|
Post by trisha on Mar 24, 2005 14:18:12 GMT -5
You think the Cleaver's and Brady's were realistic? The Bunkers, I'll give you
|
|
|
Post by Metella on Mar 24, 2005 15:34:11 GMT -5
awe - not really REALLY; but my point is that they were entertaining & sometimes even interesting and funny without having to delve into gore/shock/extreme stuff that some shows seem to rely on (CSI!)
CI rarely does that, they may take an unusual topic; but they usually give it plenty of attention, not just shock & run.
|
|
|
Post by Sirenna on Mar 24, 2005 21:34:45 GMT -5
Sirenna, 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> 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. 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. It's the maybe I'm right part in your post that bothers me here. Because I certainly don't think incest was used for shock value here and no where in my post do I say this. (I think cannibalism in Want was though.) I'm honestly not condoning nor condemning LOCI's treatment of incest as the motive and, believe me, I would if I saw it that way. In this episode, I see incest as a plot device not as the plot. (There is no way to explain what I mean wrt the literary methods used to further the story without sounding as though I'm writing off the entire topic of incest out of hand.)
I also, don't agree with you that simply because they chose to include incest as the motivation, the writers were honour-bound, or obligated, in any way whatsoever to focus on that element. Nor do I think that by using it without expanding on it, were the writer's neglectful or dismissive. 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. This was the interesting part of the episode for me. I saw the partner's wife as very apathetic, if not outright selfish for not going to bat for the daughter when she obviously strongly suspected, if not knew, she was being assaulted. This is only because She was different from the daughter for all her life right up to the point at which she was raped by him. Then both women seemed to become the same type of character: passively vengeful.
Was this episode about gluttony, an appetite out of control? I've never said so. I think it's about power and being in control. But I do think the senses played an allegorical role in this episode: Food, sex, control gluttony do illustrate that there is pleasure in harmful things.
Sex is a form of power and a form of abuse and it's a form of love and love can be controlling even when it's healthy. Abuse can feel pleasurable and offer rewards - that's what messes abused kids up the most, I'd imagine. The most interesting, but sickest line, in the episode was when the father said "children ruin everthing" because his kid felt so betrayed. Her father controlled her by holding his fatherly love over her head. She wanted this so badly, especially as she had no mother, that she endured being abused. That and he probably told her the abuse was an expression of his love for her. Humans will do anything for love, I think, even to the point of destroying ourselves. She thought her father loved her. It was only when she realised he really always hated her and he'd lied to her did Goren's words finally register with her and she turned on him for good.
O.T. Thank you for your open-minded understanding with respect to the position I've taken in this debate, Observer.Incidentally, I have never been in this predicament. My understandin (or lack of it) comes from reading the newspaper and books.
|
|
|
Post by Observer2 on Mar 25, 2005 12:04:18 GMT -5
...Thank you for your open-minded understanding with respect to the position I've taken in this debate, Observer. No problem. I know you have no ill will, and I can understand how someone not directly affected might see it differently than I do. I also, don't agree with you that simply because they chose to include incest as the motivation, the writers were honour-bound, or obligated, in any way whatsoever to focus on that element. Nor do I think that by using it without expanding on it, were the writer's neglectful or dismissive. Were they honor-bound, or obligated? I guess I have to admit that I’m feeling too hurt by this whole thing to be really objective about that. All I know is that the one time they’ve portrayed a victim of incest they gave the viewers some vivid, memorable images of her being really nasty and vindictive – and they didn’t bother to give any explanation or context for that. They seemed to care less about evoking empathy and understanding for a victim of incest than for a cannibal who accidentally killed someone while trying to turn them into a sex zombie. You know? The general public is already creeped out by incest – and by victims of incest. Even with kids as young as eight or nine you hear questions like, “Well, why didn’t she tell her mother? Or a teacher?” If it continues into puberty, or if, as in this episode, it starts then, you hear, “Why didn’t she just tell him to stop? Why didn’t she call the police? Why didn’t she run away?” And this episode just reinforced all that. And the fact that they implied that the abuse continued into full adulthood just made it creepier. Even I had to work to understand how that could happen. And they gave no explanation. No context. Were they honor-bound, or obligated to? Hell, I don’t know. Now is not a good time to ask me that. Try me some other lifetime.
