|
Post by Observer2 on Mar 14, 2005 0:53:25 GMT -5
Incest is not an easy subject to deal with in an hour. This episode touched on many aspects of that type of abuse, hitting some notes that series television usually leaves out – ranging from the father’s inability to control his own behavior to the daughter’s impulse towards vengeful cruelty.
On the other hand, touching on aspects is not the same as making them comprehensible to people who don’t already understand them. For instance, there were a couple of lines of dialog that reflected some of the brutal kinds of emotional manipulation such abusers use to keep their victims tied to them; but I’m not at all sure they were enough to help the average viewer begin to understand why a girl, and later a young woman, would not run away, or call the police, or save up a few hundred dollars and leave town – one way or another get herself out of reach of such a monster.
So I’m not at all sure this episode will increase people’s understanding of the issue. I’m not even sure it won’t leave some people with a “blame the victim” feeling of, “Well, why didn’t she just leave?”<br> But on a personal level, I felt that the episode reflected a lot of understanding of the issues (even if it may not have increased *other* people’s understanding), and I found it emotionally powerful.
|
|
|
Post by Techguy on Mar 14, 2005 1:03:39 GMT -5
I'm not sure whether or not I "liked" this episode, or even if "liked" is the correct word to use here. My main reason for this uncertainty is the one Observer gave in her post--incest is a very difficult subject to discuss and deal with properly in a one hour TV show.
So while I'm still on the fence and need another viewing to sort out my feelings, I do have some general observations about this episode.
Tommy the incestuous father reminds me a lot of Lance Brody in the Season 3 episode "A Murderer Among Us." Both these characters are monsters, corrupted by evil desires and both unable to control themselves when tempted to cross the lines of not only the law, but basic human decency. Both these "fathers" ruined their daughters, albeit in different ways, but the damage done to the psyches of both young women at the hands of their fathers is monstrous and inexcusable.
Perhaps because I have warm memories of my own father despite his not being in my life since I was a toddler, I know my conflict and harsh response is somewhat clouded with respect to "Death Roe" and "A Murderer Among Us." Neither Lance nor Tommy deserved to be fathers in the true sense of the word. In their cases, their sins have definitely been visited upon their children, a crime equally repugnant to the murders both men committed.
|
|
|
Post by LOCIfan on Mar 14, 2005 1:52:44 GMT -5
I had some trouble following Tommy's logic in this one. He wanted to get rid of his daughter's husband so he wouldn't have to share his daughter with him. Why would he take the added risk of killing the critic and framing his (already dead) son-in-law? As far as I could tell, Tommy had nothing against the restaurant critic. She apparently gave Tommy's restaurant a good review. If the goal was to get his daughter away from his son-in-law, why kill her at all? Did I miss the motive for the double homicide?
|
|
|
Post by Patcat on Mar 14, 2005 1:56:59 GMT -5
Tommy is certainly a thoroughly despicable human being on many levels, a candidate, I think, for the Worst Villain category. A splendid performance, though, from Chris Penn as this character, one that demonstrated the superficial charm of the fellow.
I agree with Observer and Techguy that the story didn't allow enough time to deal properly with the issue of incest, but I did like the way in which the plot moved. There was, however, a high "ooo" factor, with poisoned fish, vicious murder, chopped up bodies. I really needed a shower after this one.
And another Goren tidbit--he worked at a restaurant when he was a kid.
Patcat
|
|
|
Post by Metella on Mar 14, 2005 8:46:20 GMT -5
I also think someone who is set out to be as Tommy would not just roll over while being blackmailed - I see him pretending to go along & then returning fire, so to speak. It would not have gone as easy on the daughter.
I also agree that when we first find out about the abuse, we tend to feel sorry for the daughter & then she is acted/directed in such a brash way; at the end you do get a blame her feeling just a litte bit.
that steam scene was totally useless.
|
|
|
Post by Patcat on Mar 14, 2005 9:01:39 GMT -5
I believe Tommy killed the food critic as part of his plan to make it appear that Josh had killed her, and then committed suicide. It would also appeal to Tommy's need for control.
I liked the steam scene--D'Onofrio having fun, Bobby having fun, cutting tension, and allowing Bobby to throw everyone off balance.
Patcat
|
|
|
Post by LOCIfan on Mar 14, 2005 10:21:32 GMT -5
Right, I got the fact that Tommy killed the critic in order to frame Josh. But it felt contrived. Two murders in one night, committed by one person (who also had to establish an alibi for himself) seems unmanageable. I realize that Tommy was a grandiose narcissist (among other things), but he wasn't foolish.
I also agree that framing Josh would've appealed to Tommy's need for control by casting Josh as the bad guy. But there were so many other ways to accomplish this -- without resorting to a second murder... For example, he could've planted some clues to make it look as though Josh were cheating on his daughter, then killed Josh and made it look as though he'd run off with his (nonexistent) paramour. The murder of the critic just seems gratuitous, and not the best way to accomplish his goal of both getting rid of Josh AND driving home the message that nobody could ever love his little girl as steadfastly as Tommy could.
The daughter's turn-around from passive victim to active blackmailer, especially given how much she relished inflicting pain on her father, was not well drawn. I can easily understand how a daughter in her position would have a deep desire to inflict pain on her abuser, but I didn't see her character go through a believable transformation from submissive victim to sadistic revenge-seeker.
