|
Post by Patcat on Jun 5, 2007 13:10:48 GMT -5
Posting this a little early due to my schedule this week.
WANT will air on the Bravo Network on Sunday, June 10, at 8pm EST and Monday, June 11, at 12 am EST
First aired October 10, 2004, the third episode of the fourth season.
Directed by: Frank Prinzi
Written by: Elizabeth Benjamin and Rene Balcer
Synopsis: Major Case is called in when the body of a young ballet student who worked as a stripper is found in Central Park. Although her death is originally thought to be linked to the strip club where she worked and its ties to the Mob, a similiar attack on another young woman lead Goren and Eames to a shy, lonely man.
Guest Actors: Neil Patrick Harris (John Tagman)
Repeat Offender: Leslie Hendrix (M.E. Rodgers)
Neil Patrick Harris has gone from being known as Doogie Howser, M.D., to Barney on HOW I MET YOUR MOTHER, to a reluctant symbol of gay rights. In between he's amassed some splendid credits, including turns in productions of Stephen Sondheim's SWEENEY TODD and ASSASSINS. He possesses a strong tenor voice, and I don't think he's ever given a bad performance. And I think he's astounding in this episode.
Point of interest: John Tagman is at least partially based on Jeffrey Dahmer, who killed and cannibalized young men in Milwaukee, Wisconsin, and was later killed in prison. Dahmer was quiet, well-behaved, and not bad looking. A gay friend of mine once commented that he would have had no qualms about having a drink with him if he'd just met him.
WANT generated a huge amount of controversy when it originally aired. Is this the most controversial of LOCI episodes?
Does Goren identify with Tagman? Does he overidentify?
Why is Carver so gung ho about the death penalty in this episode? Does Tagman deserve the death penalty more than others Carver has prosecuted? Does Tagman deserve the death penalty at all?
At last, there's an attorney who actually stands up for his client, and, ironically enough, it's when Goren is trying to help the client. Goren tells the lawyer, "Make no mistake why I'm here." Why is Goren standing up for Tagman?
Does Goren lose sight of the victims in this case?
Eames is as angry with Goren as I think I've every seen her in this episode. Do other see that as well?
Carver frequently complains about Goren and Eames' "tricks", yet he seems perfectly willing to accept their results.
After he obtains Tagman's confession, Goren appears before Carver and Deakins as if he expects punishment. What happens next?
The purely superficial--how do we feel about Goren's hair in this epidode (g)?
Quotes:
As Goren and Eames prepare to search Tagman's apartment: Carver: "What are they doing?" Deakins: "Better not to ask."
Eames (to Goren after his lunch with Tagman): “Did you enjoy your play date?”
Eames (to Goren after his defense of Tagman): “Of all the people to go to bat for…”
Eames (at the end): “I guess now everybody has what they want.”
Patcat
|
|
|
Post by diablodeblanco on Jun 5, 2007 14:31:37 GMT -5
Neil Patrick Harris pulled off a very tough role. As evil as the character's deeds were, NPH brought an air of sadness to this murderer. Hated HATED VDO's hair in this episode. Didn't fit his face....
|
|
|
Post by Cassie on Jun 5, 2007 14:58:17 GMT -5
He also played a nasty piece of work in an episode of "Boomtown" a few years back. He really creeped me out on that show. Not to say that his John Tagman didn't. He played Tagman so you could feel for him. Neil Patrick Harris is a very talented actor.
|
|
|
Post by sarahlee on Jun 5, 2007 16:25:29 GMT -5
This episode ranks as my favourite of all the CI offerings. We are treated to a complex story (what is evil?) with layered performances (what does evil look like?) and issues that we all still think and talk about (what is evil enough for a death sentence, is evil irredeemable?).
Carver steps up as a man of commitment and the personal power to defend and even fight for his beliefs. Goren is a strong and overpowering personality, we often see him using his intelligence, charm, wit, and physicality to dominate and subdue those in his way. I enjoyed seeing Carver use his voice from a hissing whisper to a controlled (with razor-sharp diction) roar. He never allowed the physically larger Goren to intimidate him.