|
|
|
Post by LOCIfan on Mar 25, 2005 17:28:41 GMT -5
Observer, thanks for sharing your perspective on this topic. It can't be easy given that it's so personal. Thanks also to Sirenna. It's good to know we can have an honest, civil debate about such an emotional issue.
I wouldn't go so far as to say that Crim Intent was "honor-bound" to focus on the incest dynamic, or that the writers were neglectful or dismissive of incest just because it's INCEST.
But, as a viewer of the series, I've come to expect a certain examination of and insight into the various pathologies and pathological relationships presented. I didn't get that here, and yeah, I felt cheated. Holding a twisted father/daughter relationship like Tommy/Beatrice's up to the light is what LOCI and Goren do best.
Not only did the show NOT do that, the bloody plot doesn't even hang together. The result appears sloppy and half-assed. It's only my opinion, I know, but this was by far the worst episode of Criminal Intent I've seen -- and I've seen 'em all.
|
|
|
Post by missymagoshi on Mar 27, 2005 9:59:49 GMT -5
I finally got a chance to see this ep last night. Yuck. I agree with mostly everyone's comments re: the incest issue, which seemed to me not to have been well enough researched, or at least not in the way I've come to expect from CI. The daughter's behavior just didn't seem believable. The fact that her husband was DEAD and that she knew it from the beginning played ridiculously. If her father really had that kind of hold on her AND she knew that he MURDERED her husband I would expect to see a much more emotionally intense episode. The plot was convoluted and disjointed and easily forgettable. And I wholly disagree with BegtoDiffer's earlier comment about the bending of Tommy over the table to show humiliation. It seemed to me to be the most convenient place for Goren in the moment to brace Tommy to get the handcuffs on. On the plus side, I thought Goren and Eames were terrific in this ep. Eames was particularly tough. Especially when she took the keys from the ignition to impound the car.
|
|
|
Post by Observer2 on Mar 27, 2005 13:16:35 GMT -5
...the focus of the show was... ...not directly about incest and its effects...
...I just don't see this episode as having anything to do with that. ...In this episode, I see incest as a plot device not as the plot. (There is no way to explain what I mean wrt the literary methods used to further the story without sounding as though I'm writing off the entire topic of incest out of hand.) Having watched the USA replay of this episode last night, I have to say that I think you are right. Incest was not meant to be central to this episode. It was, as you say, a plot device. ...Whether or not beatrice is a sympathetic figure is irrelevant to me. Harsh as that seems. Again, I think you’re right. Her purpose in the episode was to help illustrate the depravity of her father, and provide the detectives with someone who could be manipulated into providing the evidence, since her father was not going to be manipulated into confessing, even by Goren. She was a plot device. The fact that the things that made her useful as a plot device also made her a very unsympathetic figure was entirely irrelevant to the writers. I also, don't agree with you that simply because they chose to include incest as the motivation, the writers were honour-bound, or obligated, in any way whatsoever to focus on that element. Nor do I think that by using it without expanding on it, were the writer's neglectful or dismissive. I’m not going to argue that the writers were honor-bound or obligated to give any explanation or context for Beatrice’s behavior. Whether they were neglectful depends on what they thought about when they were putting the show together, and we have no way of knowing that. But they were certainly dismissive. Incest is in an entirely different realm than gluttony. Entirely. Different. Realm. Even when they occur in the same person. No matter how strong someone’s appetites are, including sexual appetites, the ability to de-humanize one’s own child to the point of using her as a sex object requires impairment and/or breakdown on levels that are orders of magnitude different from mere gluttony. So yes, they were dismissive. But more to the point, a few lines from Goren could have at least given the average viewer some way of understanding Beatrice and seeing her in a less negative way. That was not done. Were they obligated to do that? That’s an interesting question. They could have helped shift some of their average viewers’ negative