|
Post by Patcat on Jan 24, 2009 19:07:51 GMT -5
I don't see any attraction on Alex's part towards Peter. I can see him being attracted to her, but nothing on her part. Bobby may be upset with Peter because of what Bobby sees as Peter's attraction to Alex, but I think he has a much greater problem with Peter failing to do his job as a cop. Now, to be fair, Peter admits most of his work has been in public relations and interpretation and he is caught between two worlds. Bobby clearly thinks he should act and think as a cop.
I believe Alex would eat Peter for lunch.
Patcat
|
|
|
Post by annabelleleigh on Jan 24, 2009 19:09:13 GMT -5
Of all the episodes across all of the seasons this, IMO, is the biggest clunker. Edges out even "Rocket Man" and "Bombshell" for its two-dimensional characters and its lack of subtlety and subtext.
I especially resent this episode's preaching. The entire drama rolls out like a contrived exercise in political playwriting 101. The story calls attention to itself as a Big Issue but fails to produce characters we can care about. Instead it offers archetypes. In short, "Silencer" lacks the humanity and complexity the Big Issue deserves.
The guest actors were unconvincing, possibly because the script was so weighed down by political correctness. While Erbe and Bogosian presented their usual brisk and professional performances (though nothing more), VDO drifted through the episode as though he couldn't wait for it to be over. Me too.
AL
P.S. I've been bursting to say all of the above for a long time, and I guess it shows. I felt the same way about Larry Kramer's "The Normal Heart" -- one of the first plays that addressed the AIDS crisis way back when. Good intentions do not a drama make. But then came Tony Kushner's "Angels in America"...which is to say "Silencer" could have been -- should have been -- so much more.
|
|
|
Post by Patcat on Jan 24, 2009 19:22:10 GMT -5
H-m-m. I rather liked this episode. I didn't think it was politically correct at all. I thought the story treated the most extreme of the deaf activists--the playwright--as a slightly ridiculous figure, and that it treated those who were trying to live in both the hearing and deaf worlds with sympathy and understanding. I also thought it portrayed the young deaf man's motive for murder very well. ROCKET MAN was the worse of the Goren/Eames episodes for me in this season.
I agree with you, AL, about THE NORMAL HEART and ANGELS IN AMERICA, but I don't think Mr. Kramer really intended to write a play, but a political call to arms.
Patcat
|
|
|
Post by deathroe on Jan 25, 2009 0:49:43 GMT -5
I had a strong negative reaction to this episode (possibly because the situation between Goren and Eames made me sad, but possibly also because the story was just ... sad--and there were details, like the Dean's murder, that didn't get wrapped up.) However--at the risk of hubris I'll reference something I noticed at the time. The murder story almost certainly bodies forth Eames and Goren's own relationship as it was at that point. I don't want to repeat myself, so, again, I'll risk looking pompous and link back to that page of this thread. The writers use the murder plot characters to describe Goren and Eames' relationship in other episodes, too: in "F.P.S." (referenced in "Silencer") ... and in "Purgatory," of all places. This is why I say that they are using this vaguely shippy device more and more. IMHO the most memorable example occurs a bit earlier, in "Silver Lining," where the master thief and his girlfriend operate in parallel to Goren and Eames. (On a side note, there is a very similar premise to that of "Silencers" in a Season Three episode of TOS. I noted that on page 11 of the current thread. Don't mind the pedant in me: while this was not my favorite of episodes, I guess I'm opining, however casually, that it's less of a dead weight than I originally thought )
|
|
|
Post by quietfireca on Jan 25, 2009 3:12:11 GMT -5
I think they want us to feel uncomfortable, for whatever reason ... I watched this again and had an “Aha!” moment. I think I’d like to retract what I said before about the episode being bleak and pointless. It still unsettles me, but I’m not as bitter at the writers as I was on first viewing. Here’s my new theory, and I don’t honestly think that it’s too shipperish. Go back and watch the denouement with the Eames-Goren partnership in mind. Tommy and Malia can most certainly be read as figurative for Eames and Goren. Tommy is afraid that he will lose Malia to the outside world. Similarly, Goren is afraid of losing Eames as he has lost others (father, mother, brother): *Tommy on Malia’s implant: It’s her life. I was okay with it. Goren: You weren’t afraid that once she got her hearing, she would abandon you?