|
Post by Patcat on Oct 12, 2004 14:08:25 GMT -5
I could see Goren and Carver having a drink after work, particularly if Eames is also there, but I agree that there's not a friendship there.
Carver strikes me as a perfectly fine human being who's worked hard to get where he is. He probably gets on the train and heads to his home in Westchester or whatever suburb and has a good life with his family. Aside from their work, and that interest in cars, I don't see Carver and Goren sharing a great deal in common.
Patcat
|
|
|
Post by Sirenna on Oct 12, 2004 15:43:46 GMT -5
They have a few big things in common. (And this is purely time-wasting speculation, on my part, about the lives of people who don't exist. ) For instance I think they both have a profound respect for the law. Political though Carver is, I thought his push for the death penalty was because he was so revolted by the crime, not primarily because of self-interested ambition. They also seem like people who require of their work that it make difference to society. Both guys are bright and could make a killing in private practise, especially the lawyer. Instead they toil away at taxpayers' expense (and complaints, I bet) I also think they were both misfits in childhood. But I think Goren probably rebelled by skipping school while Carver was a misfit because he was always there, bookish and myopic even then - teacher's pet, maybe? I do think Goren would have been tempted to deride someone like Carver if he'd met him when they were kids.
|
|
|
Post by Patcat on Oct 12, 2004 16:23:54 GMT -5
Yes, I think they have the big picture in common, as I wrote.
While I agree Carver might have been shy and bookish, I also get the impression Goren spent a lot of his time with books as well. It might be wishing, but I like to think of Goren as the quiet big guy who helped littler kids. I don't want to think of him as a bully.
Patcat
|
|
|
Post by janetcatbird on Oct 12, 2004 20:07:29 GMT -5
Oh lord, better late than never. I for one would like to see Neil Patrick Harris nominated for an Emmy for Best GUest, who's with me? (My uncle used to call me Doogie Howser, but that's completely unrelated...)
My mother watched this with me and noted that in this episode they don't go into what made Tagman the way he was--I mean, in most episodes we find either a long-term history of abuse, a mental disease, or a crisis moment in the past. I kind of liked the fact that this episode didn't go there, it allowed us to focus on the crime and how-do-we-deal-with-it. (And I'm sure Metella appreciated the lack of a backstory!) The remorse he showed and his not being able to help it gets him off of Death Row. BUt then, I personally am very squeamish and somewhat naieve in feeling sorry for most criminals. There are some crimes that encourage a personal knee-jerk reaction, but if someone is sick that's not it.
About Carver and Goren: I think in the first few episodes they were feeling each other out. It's not the first time we've seen cops and lawyers argue over the proper handling of a case, lord knows we saw it plenty of times in the mothership. As someone said earlier (sorry I can't see the name!) Carver was applying the legal code. Goren didn't want to let Tagman off, he wanted him confined so he wouldn't hurt people but not condemned for something beyond his control. Eames as always is a loyal partner, she may disagree with Goren but she won't go against him in front of people.
I loved the scene where, after that vague phrase and catch of the eyes they tear out of Deakins office. As Carver gives the captain a puzzled "Huh?" look Deakins gives that great line "SOmetimes it's best not to ask". Think he's figured out how to handle that partnership by now? Sorry for mixing up the exact words, but that stood out. I liked someone's insight about Deakins insulating his own and not letting Carver go into Goren. My Dad has commented that Deakins and Carver both act like good bosses in that way.
Unfortunately I've got stuff to do, I'll have to come back to this. Later all.
Catbird
|
|
|
Post by darmok on Oct 12, 2004 21:02:04 GMT -5
I thought the Goren-Carver relationship was friendlier in the 3rd season than in the 1st season; the 2nd season was kind of a mix (Best Defense vs. the Cherry Red). I thought that it had a very natural progression. There was the great line about paranoid schizophrenics in Gemini, a pat on the back in Pravda, and their walking off together in FPS while Bishop walked the other way. I guess it is still natural for them to clash once in a while. In this episode, when Goren stepped into the observation room after getting the confession, he didn't make eye contact with either Deakins or Carver. Carver was mad, but as Observer said, Deakins didn't give him a chane to say anything. I suspect if Carver had really wanted to, he could have gotten Deakins to stop Goren before he got the confession.
