|
Post by trisha on Mar 22, 2005 13:16:57 GMT -5
Yep, welcome Goreneames I agree with Sirenna on this one, because though incest played a role in this episode, it wasn't the central theme. The episode was focus on Tommy and his narcissistic behavior, which bordered on megalomania. Perhaps knowing a bit (not personally, but from books and classes) about incest helped me find Beatrice a more sympathetic character, but I really don't know how anyone could not see her as a damaged human being. She showed signs right from the start. During the initial interview, even though she was teary-eyed and worried for her husband, she still gave Goren the big doe eyes and focused all her attention on him. Eames had to follow Goren around the kitchen in order to see Beatrice's face when she responded (to Goren) to all their questions. I believe that is where the question was first raised, and other clues followed. There is only so much ground that can be covered with the quality level we have come to expect from this show in just 43 minutes, and when it comes right down to it, I think that the subject was covered as well as it needed to be for it to lend itself to Tommy's M.O. If some of you were hoping for an episode that dealt with incest on a deeper and more involved level, then you may be looking for it on the wrong show. SVU would be much better suited (by design) to handle the subject than CI. I do have some questions about this episode, though. First, what did Tommy do with the body once it was all cut up? Second, was he grinding the bones alone in that meat grinder, or did Beatrice's husband have really small legs? If just the bones, wouldn't he see the pins before he stuck the bone through the grinder?
|
|
|
Post by kissyfit on Mar 22, 2005 16:43:04 GMT -5
"The episode was focus on Tommy and his narcissistic behavior, which bordered on megalomania." this is where I have to part ways with you on this epi, Trisha I don't think the episode was well-focused at all. The issue of the incest was not dealt with well and only clouded the supposedly central motivating factor(Tommy's megalomania); as such, it's necessity to the plot was murky at best. And while I agree SVU might have been a better vehicle for the topic, if LOCI broaches it, then I expect them to do it as WELL as I know they can do. To me, it was as if they chose to open Pandora's box then turned their backs on what flew out, and hoped we wouldn't notice, either... this one was just not up to the standards I am used to on this show. kissy
|
|
|
Post by trisha on Mar 22, 2005 17:14:00 GMT -5
I agree that the episode was not well focused - in the beginning. But, by the time we see the interview with the partner's wife, Tommy had come into focus very clearly, to me at least.
It's a trait of CI, and in all the L&O's in general, to spend the first half misleading the audience while dropping hints about the real culprit the crime and episode truly focus on. Perhaps they went too far by, as you said, opening such a Pandora's box, to draw attention back to what really happened and, more importantly, why.
The question for me is, why is incest such a Pandora's box?
LOCIfan mentioned that there was a lack of transition in Beatrice from abused to abuser, and I think this plays in with some of the misunderstandings about incest and pretty much all types of abuse. Take away the sex from incest and you have a weaker person being dominated and hurt for the pleasure of a stronger person. When the tables are turned, almost all abused will become the abuser. There are exceptions where the abused is so brainwashed by their 'captor' that they will relinquish any power they may gain almost as soon as they get it, and others where the abused will use it to seek escape, often finding a new abuser. For Beatrice, she went with the most popular choice and used her power the same way her abuser did.
Incest is a complicated issue, as are all other forms of abuse, it's just got a salaciousness that the others lack, perhaps keeping many of us from being as repulsed by them as we should be.