* Read Tommy as Goren—it’s Eames’ life, he’s okay with her having it, but not so much, maybe, if it doesn’t include him. Read Goren’s question as his own question about Eames: he’s afraid that his partner will abandon him, something he can’t accept anymore than he could accept her death in “Blind Spot.” If she finds someone else (I’m not saying that they’re involved romantically … just that their relationship is compelling)—if she finds someone else, finds another life outside the “cocoon” of their partnership, then she may in whatever sense leave him. Might seem far-fetched—but the writers pulled something very similar in “F.P.S.,” an episode deliberately referenced here with Goren’s desk-staring scene. In “F.P.S.,” Neal is afraid of losing his partner, so he kills to take things back in time and to protect his partner not so much from a specific individual as from the pressures of the outside world. Goren implicitly cracks the case in “F.P.S.” by applying his own feelings about a pregnant and absent Eames to Neal and Jack’s relationship: without his partner he has lost his bearings, is adrift, and he says as much. Same deal here—Tommy kills to keep Malia with him. The hearing sister who abandoned Tommy may be read as Goren’s perception of Eames, who is more normal, more practical, more in tune with the outside world than he is—if you will, more “hearing.” In this light, it’s very interesting that this detail helps to crack the case-also that we see Goren reasserting control over Peter at the end of the episode by signing. Even if my theory is crackpot, I can’t possibly be mistaking all those anxious looks at Eames—they start in “Albatross.” Doesn’t matter if they’re involved romantically: I think he’s being territorial. The episode seems preoccupied with the intrusion of an outside world, using everything from the deaf community to the changes at Major Case to as simple a thing as the image of Tommy and Malia skating. I’m sure there’s more to be found on the next viewing. Then, too, this is all very much from Goren’s perspective. What is Eames thinking? You never know. I don’t think she’s being icy—I do think that she values her own life. Sentiment aside, if I had to deal with what she has to deal with in terms of Goren, then I would wish to keep my independence. It is possible to conclude from this that, just as Malia will never leave Tommy, Eames will never leave Goren—also possible to conclude at the other extreme that the Eames/Goren partnership, or perhaps that the witty “cocooned” inner world of CI cannot survive an increasingly scary and irrational outside world, as seen in such offerings as “The War At Home.” I’m not sure pretend to read the writers’ intentionality to that extent. I think what is usually engaged in on CI is an *aesthetic* parallelism, rather than a moral or interpretive level: they lay it out because it is artistically moving, not because they want to tell us anything more definite about Eames/Goren than what I’ve suggested above. But it’s there. The writing is still smoking along, IMO. It’s good, even if it makes me unhappy. I really hope that they resolve all of this and that the partnership heals. As usual Deathroe, your analysis blows me away. It would have taken a me few more viewings to get the parallel out of Silencer (some of these epis were really difficult for me to see up here at the time you made your quoted post - CTV drove me crazy and that continues, but I work around it now - so I'm delighted that you brought this post to my attention). FPS was far more obvious to me than Silencer. I got all that (hard to miss with Goren's "yearning" comment), but in Silencer I'm still at the stage of examining Goren's territorial behavior and not to the point of recognizing the beautiful parallels you've pointed out. You have me paying much more attention to writing in television than I ever have and I thank you for that.
|
|
|
Post by ragincajun on Jan 25, 2009 5:18:19 GMT -5
I had a strong negative reaction to this episode (possibly because the situation between Goren and Eames made me sad, but possibly also because the story was just ... sad--and there were details, like the Dean's murder, that didn't get wrapped up.)However--at the risk of hubris I'll reference something I noticed at the time. The murder story almost certainly bodies forth Eames and Goren's own relationship as it was at that point. I don't want to repeat myself, so, again, I'll risk looking pompous and link back to that page of this thread. The writers use the murder plot characters to describe Goren and Eames' relationship in other episodes, too: in "F.P.S." (referenced in "Silencer") ... and in "Purgatory," of all places. This is why I say that they are using this vaguely shippy device more and more. IMHO the most memorable example occurs a bit earlier, in "Silver Lining," where the master thief and his girlfriend operate in parallel to Goren and Eames. (On a side note, there is a very similar premise to that of "Silencers" in a Season Three episode of TOS. I noted that on page 11 of the current thread. Don't mind the pedant in me: while this was not my favorite of episodes, I guess I'm opining, however casually, that it's less of a dead weight than I originally thought ) Didn't the Dean survive?
|
|
|
Post by tjara on Jan 25, 2009 6:27:20 GMT -5
It was a lovely analysis indeed. Especially the point about it being "unintentional" and "not there to tell something" - but just the parallels that make CI so compelling.
|
|
|
Post by tjara on Jan 25, 2009 8:17:57 GMT -5
Yes, the dean survived. The bullet only grazed her.
|
|
|
Post by maherjunkie on Jan 25, 2009 11:36:38 GMT -5
The part where Larry requests a deaf cop. Anytime somebody starts talking separatist you know dogma and nonreality are not too far behind.