I'm wondering when Deakins is going to have enough and is going to blow up. I think we're headed in that direction. He was concerned in Semi-Detached. In this episode, he did have a wonderful look on his face when Goren started to get emotional about the death penalty; he couldn't believe his eyes. And he was clearly upset about Goren's ploy at the end, although he still made sure Carver didn't say anything to him. Deakins chose not to chastise Goren; instead he walked out of the room, not saying anything. I don't think he'll put up with much more.
Now for a couple of random thoughts: In the chocolate shop, I think Goren's seemingly nonsense comment "I bet Willy Wonka works here" is a cue to Eames. He immediately distracts the worker, and Eames starts to look for the suspect.
Goren tends to be very touchy-feely, but he was careful not to touch Tagman when he was motioning him out the door to get some lunch. He knew Tagman was very shy and didn't want to make him very uncomfortable.
|
|
|
Post by Sirenna on Oct 12, 2004 21:04:28 GMT -5
I've been wondering why this episode felt so creepy to watch and how incongruous, as Dom said, the ending was. I was creeped out because Goren reminded me of Tagman.
Yes, Tagman was lonely and wanted a partner. Maybe Goren does too. Yes, Tagman tried to keep them alive because of his need - or, more accurately his want, and he deeply regretted hurting them. But the awfulness of his crime was not that he boiled someone's brain - a truly terrible thing to do. There's a worse crime here and one that Goren may be guilty of, too a much lesser extent. Tagman, with deliberate forethought erased not only their names. I think it's significant that both victims were found with no ID. But he also wiped clean the thoughts in their heads and the feelings in their hearts - everything that made them unique and complex individuals.
Both Goren and Tagman seem to want someone in their lives. Both are quite capable of achieving this. (Tagman too:I diagnose him not sick so much as deathly afraid of rejection.) But both men share one thing at least. Neither want to deal with the complexities of what 'surrendering themselves' to someone else means. For Goren this would mean taking time off work, sharing stories of his childhood and his mother, releasing some of the responsibility and control over the stresses of his job: all of which never seemed like a priority for him.
I hate to say it but in a way both Tagman and Goren are guilty of objectifying women. They want the ideal but they don't want to deal with the reality.
|
|
|
Post by Observer2 on Oct 13, 2004 6:37:13 GMT -5
...Nor is [Carver] prepared to put his life, or even his reputation, on the line for these cases in the same way which must create a personal divide between them. Not for the cases, no. But he did put his reputation on the line. In The Faithful. And he did it for Goren. He was pissed, no question. He had a right to be. Goren put him in a really bad position. If that case ever comes up for review, Carver is screwed. But he did it. Under the circumstances, I think telling Goren never to do that again – “Run one by me like that again, and I’ll have your badge” or words to that effect – was a fairly mild reaction.
|
|
|
Post by Observer2 on Oct 13, 2004 7:17:36 GMT -5
...both men share one thing at least. Neither want to deal with the complexities of what 'surrendering themselves' to someone else means. For Goren this would mean taking time off work, sharing stories of his childhood and his mother, releasing some of the responsibility and control over the stresses of his job: all of which never seemed like a priority for him. I hate to say it but in a way both Tagman and Goren are guilty of objectifying women. They want the ideal but they don't want to deal with the reality. I’m sorry to be so disagreeable this morning, but I have to say that I disagree pretty strongly about Goren objectifying women. Furthest thing from it. And the way you describe what Goren would need to do, and the implication that he doesn’t because it’s just not enough of a priority seems like a real oversimplification to me. Goren grew up in the kind of situation that forces kids to find their inner strength, but also teaches them not to rely on anyone else emotionally – no one around them is reliable. And it becomes a cycle. They seem so competent, so self-reliant. Even people who might offer support to someone who seems to need it might not think to offer it to them. When Nelda said, “It’s important for you to know you’re not alone,” it touched a nerve. “No one ever…” And that’s only one issue. Goren has quite a few. I don’t doubt that Goren would have trouble opening up enough to establish a deep, lasting relationship. But it’s not because he just doesn’t think it’s worth his time and effort. I know I’m making a bunch of flat statements here, without laying out my supporting evidence. I do have some, I’m just not awake enough right now to put it in order. After I get a bit of sleep I may try again.