|
|
|
Post by LOCIfan on Mar 22, 2005 21:53:49 GMT -5
When the tables are turned, almost all abused will become the abuser. There are exceptions where the abused is so brainwashed by their 'captor' that they will relinquish any power they may gain almost as soon as they get it, and others where the abused will use it to seek escape, often finding a new abuser. For Beatrice, she went with the most popular choice and used her power the same way her abuser did. trisha, is this true? i'm definitely not an expert in the field of abuse -- sexual, physical or verbal/emotional -- but it was my understanding that when sexual abuse is involved, there are many different ways a victim may react and how that person might react to having an opportunity to hurt or overpower the abuser would depend on a combination of factors. i.e. sex abuse victims often react by either avoiding sex or becoming sexually promiscuous. other reactions can also be denial, guilt, minimizing the abusive situation, self-destructive behaviors (like self-mutilating, etc...), severe depression, anxiety, agression, and/or a sense of bravado (as in, "nobody can hurt me"). wouldn't the way an abused person reacts to suddenly weilding power over her abuser depend on her current reaction to the abuse? i mean, i know there are certain situations in which a victim may so identify with the abuser that she wishes to protect him. or, what about situations in which the abused person continues to view the abuser as all-powerful (despite real evidence to the contrary) and would never even consider lashing out at the abuser, but do lash out aggressively at other, weaker individuals? and those are just two examples in addition to the three reactions you noted. i may be completely mistaken, so please correct me if i am. (everything i know about this topic comes from After School Specials, Oprah and tv news magazine shows.) i also can't help wondering why, if B's transition could've been so easily explained, why Goren didn't have a line of dialogue to that effect.
|
|
MelTex
Detective
"I want a Jonny 7 all-in-one gun..."
Posts: 336
|
Post by MelTex on Mar 22, 2005 23:03:01 GMT -5
They never did clarify what happend to the remains of Hubby Josh. Did Tommy maybe throw them in the river, where they found the bike dumped? And I'm guessing, since those industrial meat grinders are made for large animals like cattle to be ground up, maybe it could handle a human femur or such. As to weather Tommy would have seen the pins, either they were obscured by blood and tissue (ew) or if it was down to just bones, maybe he was in a reeealy big hurry and didn't see them. Back to that whole time-frame fiasco. *grin*
|
|
|
Post by Patcat on Mar 22, 2005 23:33:42 GMT -5
I also only know about the effects of incest from what I've read about the subject or seen in films or television programs. It did appear that Beatrice had a good relationship with Josh. Perhaps another element in her reactions to her father was the knowledge that he had killed her husband? Although I would've turned the evidence over to the police to get the slimeball, but, fortunately, I've never been abused in the way Beatrice was.
Patcat
|
|
|
Post by Cassie on Mar 23, 2005 5:57:50 GMT -5
What bothers me about this whole episode is Beatrice. I just find it hard to believe that a young woman in her situation wouldnt up and run away from her abusing father. Let alone work in the same resturant.
|
|
|
Post by Metella on Mar 23, 2005 9:25:58 GMT -5
sometimes the evil you know is more comforting than the evil you don't know ........
Now that is huge issue that goes into domestic battering, emotional abuse etc
|
|
|
Post by trisha on Mar 23, 2005 9:36:19 GMT -5
LOCIfan, my comments were about the abused in general, and their reactions to their abusers. From what I understand, most abused, when given the upper hand the way B was, would wield that power the way they were taught. You are right, there are exceptions, and it does depend on the type/amount of abuse and the relationship to the abuser, but my main point was that there was no need for a transition time. It was possible, even likely, for the transition to take place just as soon as B realized what she had.
|
|
|
Post by LOCIfan on Mar 23, 2005 12:22:49 GMT -5
gotcha trisha. a line of dialogue from Goren to that effect would've gone a long way. especially since this didn't seem like a "typical" case of incest given that the abuse continued into her adulthood, and even after her marriage.
