|
Post by Metella on Feb 13, 2005 21:52:45 GMT -5
So I get to start this as I'm one of the few who was looking forward to seeing the Logan Character ...... Stress Indeed!
That ending scene was as heartpounding as the one in Phantom.
So far I'm pleased with Logan; it has given him a definate opening to be transfered to MCS.
|
|
|
Post by missymagoshi on Feb 13, 2005 22:01:05 GMT -5
That ending scene was as heartpounding as the one in Phantom. Heartpounding, really? I think it had the potential to be, but Goren played the scene as if it was just any other Goren scene. I didn't get the feeling he was fighting for his life. I do think Logan worked surprisingly well in the mix.
|
|
|
Post by twilight on Feb 13, 2005 22:09:01 GMT -5
Hey everyone!
So, I just finished watching the last episode and thought I'd stop to make some comments about it. I didn't really get into the discussion about Chris Noth joining the show before this; I was waiting to see how the two of them would interact. That being said...
...I think this was a pretty solid episode. It was well-written and well-acted throughout, though the "instant confession" bit at the end felt just a tad too forced. The issues brought up were very timely, and I think that Goren's comments about the nature of power were (as usual) quite astute. And even if the last scene wasn't entirely believeable, the psychology behind it was credible (i.e. that the leader is really a coward puffed up by his delusions of his own power and that it's sort of a cycle that feeds on itself.)
Now, Logan! I'll admit it; I've always loved Logan. He's a good guy, a cynic who actually cares underneath, and is pretty captivating to watch. He's as impulsive as Goren is intellectual; he follows his instincts more than he does his research (if he even does any.) In other words, he's as different from Goren as can be with respect to investigative techniques. They do have one similarity, though: they're both very passionate in their pursuit of the perpetrators.
In this episode, I felt that the Logan character came across as a guy who has really gained some experience, grown up, and mellowed a bit (but, thankfully, not too much!) There were lots of nice little touches --- his sarcastic comments, his reaction to Bobby's psychopathology book, his protectiveness of his girlfriend. And on the whole, he meshed well with Goren. A few moments were a bit off and seemed to be setting things up for the next season a bit too conspicuously, but the general impression I got was that they were fun to watch together!
So, I liked this one. I liked the way it managed to address an important issue without saying THIS IS AN IMPORTANT ISSUE *too* loudly (though it did do it a bit, but Law & Order tends to fall into that trap in general.) I liked the way the older Logan came across and interacted with Goren. Goren tends to isolate himself; even when set against the "maverick" Detective Logan he's still very definitely different. But that is precisely why he's so intriguing, I think --- and the way he handled himself around Logan both did a nice job illustrating that and worked well in general.
And yeah, it was a dark episode in many ways --- but it was a damn good one, and I'm psyched for season 5.
|
|
|
Post by janetcatbird on Feb 13, 2005 22:10:16 GMT -5
Brace yourself, Catbird is going long-winded. For right now I am not going to comment on the episode itself. However, I knew exactly what Goren was referring to with the prison study. Here's an interview with Philip Zimbardo, the man who conducted the Stanford experiment. We studied it in my AP Psych class, especially because Zimbardo hosted the series of videos my teacher used as reference. I had not read this particular interview before, but the fact that it has Dr. Zimbardo's opinion on Baghdad, well, here. Text is kinda long. www.royblakeley.name/larry_blakeley/interviews/philip_zimbardo_interview20040504.htmNEAL CONAN, host: Well, whether it's British or American forces in Iraq or, as we've also heard, perhaps in Afghanistan, a question remains on many minds today: How could this have happened in the first place? How could prison guards have conducted these kinds of terrible things? A landmark psychology study in 1971 may offer some explanations. That experiment sought to understand the psychology of prison life and what happens to the behavior of both prisoners and guards. Philip Zimbardo conducted the Stanford Prison Experiment back in 1971. He's a psychology professor at Stanford University, and he's with us in Studio 3A. Thanks very much for coming in. Professor PHILIP ZIMBARDO (Stanford University): Thanks for having me, Neal. CONAN: What were you trying to learn? Prof. ZIMBARDO: Very simply, what happens when you put good people in an evil place? Does the goodness of the people overwhelm the evil or does the system corrupt good people? And the answer we found was very simple. And the answer we found in that study has been replicated a number of times in other research I've done and research social psychologists have done; that when you have a system of evil--and I can describe that