|
|
|
Post by Metella on Oct 13, 2004 7:23:50 GMT -5
I'm not caught up on the comments yet - but to give another illustration of the Carver / Goren "unease" in Season 1 "The Pardoner's Tale" there was even a snark by GOREN not Eames at the end focused toward Carver.
|
|
|
Post by Patcat on Oct 13, 2004 9:58:37 GMT -5
A very good friend of mine came from a tough background--his mother died when he was 11, and his father was an alcoholic who essentially abandoned the family. My friend spent some time in the foster care system. Fortunately, he's bright, funny and a terrific person. But he wants to save and protect everyone--his kids, everybody's kids. And his brother and sister--both younger than him--say he's always been like that.
I see Goren being somewhat like that--he's suffered, and he wants to save others from that. Maybe that's too simplistic, and I'm projecting too much?
Patcat
|
|
|
Post by Techguy on Oct 13, 2004 14:17:35 GMT -5
If everyone can stand a little more personal history, here goes.
I can relate to Det. Goren for a number of reasons, not all related to us both being ex-military. I grew up with a single parent mother because she and my Dad split up when I was still a toddler.
Unlike Det. Goren, however, I have very vivid memories of a loving and caring father and absolutely NO such memories of my Mom. She was in and out of relationships so much with very little regard to how her actions would affect me. But that's a long and very painful subject involving abuse and neglect that I prefer to remain buried in my past.
The point I'm making is, I learned at a very early age to become self-reliant, which is why I asked Observer some questions about how she feels Goren managed when he was a child.
My childhood also resulted in great difficulty establishing lasting relationships, which eventually led me to the military because, I now realize, I was looking to "belong" in the company of men with established rules of behavior.
Fortunately, I was able to not only put the negative aspects of my personal and military history behind me, I was also able to finally establish a loving relationship with an understanding and caring woman who is now my wife.
I realize CI is just a TV show, but forgive me if I wish Det. Goren the same results in his own personal journey of growth and discovery.
On another subject, I also can picture Goren and Carver and Deakins going out for a drink after hours. I don't know if it's a guy thing, but I find it reasonable to go out with colleagues to shoot the breeze, even if there is no firm "friendship" per se apart from the workplace connections. I'm not sure about Goren and Eames, however, I'm still trying to figure out the extent of their relationship beyond their working partnership. To be honest, I have very little experience working alongside women, so I have no point of reference upon which to base an opinion.
And I agree with Janetcatbird's assessment of Neil Patrick Harris' performance in this episode. Unfortunately, I do think that the creepy subject matter might not sit too well with the Emmy nominating committee.
|
|
|
Post by janetcatbird on Oct 13, 2004 15:21:59 GMT -5
I don't think Goren objectifies women, but he probably doubts his ability to handle a long-term relationship. Especially leaving himself open and vulnerable, I mean, we've all seen instances with that.
I try to avoid using clinical terms because I do not have the background knowledge to speak correctly. However, Tagman was one sick puppy and somebody oughta be doing some checks to see what would be needed. Like I said, I'm squeamish about death penalty. My gut instinct is to reach out and hug a victim, not to punish, which is one reason I will NEVER be involved with the law.
Techguy, glad to hear that it all worked out for you. It really is great to have your perspective on things. (I loved your comment about the sanitation of Eames slipping in the kitchen!)