perspectives on incest victims towards more understanding. They had the perfect vehicle (Goren) to do that, yet they chose not to. Instead, they ended up evoking negative reactions towards Beatrice even from people like Metella and Techguy. So I guess the question of obligation is moot. They did what they did. I don’t have to like it. The actors did the best they could with what they were given, showing their own understanding of and reactions to the issue, which is why my initial, emotional response to watching the episode was positive. But I remain confused and disappointed by the treatment of the subject in the script. What I would like to believe is that perhaps, working in an environment where there is so much psychological understanding, the writers may actually have lost touch with how incomprehensible and even complicit all but the youngest and most obviously helpless victims of incest seem to the general public. Perhaps the writers assumed that knowing she was a victim of incest was all the explanation and context anyone would need. In any case, Sirenna, again, I don’t have any problem with you personally for holding a different view. In fact, I’ve come to agree with you on most points about this episode. Just not on whether it’s appropriate to use incest as a plot device without giving some explanation and context for the victim’s behavior.
|
|
|
Post by NicoleMarie on Mar 27, 2005 14:40:58 GMT -5
I missed this one the first time around. Thank God for repeats!
I think if CI had duelved too much into the incest, it would've been a SVU show. I think they chose not to duelve into the incest on purpose but the reason is beyond me.
I seen Beatrice as sympathetic. I kept hoping SHE could find a way to get ar her dad for the abuse, and by finding the screws, she did. And I agreed with Deakins "Playing chicken with a double murderer is not smart". Beatrice never stopped to think her father would eventually turn on her, that she didn't have as much power over her dad as she thought she had. And her her terror when she thought the screws were useless made her realize how deep she was in.
I don't think the incest was a plot "device". I think it was part of the "whydunnit". "Device" has a negative connotation to me, as if to undermine in some way the underlying storyline to focus on the murders- the main storyline. I don't think CI meant to do this. I think the incest was supposed to be in the back, not the forefronts of our minds. It just didn't work out that way.
I read on another board someone questioned whether or not Beatrice was arrested too. I don't think she was because I think the officer was helping her away because she was frozen. And her dad kinda lunged at her, and Goren slammed him on the table away from her. So, I think they were protecting her instead of arresting her.
|
|
|
Post by Metella on Mar 27, 2005 15:10:39 GMT -5
I doubt any real or tv cop would have arrested B for blackmail; her abilty to get off the charge with an even 1/2 way competent lawyer would have made that a waste of time.
While I think Sirenna is correct in her take on this episode; and I don't see Sirenna is saying this is an A+ episode so this is not disagreeing with her; I am inclined to think that just the one sentance or two from Goren could have softened the Bea image considerably. The only favorable take is the one that the writers are so fundamentally empathetic to incest victims that they have lost touch the uneducated/unexperienced majority out there in regards to this topic & didn't realize how Bea would come across.
The wife? no excuse for not taking SOME kind of action. end-o-story.
? oh well, chalk this one up to a CI episode I may not watch again; it has not turned me off the series, but is a stand alone at the bottom of the episode pile. Le-Yucko
|
|
|
Post by Techguy on Mar 27, 2005 16:34:11 GMT -5
Usually when I watch a CI rerun, I come away with new insights to either maintain my prior stance or soften my prior position to a more favorable opinion.
This episode had just the opposite effect on me. I was lukewarm at first with mostly problems accepting the logistics of Tommy committing a double murder in so short a period of time. I was hoping to have a fresh look at Beatrice and her motives and reactions to her father's incest and murder of her husband Josh.
I don't know if this is a gender-related reaction or not, but a second viewing made me feel creepy, dirty, and--dare I say this--violated. Violated because knowing how this episode would play out, I paid closer attention to the hints and clues along the way.