Oh, and, LOVED the hair! ;D
|
|
|
Post by Techguy on Jun 5, 2007 22:48:06 GMT -5
WANT generated a huge amount of controversy when it originally aired. Is this the most controversial of LOCI episodes? I'm not sure if "Want" is THE most controversial CI episode ever but it certainly ranks somewhere at the top (from my personal perspective "The Pilgrim" and "Magnificat" are equally if not more controversial but that's another subject entirely). "Want" is controversial not only because of its subject matter, but also because of how Neil Patrick Harris portrays John Tagman with just the right balance of creepiness and empathy. His is one of the best guest star appearances ever for CI.Does Goren identify with Tagman? Does he overidentify? Goren identifies with Tagman's loneliness and longing for emotional connection with someone. But fortunately, Goren doesn't cross the line to overidentify with him to the point where he overlooks or minimizes the monstrous nature of Tagman's crimes. Goren wants justice, not revenge, and behaves accordingly when others around him are clamoring for Tagman's head.Why is Carver so gung ho about the death penalty in this episode? Does Tagman deserve the death penalty more than others Carver has prosecuted? Does Tagman deserve the death penalty at all? "Want" is a rare instance where I see Carver behaving more like a politician than someone concerned with justice. Setting aside the matter that the death penalty is unconsitutional in New York state, Carver comes across as more concerned with placating public opinion and appeasing his constituents than with seeking justice. Goren correctly perceives that Tagman never intended to kill his victims. And since intent to kill is a critical component for capital cases, Goren holds the unpopular view that Tagman doesn't deserve the death penalty, and I agree with him on this reasoning.Why is Goren standing up for Tagman? As I stated above, Goren identifies with Tagman's mental, emotional, and psychological state so much that he realizes Tagman's actions lack the key component to make his crimes deserving of the death penalty. Goren is so convinced he's willing to risk the wrath and indignation of his partner Eames and ADA Carver to back up his position.Does Goren lose sight of the victims in this case? I don't think Goren has ever lost sight of the victims of crime and doesn't do so here. Goren can and does distinguish between justice and revenge, and knows how and why Tagman did what he did. Tagman's death won't change what happened to his victims, and sparing Tagman the death penalty does not equate to losing sight of the victims. Life in prison without possibility of parole is sufficient punishment for someone who never intended to kill his victims.Eames is as angry with Goren as I think I've every seen her in this episode. Do other see that as well? Eames is understandably angry for what she perceives as Goren excusing Tagman's actions and letting him off short of the death penalty. Eames is a by-the-book cop, not experienced in or concerned with the emotional and psychological makeup of a killer the way a profiler like Goren would be. Eames sees the end results of Tagman's actions and reasonably concludes the death penalty is warranted, or at least that Tagman is someone unworthy of being defended by Goren. Goren's empathy and understanding of Tagman's motives allows him to be more compassionate than Eames could be in these circumstances.