very briefly--that the majority of good people succumb, give in, comply, conform, are blindly obedient to authority--good boys in our study became sadistic guards; that it's not everyone, but the problem is the majority of people give in to these situational forces. And those situational forces in our study--and there is an exact parallel to what happened in Baghdad--is where you have secrecy--and secrecy is the modus operandi in virtually all prisons, so nobody knows really what's happening there; where you don't have accountability from top down, where you have a strong supervisor setting the limits of what is acceptable, what is unacceptable; where you have sanctions for unacceptable behavior and, in fact, you begin to reward some kinds of behavior; where you allow the guards to dehumanize the prisoners, to begin to think of them as less than human. In this case, some of the guards in the Baghdad prison call them animals. Where the people running this, the guards, where they have a sense of--they're not accountable to anyone, that they are essentially in the secret environment where there's no supervision and the rules are vague and changing. And then you have social modeling; that is all you need is one or two people to start doing this aberrant behavior, and they not only model it; in order not to feel guilty, they induce the others around to join in. CONAN: Now you took--What?--about 70 students... Prof. ZIMBARDO: Yeah. CONAN: ...as I recall, and some were, you know, randomly selected to be guards. Others were selectively--were picked to be inmates. And you threw them together, but did you give the guards any training? And presumably, prison guards (technical difficulties) and MPs in Baghdad get training to be guards and restrain from these kind of things. Prof. ZIMBARDO: No. In fact, the interesting thing is in most prisons, there's really very limited training. You'd be surprised in even maximum security prisons, it's less than one week's training on how to actually deal with inmates. We didn't give them the training. We just said, you know, `Whatever you know about being a guard, that's what you do. Maintain law and order. You cannot be physically abusive of other prisoners.' But what happened very quickly is the guards have unlimited power, so that's the issue. Prisons are places of power and powerlessness; that the power of the guards, guards always have to be on guard against the sadistic impulse, which comes with having the total power of somebody else. And so what happened in our situation, now as you said, we randomly assigned--we flipped a coin. You know, you be guard, you be a prisoner. But before we did that, we gave personality tests to all of the kids who had applied, and these are students from all over America. These are not kids who were from Stanford University. And we picked the ones who were most normal and most healthy; no history of crime or drug abuse. So because we wanted to start off with really good people in this place, and what we observed--it's really like reality TV--each day, the transformation. Initially, we're interested in the prisoners, how they would adapt. But we realized the even more interesting thing is how good people become perpetrators of evil, and it's a gradual seduction into this phase, so that each day, a guard would do--guards would begin to be bored, and they would use the prisoners as their playthings. And each thing you did, then you built on, you were more creative. The next day, you did something... CONAN: And the worst abuses, you wrote, happened at night. Prof. ZIMBARDO: See, the worst abuses happened in the middle of the night when--in fact, I was (technical difficulties) because they didn't realize everything was being... CONAN: Videotaped. Prof. ZIMBARDO: ...videotaped. And it wasn't until the next day we observed. So we have an exact parallel. The guards line up the prisoners and say, `OK, you're female camels. Bend over.' And the prisoners were in smocks with no underpants, and when they bent over, their butts were showing. And they said, `Oh, you guys are male camels. Hump them.' And they began to simulate sodomy. These are college students, knowing that they're in an experiment, making other college students do this. And then similar kinds of things. And once I realized that, we said we have to end this study. It's really out of control. But, in fact, in four days, four prisoners had emotional breakdowns. A fifth one had a full butt psychosomatic rash, and these are kids we picked because they were totally normal and healthy. Their sense of hopelessness, powerless, you know, had gotten to them in this really powerful way, and the same thing with the guards. Now not everyone did it. It's just that the majority give in to the power of the situation. So, you know, when you're saying, `Who's responsible?,' we're blaming those six soldiers. Essentially, it's the system. It's not a few bad apples in a good barrel. It's a bad barrel, and the barrel is war. It's the vinegar barrel of war that corrupt the best of Americans, whether it's in Meli(ph) or whether it's in Baghdad.