My initial response to the subject of incest was that I was disappointed at not getting more information about how incest victims behave. I felt this would have tempered my reaction to Beatrice's behavior. I did not feel the anger then that I most definitely feel now.
I'm angry because I've concluded this episode wasn't just incomplete, it was extremely offensive. It used the emotionally charged issue of incest purely to provide a lynchpin for Tommy's out of control appetites without regard for how viewers like me, with little or no psych background, would react and respond to the portrayal of the characters, most especially the incest victim.
This episode should have emphasized Tommy's enormous ego and jealousy of a rival chef as the motive behind his son-in-law's murder and left the subject of incest to a show that is better prepared to deal with it in a more sensitive manner. "Death Roe" is the first episode I can recall where I felt worse, and reacted much more negatively, on second viewing than when I watched the first time.
Too bad I already voted in the poll for this episode, or my vote would have been a lot lower and more negative.
|
|
|
Post by Sirenna on Mar 27, 2005 18:36:44 GMT -5
Wow! This is why I always keeping coming back to this site. I always learn something new from everyone here!
Beatrice seems to have generated a wealth of emotion from posters here judging by the number of posts about her. I found her an extremely torn and sympathetic figure. Her mother, the only person to ever stand protectively between her and her hulk of a father, is dead. (How, why is another LO:ci mystery.) Everyone else in her life, with the exception of her husband stood by and watched as the wolf ate her. Of course she couldn't run away. I wouldn't expect a child whose food, shelter, parental, emotional needs came solely from the monster, her father, to behave any other way.
How incredibly brave and resourceful of her (and others who have faced this traumatic childhood) to find ways to survive each day, and even thrive, an endlessly occuring nightmare that, should it happen just once, would fell any of us! (She not only survived but thrived. She was happily married to someone who accepted her past and would have founded a family if not for her father's crimes. Adults from happy families often can't say they accomplished as much.) This is one of the main reasons why I think this episode was such a good illustration of control and powerlessness.
Tommy was never always brutal because then she would have run away. The crime here is that he confused her by fooling her, and everyone else into overlooking his monstrosity, becuase he held out a prize. For his partner and, by association, his partner;s wife, it was money and community respect they got by aligning themselves with him. They ignored their moral obligations to Beatrice which, incidentally, Goren, the moral voice in this story, pointed out to the wife. For Beatrice, it was because he was her father, the only parent she had left and the only person who would look after her (albeit with an extremly, egregiously high price). The only person left that she loved and who said he loved her. As I write that last sentence, even though I'm referring to her need to love her dad as an only child needs to love their only parent, I realise how sick and twisted it sounds. That's the beauty and the pain of this episde. The good and the bad, the pleasure and the pain is all so so twisted up and inextricably tangled together.
The plot inconsistencies have been an aspect of almost every LO:CI episode, especially so it seems in season four. I never need to ignore them because they really don't register with me as long as they still stay on the planet Earth, which admittedly is getting further and further away this season. I don't really care why the lawyer didn't stop Goren's interview or anything similar. It's the art behind the episode not the logistics that entertain me as I watch. When the episdoes generate a level of discussion this high, I consider it art and a job well-done.
But harrowing to watch.
|
|
|
Post by Observer2 on Mar 28, 2005 19:22:34 GMT -5
What is the purpose of art?
Perhaps its different for different people.
For me, the purpose of art is to express truth that cannot be expressed in any other way. The artist is driven to express their inner sense of something, and art is the result.
So perhaps on the level of pure expression, this was a successful episode.
But while expression is sometimes enough for the emotional needs of the artist, communication of some inner truth is what makes art recognizable as such to someone else.
On that level, I think this episode mostly failed.
Incest is not a form of gluttony. It’s an expression of a profoundly deeper level of impairment and/or sickness. If that truth was meant to be included in the use of incest as a plot device, it failed to be communicated.