|
|
|
Post by Observer2 on Mar 23, 2005 21:39:51 GMT -5
...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.... ....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.... ....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.... ....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. I keep telling myself I should sit down and shut up; but I made the mistake of coming back and catching up with this thread, so I’m gonna comment. Sirenna, First of all, I want to reassure you that I don’t think anyone here believes you are indirectly (or in any other way) condoning incest. But you do seem to be “...condoning the show’s treatment of the topic of incest.” [emphasis mine] Because they *did* raise the topic – and since they did, I can’t understand your statement that you “...don't see this episode as having anything to do with that.”<br> On the other hand, just because I can’t understand it doesn’t mean it isn’t an accurate reflection of the writers’ perspective. Because I started to say that you can’t bring in such an emotionally charged, explosive issue, and still say the episode doesn’t have anything to do with it. But then I realized that they did something very similar with the cannibalism in Want. So maybe you’re right. Maybe they just used it for shock value, to show how out of control the father was – as though the only thing involved in a father imposing an incestuous relationship on his daughter over a period of years is lack of control of his sexual appetites. If that’s what they meant then it would make Eames’ last line actually make sense. Maybe to them incest is nothing more than another form of gluttony. I would have thought better of Balcer than that; but then, I would never have expected incest, and a victim of incest, to be portrayed the way they were in this episode, either. Perhaps I should have taken the hint when Wallace’s abuse and murder of her own daughter were described purely in terms of sexual jealousy, when in fact violence from a female incest victim against a daughter more often has at least as much to do with projected feelings of guilt and self-loathing. As for your comment that the episode was in part about apathy, I disagree. I saw no apathy either in Beatrice or in Duke’s wife. There are people who fail to report suspected incest out of apathy, but her reasons struck me as much more complex – which would make them, unfortunately, much more common. If the only people who failed to report signs of incest were those who were truly apathetic, very few cases would be left unreported.
|
|
|
Post by Observer2 on Mar 23, 2005 22:11:16 GMT -5
....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.... -Beth Beth, Thank you for bringing up one of the points that should have been included in this episode if they were going to have the victim react in such disturbing and (to the average viewer) incomprehensible ways. Any form of abuse by a parent, even brutal physical abuse, can sometimes become tangled up in a child’s mind with love, because of the child’s deep need to believe that their parents love them. But with sexual abuse, power/powerlessness, pain, emotional suffering, rage and hate almost inevitably become entangled with love – and the need for love – in ways that are difficult for most people to imagine. If they were going to use that kind of twisted relationship in the show, there should have been some attempt to give context to the daughter’s behavior, so the average viewer wouldn’t be left with no way to understand why she didn’t leave when she could have, and chose instead to stay and become abusive in her turn. Television provides few images of victims (much less survivors) of incest, so each one affects viewers disproportionately. When I read a spoiler that indicated this episode involved incest, I assumed it would be handled with the same kind of concern for the portrayal of the victim as we’ve seen in episodes dealing with schizophrenia and Asperger’s. Sadly, that was not the case.
|
|
|
Post by Techguy on Mar 24, 2005 1:00:31 GMT -5
Based on my own initial response to Beatrice's behavior after she was in a position of control over her father, I sure could have used some explanation of her fear or confusion about love and approval. I know I came down pretty hard on the daughter, and I attribute that reaction to lack of information about what was going on to explain or clarify why she did what she did.
What I still don't understand, in light of these latest posts, is why did Beatrice marry Josh in the first place. If as a result of her father's abuse her views about love and approval were distorted or confused, how did she justify to herself that she "loved" Josh enough to want to marry him? If her father's incestuous relationship with her got her all confused about love, what exactly did she feel for Josh, especially considering the abuse continued after the marriage?
I'm asking these questions because, despite the fact that I consider myself someone who can relate to and sympathize with the predicaments of others, I seem to still be missing something as far as understanding where Beatrice is coming from in her relationships with the two most important men in her life--her father who continues to sexually abuse her, and her husband who she married and presumably "loves."
|
|
|
Post by Patcat on Mar 24, 2005 10:48:40 GMT -5
The great weakness of this episode might have been its reliance on incest as the plot twist. As several people have mentioned, it was used rather callously and in a manner that left Beatrice undefined. I wonder if this episode might have worked better if it had been a case of rivalry between the old chef and the young one? Or if Beatrice had not been Tommy's daughter, but an assistant?
Patcat
|
|
|
Post by Metella on Mar 24, 2005 13:36:48 GMT -5
Now that, I think would have worked just as well for the plot and murder AND would have left a more complete feeling. Sometimes, simple is better than to go for the extreme or outlandish. Too bad TV now strives to catch attention like MTV.
Hey, TV worked with regular folks like the cleavers and brady's and bunkers! Good shows can be realistic and still be interesting. (well, I never found the brady's interesting; but they were popular).
|
|