|
|
|
Post by janetcatbird on Feb 13, 2005 22:11:12 GMT -5
Zimbardo interview ctd.. CONAN: We're speaking with Philip Zimbardo, a psychology professor at Stanford University. You're listening to TALK OF THE NATION from NPR News. And let's get a listener involved in the conversation. Lesley joins us from Madison, Wisconsin. LESLEY (Caller): Hi, Neal. Thanks for taking my call. CONAN: Sure. LESLEY: One of the experiences that I had--I work in a maximum security male facility of over 800 male inmates, and, you know, maybe I'm fortunate to be working in Wisconsin, where I received six weeks of pre-service academy and then went into the institution, where I received more training, but I just want to say that the majority of correctional officers are doing their job under a very stressful situation, long-term, and we aren't like police officers who go and arrest a bad guy, then let him go. I mean, it's a long-term stressful experience for us. And, you know, I've been six years in the same institution, and I definitely have developed relationships--I mean, I wouldn't say relationships, but men come to me when their families--things are happening to them on the outside that they can't control. I mean, there is an intense feeling of powerlessness at being institutionalized, especially in a situation where, you know, our guys are institutionalized forever, you know. CONAN: Right. LESLEY: There's quite a few lifers. CONAN: Very long sentences, so the power relationships are definitely there, but would you describe it as evil? LESLEY: No, not in any way. We are very much accountable for our behavior, and like I said, I mean, I realize Wisconsin is sort of a model, I believe, of the nation. CONAN: Would you agree with that, Professor Zimbardo? Prof. ZIMBARDO: Yeah. I mean, the fact that you were trained--and I would bet that that's relatively rare in state prisons, but also, you were trained (technical difficulties) the key word, you were accountable, there were rules to follow. Just think of this Iraqi prison where there was minimal training, the superintendent had no--Brigadier General Karpinski had no experience running a prison ever, and she's put in charge of three prisons. Most of the military police had no training in corrections, but they're put in this place where there's also no clear rules. It's clear that this unit was the torture interrogation section. So now you have military police taking orders from civilians, which never happens. Karpinski said she was told never to go to that section. In fact, she never did. So there's no presence of authority, and that the authority is mixed. You have civilian contractors. You have CIA. LESLEY: Right. Prof. ZIMBARDO: So just... CONAN: Well, let me ask Lesley... Prof. ZIMBARDO: Yeah. CONAN: ...what you thought when you saw these reports coming out of Baghdad? LESLEY: Well, I'm shocked and horrified and, of course, a lot of correctional officers are ex-military. I mean, quite a few of my co-workers have military time served in Desert Storm, overseas, you know, and so on. And they're quite shocked, too. I mean, I guess the point that I especially want to enforce is, you know, we hear about the most egregious cases--there was a case in Florida where some men... CONAN: Yeah. LESLEY: ...you know, allegedly stomped to death an inmate, and I'm not saying that--I'm not at all justifying their actions, and I'm horrified by what I'm seeing overseas. And again, I think it has--you know, speaks to the lack of professionals and lack of training that they had. But the majority of us are, you know, doing an honorable job... Prof. ZIMBARDO: Right. Of course. LESLEY: ...and I feel like we really don't get a break by the media, because, you know... CONAN: And I'm going to reinforce your impression because I'm going to have to cut you off, because we're running out of time, Lesley. LESLEY: Yes. Well, thanks so much, Neal. Prof. ZIMBARDO: Thank you. Well, thank you for your comments, Lesley. LESLEY: All right. CONAN: Thanks for the call. Just very briefly, Professor, as a result of your study, did any training of prison guards change? Prof. ZIMBARDO: Not that we know of. The only result of our study was Senator Birch Bayh--I gave a testimony for a congressional subcommittee--developed a federal law so that juveniles in pretrial detention, which is what our study was about and which the Iraqi prisoners are, can no longer be housed with adults in federal prisons because they were getting gang-raped, because the system allows that abuse. CONAN: So long ago, that was, of course, the father of the current senator from Indiana... Prof. ZIMBARDO: Right. CONAN: ...Evan Bayh. Prof. ZIMBARDO: Right. CONAN: Philip Zimbardo, thank you very much for being with us today. Appreciate it. Prof. ZIMBARDO: Thank you, Neal. I really enjoyed being here. CONAN: Philip Zimbardo is a psychology professor at Stanford University, and he joined us here in Studio 3A. - "Interview: Philip Zimbardo discusses a 1971 psychology experiment done on prison guards", Neal Conan, National Public Radio (NPR) www.npr.org, 4 May, 2004 Philip G. Zimbardo www.zimbardo.comAnd now for Catbird...What I do know from those AP videos. Zimbardo arranged for the boys who were assigned to be prisoners to be picked up in squad cars fromt heir homes/schools, in front of the people they knew. Taken to the station, fingerprinted, then