Not only did that fail to be communicated, but something else, more negative, was communicated in its place. The depiction of the incest victim assumed a level of context that very, very few members of the audience understand; so what it communicated to many viewers was a negative distortion of the truth about such victims. Which is why Techguy’s anger is justified.
As Techguy said, they “...used the emotionally charged issue of incest purely to provide a lynchpin for Tommy's out of control appetites without regard for how viewers like me, with little or no psych background, would react and respond to the portrayal of the characters, most especially the incest victim.”
Even in Techguy they evoked negative feelings towards a character he realizes didn’t deserve to be viewed that way. It’s a fair bet they did the same with people who have less awareness of the effects of PTSD than Techguy has.
Unfortunately, many viewers will never have the perspective to be angry. They’ll simply come away with a more negative sense of incest victims, and never think to question it.
Sirenna, you have clearly worked hard to try to understand something about what incest victims experience, and you brought that level of understanding to your viewing of this episode. Despite your best intentions, your description touched on only one aspect – the need for parental love – out of many that would have been in play. Still, you felt sympathy for Beatrice based not on what they told you about why she acted that way, but on what you knew from other sources. Most people who have not been affected by incest do not have even the level of understanding you have.
And even with all you’ve read, in your innocence you assumed that she was “...married to someone who accepted her past.” It is extremely unlikely that he knew about her past. If he did, and still not only had a good relationship with her father, but stood by and watched the possessive hugging and other such “subtle” behaviors without complaint, then he was either an incredible coward or else he was nearly as sick as her father.
Her father was right, you know. Or nearly right. Very few men will get involved with a woman if they know she has been a victim of incest. And of those who will, only the very sickest – those who are turned on by the idea of the incest – would be likely to have the easy-going, accommodating relationship with their father-in-law that we saw on those tapes. Josh didn’t have a clue about the incest. And besides, Beatrice certainly was not portrayed as someone who would have had the strength to tell him.
I don’t agree that Beatrice “...not only survived but thrived.” She was not what I would consider a survivor of incest at all. Rather, she was still a victim of it, still largely controlled by the effects of the trauma. That she had managed to find some measure of happiness, even while remaining within her father’s sphere of control, was better than nothing – and as much as many such victims ever manage. But she was not thriving, by my way of measuring such things. She had never broken free, had never even begun to heal. She was not, in fact, a very appealing character – though some of us with enough understanding of her situation could still find her sympathetic.
What I would like to point out, though, is that even on these boards, where there is a higher average IQ, and a higher average level of psychological awareness, than in the general public, few people found her sympathetic, or her behavior comprehensible. I think it’s safe to say that in the general viewing public, that percentage would have been at least as low.
Which brings us right back to the questions of intent and/or responsibility on the part of those who write the show. Either they didn’t care how Beatrice came across, and/or whether that increased negative perceptions of victims of incest – in which case they would probably be bored and irritated by our endless discussions of it. Or else they did care, and did not expect this kind of reaction – in which case hopefully the reactions of people on the boards might be useful feedback for them.
Those of you who’ve been reading my posts for very long know that I’ve been a big fan of Balcer’s since I discovered this series. I guess that’s why this episode gets to me so much. This kind of portrayal of a victim of incest would be no worse than expected on any other show. But I’ve always been both impressed by the psychological accuracy, and deeply moved, when this series has dealt with the effects of various forms of childhood trauma. When I read the spoiler that indicated incest would be part of this episode, I fully expected that the victim would be presented at least as sympathetically as Brent in Gemini, and I thought there might possibly be some level of clarification for the public, along the lines of how Asperger’s was dealt with in Probability. I just don’t get how – and why – a victim of incest – and the whole issue of incest – ended up being portrayed in such a dismissive, negative way in this series, of all places. I don’t believe that Balcer would mean for it to come across that way, but the effect has still been hard for me to deal with.
|
|
|
Post by NicoleMarie on Mar 28, 2005 20:50:11 GMT -5
Maybe I should leave this alone but I want to take a crack at this too.
