9:14 - "Palimpsest" 2010-06-29

[Techguy]

Celeste: "I'm on a mission from God!"

I almost expected an appearance by the Blues Brothers to complete the popular culture reference, highlighted of course by Nichols doing his Hercule Poirot imitation a la Agatha Christie, summoning the suspects to the attic for the final revelation of the killer.

This episode is dripping with noir-like atmosphere with Philip Marlowe undertones. Nichols recalls in flashback his relationship to the--hold the presses--schizophrenic daughter, Lenore, of one of the murder victims who also happens to be a friend of Nichols' father. Stevens is rightfully concerned that her partner is becoming too personally involved in the case, as he charms his former lover into giving him information to help solve the case.

The murders, of course, are staged, complete with swords and the accompanying ex-sanguination of the bodies to suggest a gruesome duel. The scope of this tragedy is all so Biblical, so like Greek tragedy, the irony of which is not lost in translation as the motive for the murders becomes apparent.

Because, as it turns out, all the fuss is about a rare book supposedly giving the Roman account of the trial of Jesus. This book allegedly would shake the foundations of Christendom because the scapegoat Jews would be let off the hook. It was all political, Nichols suggests, the Jews never turned on Jesus.

You only fall in love for the first time once, Nichols intones, as he walks off into the New York sunset after promising Lenore he would kiss her...tomorrow. But tomorrow never comes in Nichols' world, only more black holes to inform his existence and choice of career as a police detective who is just as cynical as his noir counterparts.

[idget]

My lord it sounds like a bunch of Da Vinci Code malarkey. They must be getting desperate to knockoff Agatha Christie, Raymond Chandler and Dan Brown all in one episode. Not too even mention another schizophrenic. May I suggest the writers try reading the DSM IV, there is a whole wealth of other disorders out there. Does anybody have any original ideas anymore?

[Patcat]

Yes, LOCI does Dan Brown, Agatha Christie, and Philip Marlowe. And a little Tennesse Williams it seemed to me. And even a reference to LOCI itself with the schizophrenia. It seemed to me that the episode walked an edge between tragedy and comedy, and I don't think it quite handled all of its references and the balance completely successfully. From a more realistic view, there's no way that Nichols should have been allowed to continue with the case. And Stevens seemed to be not necessarily pushed to the side but certainly not allowed to share the spotlight.

Having written all that, I have to say I enjoyed this episode. I liked the outlandish behavior of the lawyer and the book people (happy to see that the book people were good people). I liked the glimpse into Nichols' past. I liked that the story had the audacity to have a situation where the butler did it (g). I thought it an interesting departure from the usual LOCI.

And yet (and I apologize to all Nichols/Goldblum fans out there. This is not meant as a criticism of the character and certainly not of the actor. It's my problem), I couldn't help thinking how much better this story would've been with Bobby and Alex.

And I missed the dialogue of the last couple of minutes. Was it explained why Nichols was in London and who he was talking to?

Patcat

[peterinmanhattan]

I've two comments. Why was Nichols's hair and sideburns so bloody long when he was in London? He looked terrible! And did anyone find Stevens's quip about the dinner party 'Whatever will I wear?' to be a line straight out of the Alex Eames snark-playbook?

[arwenelf]

Hello fellow LOCI fans!
I don't chime in very often, but I just felt the need to be heard, or I should say read.
I liked the writing for the Nichols' episodes during season 8. I don't think the writing has been as good in season 9, but this episode, in my humble opinion, is the worst episode of LOCI ever. I thought it was over-acted and the writing was subpar. It seemed like a parody of Hercule Poirot and the Da Vinci code. I hope I am not being too harsh. I saved the episode on my DVR to watch it again in a couple of days to try and find something I liked. Why don't they use the captain some more? I think the talent of Ms. Mastroantonio is being wasted.

I hope I am not upsetting anybody, I just did not like this episode. I can appreciate the intention of doing something a bit different, sort of film noir, but I don't think they pulled it off.

Best regards,
arwen

[missjanet]

Hello,
I faithfully watch episode after episode for the ME Rodgers factor. I would love to dislike or possibly hate one of them. I'm bored, indifferent and couldn't care less. I don't care if there will be a next season or not. This season JG is boring, watching SB is watching paint dry, there is no chemistry, the scripts are bland... I'm just bored to death with this show.

And that's a pitty, since so many people invest talent, time and money to make an appealing product, they just fail for me.

MissJanet

[crimefighter]

Ratings for this episode were: 2.791 mill., 0.7 demo. Info from USA board. Not a good demo for this show and the number of viwers seems to be flatlining.

[DonnaJo]

I really didn't care for this episode.

I appreciate changing up the format of the show by having us hear Nichols explain what happened in the past to his "friend" in London, but it didn't work for me. All I kept thinking was how USA had to save money by dumping VDO, Erbe and Bogosian, yet frivolously spends extra dough to film scenes overseas. Why? He could have chatted with some girl in Soho.

I know schizophrenia is nothing to laugh at, but all of that swirling and twirling in 1930's negligees by Lenore was downright ridiculous. And as idget mentioned, what is the fascination with schizophrenia? Change it up, please.