|
|
|
Post by Summerfield on Jun 6, 2007 8:55:20 GMT -5
WANT generated a huge amount of controversy when it originally aired. Is this the most controversial of LOCI episodes?What I remember is the controversy over the airing of the promos during a NASCAR race. Some parents objected to the clip of Eames saying “He poured boiling water on their brain?” Some parents thought that was too disturbing for their children to listen to. As for the episode itself, I don’t think it was. “Magnificat” and “Pilgrim” come to mind as being more controversial. Does Goren identify with Tagman? Does he overidentify?I think Goren identified Tagman’s loneliness and lack of social skills as the “intent” behind Tagman’s behavior. Identify with him? No. Why is Carver so gung ho about the death penalty in this episode? Does Tagman deserve the death penalty more than others Carver has prosecuted? Does Tagman deserve the death penalty at all?Because that was the intent of the writers? Seriously, cannibalism is not your ordinary crime. Of course Carver is going to go for the death penalty if only for the magnitude of the situation. I don’t know enough about the law regarding which crimes come with the death penalty tag to address that issue. I suppose at the end we learned as the law is written, he wasn’t eligible for the death penalty. Does Goren lose sight of the victims in this case?His thought’s on the victims wasn’t as obvious in this episode as compared to others. Eames is as angry with Goren as I think I've every seen her in this episode. Do other see that as well?I see her as more confused than angry. Carver frequently complains about Goren and Eames' "tricks", yet he seems perfectly willing to accept their results. After he obtains Tagman's confession, Goren appears before Carver and Deakins as if he expects punishment. What happens next?As soon as Carver says, “What’s he doing?” Carver knew the deal was done. I don’t see how that would warrant any punishment. Carver slowly shakes his head and quietly says, “Detective…” The purely superficial--how do we feel about Goren's hair in this episode?
|
|
|
Post by DonnaJo on Jun 6, 2007 8:57:06 GMT -5
This episode is one of the reasons I found Season 4 so intriguing a season. In Want, the traits of a darker mood, a sadness, a loneliness, perhaps even some disillusionment, that D'Onofrio has "resonating" in the Goren character, are in full force. When he is examining the dancer's body in the park, he is almost loving in his approach to her. Right there he realized that whoever caused her death cared for her. That starts the curious empathy he has for John Tagman.
I think throughout the episode Goren is very ambivalent about the situation and about his feelings. But he knows the law & he knows what would be deemed justice here, so he sticks to his principles. regardless. His refusal to be swayed by the horrific nature of the crime, especially the cutting & cooking of the girl's flesh, shows such depth of character & to me, even a certain heroism. How many people could maintain such integrity, especially in the face of those whose good opinion he values, especially Eames. What a man.
What I didn't like were the reactions I saw after the phone call of Tagman's brutal death by beating. That was no time for a snarky remark by Eames. To me, it made her appear ruthless & cold. It was also cutting to both Goren & Carver, very insensitive IMO. And Goren's deadpan reaction I found odd. I guess there was nothing left for him to say. But the fact that he kept on signing those forms, with not even a pause...maybe somebody can clear that up for me.
And the hair, I didn't care for the long grey locks, but I take it he was filming his Mr. Welles short & had to keep his hair that way.
|
|
|
Post by Patcat on Jun 6, 2007 9:34:46 GMT -5
The death penalty in New York--as I've written before, New York's Death Penalty was declared unconstitutional last year (I think) after the original airing of WANT. A death sentence hasn't been carried out in the state for over 20 years, and I believe that the few death penalty cases in the state had been almost exclusively for the killing of a law enforcement officer. I agree that Carver is making a political, showboating move here, and I think Eames recognizes that as well. I don't find her snarky remark at the end out of character. She's furious at both Carver and Goren, and she wants them to know it.
I found Goren's deadpan reaction in character as well. I think he was so angry and upset that he elected not to say anything.
I'm not sure the longer hair was for the Welles short. In THE THIRD MAN, Welles had short hair, and my understanding is that the short film is set at the time of the filming of that movie. I think Mr. D'Onofrio just got back from the LOCI hiatus and hadn't had a chance or didn't want to get a haircut.(g).
Patcat
|
|
|
Post by Cassie on Jun 6, 2007 9:52:18 GMT -5
WANT generated a huge amount of controversy when it originally aired. Is this the most controversial of LOCI episodes? I haven't rewatched it to refresh my memory, don't know if I have the time either to find the tape.....hint for PTB to put season 4 on DVD I remember when this originally aired. It was in the news , People complaining about the previews being shown during family time viewing. There is a scene, where Goren is talking about the killer (Tagman) drilling holes in the victims head. There was a small uproar for a couple of days The death penalty was put on the table.