Drinks after work? Eh...Carver and Goren are a possibility, if it was a long difficult case and they've finally come to terms. I like the bit about "especially if Eames was there", I've said before I think Carver appreciates having one "normal" person int he partnership to talk to. I could see Goren and Eames having a drink after work in a cop bar or something, again especially after a difficult situation. (What was it from "Third Horseman": "Promise me a margarita after all this is over." Apparently it's not a foreign concept.) But having an after-work drink is a far cry from a date. I think the least likely to hang out non-professionally would be Deakins, if just for the fact that he's their boss, but work-hour-lunches or maybe bringing something into the squad snack room would be a possibility.
|
|
|
Post by Observer2 on Oct 13, 2004 16:38:24 GMT -5
If I recall correctly, it’s in Semi-Professional that we see Deakins, Goren and Eames sitting around a table at a pub or restaurant, drinking and chatting with a guy (maybe a judge?) that Deakins had told them could give them the lowdown on the hidden influences on the appointment or promotion or whatever it was that the two judges in that case were vying for.
Now that you’ve made me think of it, I want to go back and check it. As I recall, the guy was telling them something about Deakins when he was a youth... Nikki, have I got that right? Anyway, it was a neat image, and they all seemed very at ease. I like to think of them and Carver sometimes going out for a drink or a late dinner after finally closing a tough case... Though I expect Carver would usually be more interested in heading home. The pictures in his office seem to indicate at least one child, and they don’t go very high in age, so he probably wants to get home to his family most nights. (I really liked his line in Dead, where he said something along the lines of, “Just let me call home, and I’ll come with you.” He immediately thinks to call home when something comes up that might make him late.)
|
|
|
Post by Observer2 on Oct 13, 2004 18:51:04 GMT -5
Techguy,
I want to say again how glad I am for you that you’ve been able to connect with someone and have a strong, loving relationship. I’ve never been to war, so I don’t know about dealing with that kind of trauma; but like you, I grew up in enemy territory. I have some idea of how much courage and determination it took for you to get this far. Congratulations. I’m glad you made it.
One of the reasons I love this show is that it deals with issues faced by someone who experienced childhood trauma – and it does it with a level of psychological accuracy and realistic portrayal that I have literally never seen on television before. It makes perfect sense to me that you’re interested in talking about how Goren managed when he was a child. In case anyone hasn’t noticed, I think both that, and other aspects of the character, are valuable topics to explore.
When I was eleven years old an episode of I Spy gave me an image of someone who was as broken as I was, right down to the paralyzing terror. I couldn’t help but identify with him. And then it gave me something I’d never had before. The concept that it was possible to recover from that. Just as important, it gave me the template for how to do it – by being willing to face the pain and fear.
I’ve never doubted, since then, the potential for television to change people’s lives through the power of stories that are built around characters who ring true. But this is first time I’ve seen something that true since I was eleven.
I don’t know if you were reading the Universal board when A Murderer Among Us aired. If so, please forgive the repetition. Up until the time that show aired, one of the things I’d never been able to fully deal with in my recovery was my rage over what had been done to me. The only inner templates I had for how people dealt with rage were horribly destructive. I always felt that if I tried to release my rage, I’d lose control and either hurt myself or harm someone else. Watching the final scene in A Murderer Among Us was cathartic for me, but it was a whole lot more than that. It was convincing. I finally believed that it was possible for someone to really allow themselves to feel that level of rage and yet not lose control. Seeing it so vividly portrayed created an inner template for me to use in my own process.
That’s a dramatic example, but thinking, and writing, and exchanging ideas about this show have helped me reach more than a few insights that have increased my understanding of myself and others.
I think that’s the kind of potential television has, but rarely fulfills. Criminal Intent is exceptional in bringing together so much psychological knowledge and understanding with such extraordinary acting talent. I think if you feel drawn to think about aspects of Goren’s character, and/or any of the other characters and relationships on the show, the odds are good that doing so will have some positive value for you. That’s certainly been true for me.
Techguy, if at any time you’d like to talk off the board, about the show or anything else, please feel free to email me.
|
|
|
Post by Patcat on Oct 14, 2004 3:29:17 GMT -5
Techguy--It sounds like you've got it together. Congratulations.
I've always thought that Goren found a home of sorts in the military--that he might have even been headed for a life in crime before he entered the Army.
Patcat
|
|