I won't even go into the silliness of revealing the murderer in the attic. I mean, who else could it have been but the odd butler? And his motive was ridiculous.

There was too little Callas. I love her snark and no-nonsense attitude. And Burrows is so concerned with covering up her British accent that she forgets to emote. Even lines like "whatever will I wear?" that Peter mentioned fall flat when she utters them.

I will also try and rewatch it. Perhaps it will be better after a repeat viewing. Or not.

[maherjunkie]

I hope you don't mind me quoting your stats elsewhere, cf.

[crimefighter]

Feel free, T.V.bythenumbers used to print them every week, they did for this past episode, not for the two weeks previously. USA board is where I got these numbers, but checked the TV bythe numbers to see if they were there, check next week, they may put up the numbers for the final two episodes, if not I'll see if they are posted at USA board.

[Moonbeam]

I'm with Patcat. Why was Nichols in London and who was he talking to? I missed the first few minutes of the opening.

I liked the "feel" of this episode, but it just didn't quite get there.

Along with schizophrenia, exsanguination seems very popular this season.

[Metella]

Interesting - I liked the "feel" of this episode also & put some things aside (like N should have been snatched off the case) to enjoy the lawyer and to greatly enjoy those "neighbors". but I missed the first few minutes also and have no idea who that person he was narrating to was.

Anyhow - parts of it were flatline and I do like Saffron a ton - but I don't get what she was going for when she delivered that line - it lacked any emotion.

I stilled liked the "feel" of the episode - so I'll give this one a C while I am pleased with all the other JG episodes so far.

[alliehalliwell]

Jul 2, 2010 11:03:14 GMT -5 DonnaJo said:

I really didn't care for this episode.

I appreciate changing up the format of the show by having us hear Nichols explain what happened in the past to his "friend" in London, but it didn't work for me. All I kept thinking was how USA had to save money by dumping VDO, Erbe and Bogosian, yet frivolously spends extra dough to film scenes overseas. Why? He could have chatted with some girl in Soho.

I know schizophrenia is nothing to laugh at, but all of that swirling and twirling in 1930's negligees by Lenore was downright ridiculous. And as idget mentioned, what is the fascination with schizophrenia? Change it up, please.

I won't even go into the silliness of revealing the murderer in the attic. I mean, who else could it have been but the odd butler? And his motive was ridiculous.

There was too little Callas. I love her snark and no-nonsense attitude. And Burrows is so concerned with covering up her British accent that she forgets to emote. Even lines like "whatever will I wear?" that Peter mentioned fall flat when she utters them.

I will also try and rewatch it. Perhaps it will be better after a repeat viewing. Or not.

I agree with everything you said. England? Okay if they wanted to do some overseas shooting it would have been perfect with Goren when he was on - He did go to a few different countries that they mentioned a few times - England, Germany, Korea... why Nichols? Why at all?

I found the woman twirling a little ridiculous and she didn't really seem to me like she had schizophrenia. I think the writers were slipping on that. And yes, there are plenty of other disorders they could have focussed on but they always seem to go back to that particular one and I'm glad someone else mentioned it because I was wondering the exact same thing. It's overdone and it feels a bit like a cop out. When in doubt, use Schizophrenia - oh and lets not bother with the research.

I felt it a little strange too about the attic reveal....and did anyone else laugh every time the Butler spoke? I couldn't help but laugh at it and I'm still not sure if that was intentional or not. Bad on the writers if it wasn't.

Burrows - my opinion of her character is not improving and in fact, I'm starting not to like her. I personally don't love or hate her as an actress but she did seem to have the same reaction to everything.

Nichols - meh. I'm kind of indifferent. With Goren, Eames, Logan, and even Deakins, I was interested when they brought in painful situations and past experiences... this episode for me was weird. Nichols had all this happen to him and normally he's okay...but for some reason I just couldn't care. I did however, dislike the voice over. It was so out of place and not L&O style.

I actually wouldn't have minded if the episode turned into a dinner-and-a-murder type mystery, if they had done it right, maybe poked fun at itself...maybe have other detectives in it too, or have us thinking it was a real murder when it was just a fake one that they did for fun... HOWEVER this was just odd. From Nichols being named in the will (even for a chess board) to his romance with that woman...to the fact they were completely lost as to where the attic stairs were? Last night when I saw this episode, I was seriously wondering what was wrong with them. I asked myself - is this Law&Order - these ARE detectives aren't they? HELLO - first place you look in a mansion during a murder mystery with hidden stairs? THE BOOKSHELVES! Duh - secret passages weren't just in fiction - even Castle Loma in Toronto has hidden stairwells...

I just couldn't believe it...

I really didn't like this episode. I could see bits of hidden potential but it just screamed of the writers trying to get new viewers and they didn't bother to do proper research or think creatively what the characters would do. It seemed half-assed if you ask me.

Yeah...for the first time in a long time, I really didn't like the episode. In fact, I'd have to go as far as saying that its probably one of the worst of the series.

The only thing I really didn't mind were the scenes with Rogers in it, but yeah, that was very little.