|
|
|
Post by DonnaJo on Jun 6, 2007 9:56:49 GMT -5
. I'm not sure the longer hair was for the Welles short. In THE THIRD MAN, Welles had short hair, and my understanding is that the short film is set at the time of the filming of that movie. I think Mr. D'Onofrio just got back from the LOCI hiatus and hadn't had a chance or didn't want to get a haircut.(g). Patcat I checked out some photos of Welles in The Third Man. His sides were neat, but the top of his head, the hair was long, so it could be slicked & combed back (the style of the day). Try as I might, I couldn't find one single photo of Vincent's movie.
|
|
|
Post by Patcat on Jun 7, 2007 9:39:13 GMT -5
It occurs to me that there's a defensive quality to my take on this episode. I've been intrigued by the fact that most of the people posting on this thread on this episode have been at the very least understanding and often supportive of Goren's view that Tagman didn't deserve the death penalty, and that Goren did not overly identify with Tagman. I've encountered several individuals who were appalled by Goren's stand and others who saw Goren as slipping towards a breakdown in his feelings about Tagman. I didn't see those sentiments at all in Goren. As others have more eloquently expressed, I saw Goren as correctly viewing Tagman's intentions, and his analysis of Tagman as insight in the man rather than identification with him. Just because Goren is able to understand someone does not mean that he identifies with or even sympathizes with that individual.
What I can't understand is Carver's actions in this episode. Deakins' anger I can understand; Eames' anger I can understand. But Carver's drive for the death penalty makes no sense to me. There have been plenty of cases where he hasn't been so gung ho about the death penalty--indeed, it's rarely mentioned. True, he might be reacting to the publicity regarding the case, but Carver has struck me as someone who tolerates publicity rather than actively seeking it. I suppose it's to the credit of the writing and acting of this episode that I do find Carver's actions believable. But this is the episode where I find myself most infuriated with Carver.
Patcat
|
|
|
Post by DonnaJo on Jun 7, 2007 10:32:23 GMT -5
My take on Carver is that even though he appeared to handle this case in the same impersonal, professional manner as all others, he was deeply disturbed by the cannibalism & horrific nature of the crimes. As much as Deakins & Eames were. He truly believed that Tagman meant to inflict death, in spite of of Goren's convincing argument. And he could not see Tagman's remorse, calling his show of regret crocodile tears.
He should have realized that he couldn't be impartial & excused himself from the case.
|
|
effie
Detective
off chasing plot bunnies...
Posts: 264
|
Post by effie on Jun 7, 2007 10:52:48 GMT -5
I love this episode because it's not simple. It's knotty and complex and wonderful. It does an especially good job of showing that Bobby's view of the world, or whatever reasons(s) really is a bit different than most of his colleagues...
And he understands this. You can see that in the fact that he saw those bag of potatoes and onions when they first tossed Tagman's apartment. He put it together long before he grudingly suggests what he did with them much later in the episode when they find that part of the calf muscle from the bodega freezer is missing...
I want to watch this again and consider all the comments about Carver. I have always felt he was a bit over the top here... but you can see everyone struggling with their feelings about the crime and about Tagman in the episode.
And as a slightly humorous aside, I have always like to consider what we didn't see... Bobby out buying soft-core porn and then sitting at home (somehow I just don't see him doing this research in the MCS video room...) watching and trying to see what John sees.
Perhaps to counteract the horrific nature of the crime... there is a tinge of humor that crops up throughout isn't there???... from Eames' calling Bobby's lunch with Tagman a "playdate" to Goren's 'It's been a little slow at home lately" in the chocolate shop"...
Wonderful stuff. Probably one of my top five favorite episodes.
|
|
|
Post by musicwench on Jun 7, 2007 17:59:31 GMT -5
This is one of my most favorite episodes ever. Right up there with Cherry Red, Probabilty, Dead, etc.
Does Goren identify with Tagman? Does he overidentify?
I don't think he over indentifies with Tagman. I think he does empathize with him a lot.
As others have mentioned, this is really one of those moments we see a glimpse of the darker side of Goren. The innate sadness that seems to have eventually brought us up to the current season.