put in the hallways of the building that was the prison. He said at first everyone thought it was a joke, you know, college students in an experiment, but then by about day 3...the guards forced the prisoners to sing "Amazing Grace" while doing push-ups, solitary confinement, made them cry. One of the inmates did a hunger strike and had to be removed. Apparently the study was supposed to be about a month. One spot with technical difficulties in the interview, I believe, refers to Zimbardo "going home" after normal business hours but I think a lot of the time he'd go to the control room to watch the tapes. What he said in interviews was that as a psych researcher he was, at first, excited in the sense of "what great material we're getting!" (my paraphrase). One of his RAs who was helping monitoring turned to him in disgust and said "I think what you're doing to those boys is awful." They had a big argument, but Zimbardo then came to his senses and called it off. (Later he married that grad student.) Of the boys, I've seen a couple of them interviewed. I think one of the prisoners became a prison chaplain, or at least a reverend who does work in prisons. I'm sure there are lots of sites out there, I just thought people would want to see this. #nosmileys
|
|
|
Post by Metella on Feb 13, 2005 22:16:09 GMT -5
Really? Well I can see that the last scene happening in of itself could be trite; but if you take that away & just think it happened - there they were ... I thought Goren was scrambling a bit - rocking as he stood and thought of a way to talk the less commited ones down. I also see some guys drawing the line between torture and killing cops and stepping back at that point. Ever faced someone you were going to fight? You do pace a bit, one does not always get all "hyped" up but waits - the parry can be more powerful than a first attack.
Heartpounding for me perhaps then, because I was able to dismiss the world while this episode ran and was just there, not knowing they were coming back for a next season .... just seeing the moment as if it was happening in time & that was for me, heartpounding.
Yeah, the tossing of the book on Goren's desk was great; as well as the playing twister comment that Goren totally ignored as he used to ignor those comments by Eames in the past. That was refreshing.
|
|
|
Post by missymagoshi on Feb 13, 2005 22:21:34 GMT -5
All good points. I still would like to have seen more urgency from Goren. It wasn't just a fight, his life was on the line. I agree the episode was strong and the story compelling.
|
|
|
Post by NicoleMarie on Feb 13, 2005 22:29:17 GMT -5
I was not impressed with Logan. I am desperatley crossing my fingers we get to see Goren/Eames shows seperate from Logan/partner.
I think Goren's somewhat lack of intense fear was his brain was going into overdrive. He looked a bit freaked out but he was thinking. He picked the weakest person to talk down and then worked his way up...until the boss was left standing alone, undefended. It seemed Logan just froze. He did say (paraphrased) : If you kill us, if we disappear, the others will know WHY and you will not get away with it.
And, that was the first time I ever saw such a freaky CI ending! I was like WOAH! LOL!!
|
|
|
Post by Patcat on Feb 13, 2005 22:32:45 GMT -5
I thought it was a solid, very well done episode. My only qualms were the heavy dye on Noth's hair and the heavy makeup on his face. But the relationship between Goren and Logan was well set up--the call to Van Buren established Logan's honesty and value, Eames clearly had some grudging respect for him--so the wary but trusting attitude between the two detectives was believable.
And I'll grant that the final scene was something of a stretch, but I'll accept it. It's probable that the connection among the guards was already terribly frayed--the fact that one of them had been killed on the order of the leader put them all at danger. Goren, with all of his psychological knowledge, knew which member of the group to hit first, and, with his break, it was a matter of the bricks tumbling. I did find it interesting that Goren called upon his military background to connect with the former Navy man.
An uncle of mine was an Indiana state trooper who eventually became an investigator (roughly the equivalent of a detective), and he once said, "The problem is that most of the people who want to be police officers are the kind of people no one wants to be a police officer." And I'm afraid the head of the group in this episode demonstrates that the people who want to be corrections officers are the last people who should be corrections officers.
Patcat
|
|
|
Post by janetcatbird on Feb 13, 2005 22:39:29 GMT -5
I think Goren's calmness at the end was a very definite "I don't want to send him over the edge, I don't want him/them to panic, not in this spot". It was a very controlled, most-definitely-trying-not-to-panic, although I would have liked to see his human side afterwards, like in Phantom when he did have that semi-collapse of "Oh my god". Mom and I are the same way, we hold up til a situation is over and then when it's safe we fall apart. I will say that I was yelling at the TV for someone to grab the nightsticks dropped by the guards--even if Goren didn't want to alarm them, you'd think Logan of all people would have grabbed it to be at the ready.