I do not view Beatrice in a negative light. I did not see Death Roe in a negative light either. I want to explain why. I have zero background in psychology but I am an obssesed SVU fan. I'm hoping the audience did see Beatrice as sympathetic. Maybe others can see this show in a different light. Maybe that is just wishful thinking on my part?
My focus in this show was Beatrice. I watched this show as if I were watching an SVU episode. My focus was on the dad as the killer. Yet, my main focus was on Beatrice.
I suspected incest early in the show. Why? The possessiveness of Beatrice's father, his subtle animosity towards Josh. The constant pawing of and kissing on Beatrice by her dad. Also, Beatrice's big eyed focus on Goren, even upon her first meeting him.
I also kept hoping Beatrice would come out of her denial, her secret world. I kept hoping she could finally break away from her dad. And that he would pay for what he did to her. Her changes were perfect. Her anger when she realized what had really happened to Josh. Her getting back at her dad was due. Reckless and illogical, she "played chicken" with her dad, never realizing what the outcome could've been.
Beatrice swung with her emotions, she could not be predicatable. Her life had been a rollercoaster. I didn't expect less waves from her when she finally got an opportunity to "put the screws" to her dad. (Excuse the pun!)
Goren knew there was an odd, uneasy way about Beatrice and her dad. He knew she was an odd girl. He just didn't know why or what. Once he realized what the underlying problem was, he was able to figure out how to use Beatrice to help arrest her dad. He coaxed her, without pushing her too hard to cause her to shut down. She was fragile and he saw that.
Beatrice was stunned when she realized the detectives knew. It had never been out in the open before. Realizing Beatrice had frozen and was terrified, Goren immediatley said "Beatrice, where did you put the screws?" She was confounded, yet she still got the screws for them. Her expression was contorted with relief, surprise, and disgust while looking at her dad. And her fear seemed gone, momentarily. She crossed her arms defiantley, kept her head raised as if it was sinking in she would finally be free of her dad, for good. Her expression changed again when her father began yelling at her, back to a confused hurt girl. She looked to the detectives for reassurance and then to the officer who walked her away. At the end, she seemed relieved.
So was I, for her.
Beatrice was a still victim, until the detectives arrested her father. Then, she realized she was free of him.
I hope audience feels the same way for Beatrice.
|
|
|
Post by LOCIfan on Mar 28, 2005 21:46:12 GMT -5
Observer,
Thank you for that articulate and remarkable post. You've crystallized my feelings about the episode.
I believe Balcer and the writers of Criminal Intent care very much about how they portray incest abusers and victims -- just as they care about how they portray all pathological disorders and those affected by them. Balcer has indicated that he does read the boards, and your post will undoubtedly be useful feedback.
Best, LOCIfan
|
|
|
Post by Sirenna on Mar 29, 2005 10:58:46 GMT -5
Observer:
You are right. I doubt her husband knew about her past. If he did and allowed it to continue, he is indeed a coward. I was wrong about him. I can't stand by my ealier post about Beatrice thriving either since, as you so eloquently pointed out, she obviously suffered so much she became the catalyst of this episode.
Please don't think I equate gluttony with incest. I don't. Remember my point of view is that incest was not the main focus of the episode. The main theme, as I see it, was about control; both self control and controlling others. I tried look at why the episode was set around food and a restaurant and draw impressions based only on that. I have only focused on part of the whole of this episode. That is diliberate on my part, since I can't hope to do justice to such a serious, painful subject.
What is art? For me it is the expression of humanity that every human recognizes in themselves as they watch, listen, read to anything creative. With my views on this episode, I might be guilty of not recognizing something I don't see in myself. But I'm trying to understand.
I still do see Beatrice as a sympathetic figure and this is not based only on what I imagine her childhood might have been. She did lose her mother young and she did have people around her who knew of her predicament and did nothing to help her. Those were all evident in the scenes. She was just a kid trying to handle a monster everyday.
|
|