If we worry about that degree of accomodation nothing will ever get done.
I liked this ep, I like seeing Goren emotional. Only the DA got on my nerves.
But good for that Aussie pol!
|
|
leanonme
Silver Shield Investigator
Posts: 166
|
Post by leanonme on Jan 25, 2009 12:40:23 GMT -5
Damn, I wish we could all gather together and make this show, because we make it a heck of a lot better than it actually is!
Here is a perfect example of the gift that these boards are to the TV world. I would have probably never watched this episode, but the comments on this thread got me interested.
I was terribly disappointed. I wish the episode had the complexity that was described on this board. It was just typical TV.
|
|
leanonme
Silver Shield Investigator
Posts: 166
|
Post by leanonme on Jan 25, 2009 12:53:04 GMT -5
I don't see any attraction on Alex's part towards Peter. I can see him being attracted to her, but nothing on her part. Bobby may be upset with Peter because of what Bobby sees as Peter's attraction to Alex, but I think he has a much greater problem with Peter failing to do his job as a cop. Now, to be fair, Peter admits most of his work has been in public relations and interpretation and he is caught between two worlds. Bobby clearly thinks he should act and think as a cop. I believe Alex would eat Peter for lunch. Patcat Patcat, I agree with you 100%. Alex/Peter/Bobby... ? I was grateful for a glimpse of Goren the cop.
|
|
|
Post by maherjunkie on Jan 25, 2009 13:05:19 GMT -5
Oh I don't see typical at all, not in plot, killer, anything.
|
|
|
Post by tjara on Jan 25, 2009 14:14:37 GMT -5
You know I think it's so difficult, because we all live in our own little world - we all have our own experiences that shape who we are, and we can't turn that off when turning on the TV. Some eps just "hit" you because of who you are, because of your experience. I've spent six years working (voluntarily) for an assistance dog organization and quite commonly had contact with deaf people, too (though the bulk of people was physically handicapped). So I guess this ep just hits closer to home for me than for other people. So what - I didn't like other eps. It happens. I think that's what's nice about the discussion boards - we don't agree. It'd be so much more boring if we all agreed.
PS: I think it's dangerous to read these threads before seing an ep. Your expectations just rise/fall, and you're surprised negatively/positively. I try to completely stay out of threads of eps I havn't seen. I don't want to have an oppinion before seing the ep, and I don't want it spoiled beforehand, either...
|
|
|
Post by deathroe on Jan 25, 2009 14:18:02 GMT -5
(1) Quietfireca, you are too kind. It isn't as watertight a theory as all that (2) Oy, sorry about the Dean thing (what do you think, nwchimom ... was that a Freudian slip on my part? ). (3) You know, even the most "typical" tv is studiable. It could be the evening news, a documentary, or a show like 48 Hours and it will still mirror individual and collective/social patterns in some way. I'm about 100% that everything can be analyzed. Some things are just more difficult to analyze than others. As to the complexity in "Silencer" ... my question tends to be, "is this complexity that contributes to literary effectiveness?" Does it work? I think that, in the writing in CI of late, there is more tendency to throw in random details and complications. I wish I were less sleep deprived so I could give some better examples--but to me, something like the Captain having an ex in Betrayed is extraneous; an example from SVU is the crazy around Olivia's mother (she's not just a rape survivor but a mad, drunken PROFESSOR). Now I am not a great writer myself, but I feel like great writing of any kind, certainly drama, should all connect and unravel itself--with no extraneous detail. To me, effective complexity (convolution, even) occurs in an episode like "Phantom." How the hell did we get to Cookie Caspari? But suddenly, there we are--and it's brilliant.
|
|
|
Post by deathroe on Jan 25, 2009 14:22:30 GMT -5
PS: On Alex's potential attraction to Peter: whatever it is, his attention seems to make her contemplate her situation in life and with Goren:
Ross: He seems like a nice guy. Eames: Yeah, he does=deeper moment than it might seem. Certainly, that part doesn't seem extraneous to me.
So perhaps with the potential for male attention she feels some competition between her and Goren's tight little "cocoon" world and the different life she might have had or might yet have.
|
|