Why is Carver so gung ho about the death penalty in this episode? Does Tagman deserve the death penalty more than others Carver has prosecuted? Does Tagman deserve the death penalty at all?
As others have mentioned on this as well, I think Carver was looking at this politically. It screamed death penalty and it would have been one of those gruesome "feel good" convictions the death penalty loving crowd would just love. [Yea, I am anti-death penalty so my take on these things are going to not be kind to it] The crime was so horrific it would even have those who are anti-death penalty falling somewhat mute at the thought. It seemed to me Carver was more interested in PR than he was actual justice.
At last, there's an attorney who actually stands up for his client, and, ironically enough, it's when Goren is trying to help the client. Goren tells the lawyer, "Make no mistake why I'm here." Why is Goren standing up for Tagman?
Because he does see the vulnerable side of Tagman. He was a deeply disturbed individual who wasn't trying to kill anyone. He just wanted someone to be with and had no social skills to make that happen. He wasn't a cold blooded murderer who was doing experiments on people to hurt them. That was the end result but he was a man desperate for some relief from his loneliness and he didn't know how else to get it. It doesn't excuse what he did but it does explain that he did not do this maliciously. He apparently also felt badly about it. His conscience bothered him - which is why he took up drinking "recently."
I think Goren, who is IMO is a very empathetic individual, understood Tagman and could identify with him to some degree.
Does Goren lose sight of the victims in this case?
No, I don't think he does at all. The death penalty doesn't bring back their loved ones and while it might feel good to the victims families, it really doesn't resolve anything.
Just because one has the common decency and the ability to see all sides of an issue, doesn't mean one side is more favored than the other. Besides, the victims have everyone else in their corner. Tagman was, as usual throughout his life, alone.
Eames is as angry with Goren as I think I've every seen her in this episode. Do other see that as well?
I don't see her as angry. She's upset because she doesn't understand why he feels like he does but I don't think she was mad. Perhaps frustrated? At the end of the episode I think she actually seems to be more on Goren's side of the issue when she makes that dig at Carver with the “I guess now everybody has what they want," comment. At least that was my take on it.
Perhaps my imagination is working over time when I assume that Goren and Eames spoke more on the subject and he at least got her to see his side of the issue even if she may not agree. I like to think they have that kind of working relationship.
After he obtains Tagman's confession, Goren appears before Carver and Deakins as if he expects punishment. What happens next?
Apparently nothing. Probably got yelled at or lectured by Deakins and/or Carver.
The purely superficial--how do we feel about Goren's hair in this epidode (g)?
LOL Not being a VDO fan because of his looks I think it's fine. I never mind the way he looks.
|
|
meggyd
Silver Shield Investigator
Posts: 112
|
Post by meggyd on Jun 8, 2007 3:44:34 GMT -5
This was one of those episodes that left me really unsettled after watching it. I thought the plot and the acting was well done, particularly Neil Patrick Harris who made such a horrible character into someone you could, if not feel sympathy for, at least get an idea of what was driving him.
When I watched the episode again, I am struck by Goren's sympathy and understanding of Tagman, and tie it to the idea from "Blind Spot", this idea of these isolated, lonely people who can go "either way". I think that Goren did identify with him to some extent, how he'd become what he'd become. Further insights into Goren came with the "brother" role, in that he'd learnt how to talk to girls by observing what worked and what didn't for others, that socialising didn't come naturally to him either. Though the comments about chocolates improving the sex drive and "things have been slow at home lately" struck me as bizarre - of all the things that could have been said at that time, that was way out there in left field!
Again strong aspects of Goren's character come out as he works to make his understanding of Tagman win out - he's not afraid to go against his superiors if he feels it's right, he can't let what he believes to be an injustice happen through the application of the death penalty in this case.
Repulsed by the hair - it's just not Goren, not NYPD. I guess that makes me shallow. I shall just have to live with it.
|
|