Logan did better than I thought, I wonder if that last scene was tacked on after the casting decision was made. Personally I think he was trying too hard to be the wisecrack we knew before, while I love the line itself of "1984" the delivery was poor. It seemed like the actor Noth was waiting for a reaction from somebody and not character Logan expressing his view.
He's definitely going to be the anti-Goren, and I think the contrast will be dramatically interesting. I'm not saying he and Goren have to compare shoe sizes every episode, but I think we're so used to Goren that it'd wake us up as viewers. Hopefully they'll get the partner well-cast, although I'm still upset we're missing a chance for Avery Brooks or Michael Dorn or someone like that.
Patcat, you snuck up before me. It was interesting to see Goren's reaction to the whole situation. I'm surprised he was so easy-going, even before the call to Van Buren. I mean, how did he know that the boyfriend-of-the-nurse wasn't in on something as well? (And I was a bit miffed that Logan barely acknowledged Eames.) Normally if someone comes charging in demanding that they alter procedure everybody gets a bit harumphy. Of course, the behavior is typical for the Logan we knew way back when, I'm just surprised MCS was so meek and "Well, if you like..."#nosmileys
|
|
|
Post by missymagoshi on Feb 13, 2005 22:47:11 GMT -5
Yes, why didn't anyone grab the nightsticks? Here's something, who says Logan's partner has to be a woman?
|
|
|
Post by NicoleMarie on Feb 13, 2005 22:49:58 GMT -5
VanBuren wanting Logan back did not impress me because he is a street cop, not MCS material. I thought that was unneeded hype. Logan did not seem to comprehend or even try to comprehend Goren and Eames' work or their methods. That was disappoining to me because I was surprised to see that. I was hoping Logan would have been more receptive and perceptive to other methods. That makes a good cop, especially for MCS. Logan doesn't seem to fit.
Maybe I'm just being biased? Logan is not a profiler, he doesn't have Goren's intelligence or skills. That I can see so far...
I think SVU and CI should switch captains. Deakins for Cragen. Cragen always could slap down Logan! ;D
|
|
|
Post by Greeble on Feb 13, 2005 22:57:13 GMT -5
Hi, I am new to this board.
I actually enjoyed this episode a great deal. I felt a bit bushwhacked, they hyped the return of (noth?) and then hit us with this topic. I am amazed at how well they treated this issue. Especially how they focused on the effects the corruption had on the private lives and ... well.. souls of the guards involved instead of dwelling on the abuse itself.
I forgot to tape it, dagnabit, and am wondering if anyone caught who wrote it.
as an aside: I only started watching the show in november or so when I bought season one. If I remember correctly, Goren showed less stress while staring into a shotgun some father was going to use on his kids. I didn't think the endgame in Stress Posions was that much out of charater. I think it was just too long.
Jen the newbie
|
|
|
Post by missymagoshi on Feb 13, 2005 23:07:04 GMT -5
Welcome, Jen. Yeah, I saw that shotgun episode too. I felt it worked better dramatically than the static ending in this one. The way everyone just stood there seemed really contrived to me. I'd love, every once and awhile, to be completely caught off guard. I felt like Eames faded away in this one, which was disappointing. The writer was a name I didn't recognize. Charlie something.
|
|
|
Post by darmok on Feb 13, 2005 23:15:17 GMT -5
I liked the last scene (or is that the second to the last scene?). Of course, they made the famous bad guy mistake, letting the good guys talk too long. If they had atatcked right away, Goren wouldn't have had a chance to talk them down. I'm not faulting LOCI; this problem is common in TV and movies - it's just not very realistic.
As far as the way Goren reacted - it was just how one would expect Goren to react. He only gets physical when he has to. He used the weapon he had - his knowledge of their backgrounds. He took them down one by one, starting with the one he already had determined was feeling guilty about the situation. Goren used his great memory to recall details of - not one, not two, but three guards' files to turn them against the main guard. I also liked how the last one offered to walk them out instead of just running away.
I'm sure Logan's first choice would not have been to talk them out of it. But Goren, took the lead and seemed to have it under control. Plus it was four against two, and they had to protect Logan's girlfriend. I liked Logan's comment that the guard would have been worth ten more years on Staten Island.
An aside: I don't think they changed this scene after the decision to bring Noth back next season. I read the script from the Reel site a while back; so I think this is how it was written originally.
|
|