'got' his ogre in many ways. Mentally by pushing, without ever touching they guy, into a corner as the interview progressed. Mentally again as he, once and for all, broke the control he had over his daughter.
Finally, and very satisfyingly, Goren dominated this bully phycially, as begtodiffer mentioned, humiliating him physically. Enjoying seeing bully beaten does not make me a better person. However i did enjoy this. Revenge has two faces. If this were not true, guilt and innocence would not be so hard to judge.
|
|
|
Post by goreneames on Mar 19, 2005 21:46:59 GMT -5
sirennah,
I posted about this over on the Universal Board in response to your similar post in that forum, and wanted to cross-post it here.
I disagree that the show didn't address/explore the issue of incest. Story-wise, incest was Tommy's motive for a double homicide. Character-wise, incest was essential to the portrayals of both the abuser and his victim, the two most important characters in the story (other than our heroes). And, the show certainly addressed/explored incest enough to use the shock value of an adult, married daughter continuing to be raped by her father as a plot twist designed to appeal (as a story, not a practice) to viewers.
Incest is already extremely misunderstood by a lot of people, and the fact that many viewers ended up (according to what I've read here and on other boards) finding Beatrice a strange and/or unsympathetic character perpetuated the misunderstandings.
Without any explanation by Goren, an expert on damaged psyches, as to how Beatrice's behavior was warped and molded by the incest she suffered, the issue was trivialized, imo.
It's true that incest is a difficult topic to cover fully in a 43 minute show. But that's also true about a lot of the psychological pathologies covered on CI.
Yet the show consistently provides accurate and insightful information about the nature and impact of disorders as varied and nuanced as attachment disorder, bi-polar disorder, psychotic paranoia, etc... in the time it takes to tell an interesting story.
I'd contrast this episode to MAGNIFICAT, where the husband's controlling nature and willful neglect of his wife's severe depressive disorder was the central relationship of the episode. The dynamic between those characters was illuminated extremely well. I understood how her husband's behavior impacted the wife, and therefore understood her actions in the context of the story.
In EOSPHOROS, we also got to see a pathological relationship between the grandaughter of the famous atheist and her con-artist/massage therapist boyfriend. Given the grand-daughter's issues with abandonment, self-esteem and body image, the dynamic between her and the manipulative boyfriend made her actions understandable.
Heck, the show even managed to make the Jeffrey Dhameresque character in WANT seem like the whole of his psychological parts rather than just a nutcase cannibal.
None of the pathologies the show deals with are simple, yet there is typically more of an effort made in the writing to allow Goren to do what he does so well, that is, shed light on why characters act as they do.
The fact that the writers didn't do that in DEATH ROE, combined with the reality that incest isn't just not understood, but is actively MISunderstood by so many just makes it worse.
I expect more from Criminal Intent, because they're capable of doing more. If the writers didn't want to address or explore incest, they didn't have to. They could've told a different story.
|
|
|
Post by Metella on Mar 20, 2005 7:32:35 GMT -5
Incest is already extremely misunderstood by a lot of people, and the fact that many viewers ended up (according to what I've read here and on other boards) finding Beatrice a strange and/or unsympathetic character perpetuated the misunderstandings. First, welcome to our board. Whether I agree or not with most of your post, I wanted to make clear that I am aware of many of the dynamics that go into this situation, I have "book learning" about this issue and personal learning about other abusive personal dynamics. DISPITE my knowledge of this & the many ways a victim may react - I was left unsympathetic to this female character AND to the wife. With my understanding AND sympathy to victims; and still my being a bit unmoved by this character; I can only imagine what others who have no background in this may be picking up & frankly, it is NOT a message I want people with only a passing knowledge of abuse to be soaking in. Not at all. So I am very disappointed in this epidsode for some different and some of the same reasons as you listed in your whole post. Sirenna, I usually agree with you about 98.9% - so this episode is at least interesting in the fact that we have such different feelings about it.
|
|
|
Post by Sirenna on Mar 20, 2005 18:57:09 GMT -5
There are definately two points, and probably more, here. Mine is that the focus of the show was about revenge, control and apathy, not directly about incest and its effects although incest was used as the reason behind these things. This is why the episode is nothing like POI or Great Barrier or Anti-thesis - far from it. And it is also why, as some posters have pointed out, this episode seemed to fall short of a thorough journey into the mind of an incestuous father and his victim.
I knew I'd face some resistance even for saying I liked the show since it seems like indirectly condoning the show's treatment of the topic of incest. Which, (do I even have to say?) I don't.
Whether or not beatrice is a sympathetic figure is irrelevant to me. Harsh as that seems. Just because someone is a victim of, well, anything, does not mean they are a good person. Whether Beatrice's blackmail of her father makes her a bad person is also sort of irrelevant to me but it is very interesting to me in the sense that it poses a lot of questions on innocence, evil, justice and so on.
Please notice I have not, in this post, talked about my feelings on the issue of incest (also irrelevant as this post is about what I see as the themes of this episode) and please understand that I know this is an extremely personal and sensitive issue with posters here, as well the worst crime against children in the world. But I just don't see this episode as having anything to do with that.
|
|
|
Post by Sirenna on Mar 20, 2005 19:58:46 GMT -5
Sirenna, I usually agree with you about 98.9%. 98.9?! Why not 98.5 or 97.9? I would have guessed 9.98% so I'm both flattered and shocked.
|
|
|
Post by goreneames on Mar 20, 2005 22:50:27 GMT -5
Thanks for the welcome, Metella. Sirenna, I would never suggest your enjoyment of this episode suggests anything about your attitude toward incest! But we do differ in how we experienced the story. To me, DEATH ROE was much more about incest than POI, ANTI-THESIS and GREAT BARRIER. Incest was relevant in the Nicole episodes because it’s part of Nicole’s backstory, but current, ongoing incest wasn’t intrinsic to the murders in those shows. I’d describe POI and GB as being much more about revenge and control than about incest. The murders are Nicole’s way of controlling and getting back at Goren. But DEATH ROE is more immediately about incest. Tommy murders people so that he can continue to rape his daughter. The incest is the basis for the daughter’s desire for revenge, the manner in which Tommy asserts control over her and the thing about which other characters are apathetic. I agree with you that just because someone has been victimized doesn’t mean they’re a good person. My problem with Beatrice’s portrayal wasn’t that she was or wasn’t a good person, but that the story didn’t provide me with the information I needed in order to empathize with or understand her behavior. She’s presented as immature, regressed and unemotional about her husband’s death. Then she turns on a dime into a kind of giddy, illogical, sadist. Goren isn’t given an opportunity to shed light on the pathological dynamic of her relationship with her father. So it came off, to me, as cartoonish and ridiculous. MAYBE I could’ve overlooked all that if the rest of the plot had hung together just as a murder mystery, but it didn’t – for all the reasons other posters have stated. I guess we saw this ep in very different ways...
|
|
|
Post by LOCIfan on Mar 21, 2005 23:30:03 GMT -5
Welcome to the board, goreneames! I was extremely disappointed in this episode, and agree with much of your post -- especially the comparison of DEATH ROE and MAGNIFICAT.
|
|