Tommy would certainly have found a way to turn the tables on his daughter in no time flat. The conflict between father and daughter would've quickly escalated until either she killed him or he found some way to beat her, once and for all, into a sumbissive role.
This episode was a big disappointment. The vulgarity of the show seemed to be the point, in and of itself -- without LOCI's usual attention to illuminating the WHY's behind the vulgarity.
When a show like CI delves into a topic as misunderstood and sensational as incest, I expect more than I got in this episode.
|
|
KMC
Rookie
Posts: 24
|
Post by KMC on Mar 14, 2005 11:23:26 GMT -5
There are a few problems with this ep. While I understand Tommy's motivation for killing the critic to frame the son-in-law...to try to destroy his daughter's feelings for him...there is the practical consideration of him having to accomplish a lot...two murders, ditching the bike and destroying the body in a rather cumbersome way..in a fairly short amout of time.
And as for the daughter's transition from victim to blackmailer...all we get in the one scene where she's almost gloating over what's in her little silver box...which the father had a good chance of seeing when he came up behind her...she wasn't keeping them in a very safe place....a bank safety-deposit box would have made more sense.
And isn't she open to prosecution herself...tampering/withholding evidence for a start. Though a good lawyer can probably get her a good deal for testifying against her father.
|
|
|
Post by kissyfit on Mar 14, 2005 11:26:25 GMT -5
This wasn't an all-time favorite of mine. As mentioned above, incest isn't an easy topic to cover, but ... I was often confused if the real crime here was the incest, of the murders... or was it just Tommy was a bad man all the way around...? With the latter seeming too much an 'excuse,' nullifying the terrible things he'd done to his daughter. What was missing for me was some sense of shame here, or conversely, righteous indignation. I think the writers treated the subject with kid gloves AND a ten foot pole. Now, while I am glad they steered well clear of sordid details, no one seemed... mortified or outraged when the incest was mentioned, especially when the suggestion was clear that it had never stopped. There were flickers of discomfort on everyone's face, but no one seemed to treat it as awful... And as such, when Daddy Dearest got s*****d (pun intended) by his dead son-in-law in the meat grinder (and subsequently his own daughter), there was less a sense of 'GOTCHA!' in it for me. The way eveyone pussyfooted around the topic, he might as well have been caught committing a much lesser offense. For me, Tony's 'Kids ruin everything, I could have told you that!' caused more onscreen shockwaves than the moment Goren and Eames realized why he would have killed his son in law... Ultimately, I think the daughter's incestuous victimization by her own father was too much downplayed as being more random, merely just another sin committed by her father the 'all-consuming ogre' (I am paraphrasing) and not a victim of INCEST per se. A mistake, I think. And of course her victimization wasn't the only theme... the murders were the crime they were really investigating. It just seemed to me the SHOCK was supposed to be the daughter was still being abused by the Dad, and that he would kill to continue it... and then that same plot point was backtracked and downplayed as just another unfortunate vice of the father. That said, liked the pace, and we were treaed to some good rapport among the detectives... not all bad, but I think Tony needed to be portrayed as the incestuous monster OR the all-conuming ogre... not both. Chris Penn did a great job, as did the actress who played the daughter. kissy
|
|
|
Post by Metella on Mar 14, 2005 11:38:58 GMT -5
Yes! there was no feeling of Gotcha
and on to the blase attitude toward the incest - how about that partner's wife - she KNEW it was going on, when the girl was in her teens. SHE herself was raped. So - I can see why she may have felt she could move away and keep him at a distance and keep making a living off her husband working at that restaraunt - so for her own run in with him - ok, let it pass, not worth the fight to bring justice in here ........
BUT not to have called in a nameless tip to child-welfare? Unexcusable. and her reaction was still kind of - well, this is happening, but we need to ignor it and just get on ......
and that is what the scenes in this episode did - they just moved on .....
I really didn't like the story or the pace; the dialog and scenes of just the detectives & Deakins were the only worthy part of this for me. Not even breaking this into 2 parts and going into more detail would save this for me - it should have never gotten off the drawing board. This is my first CI YUCK ever.
|
|
|
Post by Patcat on Mar 14, 2005 11:47:12 GMT -5
LOCIFan--I acknowledge your points, and agree to a point. I think, though, that Tommy had reached such a level of needing control and was so out of control himself that Josh's murder was understandable.
And I think this is one of those episodes where we may have lost a few crucial scenes to the cutting room floor, and these might have clarified the relationship between the father and daughter.
There were many little things I liked about this episode. The final confrontation was played extremely well by all four actors, and I especially liked the reactions of the father and daughter as the balance of power kept shifting.
And the scene of Goren almost getting a drink of the special stuff--that look of getting his hand caught in the cookie jar as Eames reminds everyone that they're on duty should go down as one of D'Onofrio's classic Goren moments.
I can't tell if Goren and Eames' reaction to the incest was flat or more of "oh, no, not again."
Patcat
|
|
|
Post by LOCIfan on Mar 14, 2005 11:48:28 GMT -5
Don't even get me started on the partner's wife! What the hell was that all about?!? There was a "well, boys will be boys" or at least a "well, Tommy will be Tommy" attitude that was entirely repulsive. And neither Goren nor Eames seemed to find anything odd about it.
And that whole sideline served to further confuse the daughter's character as I saw her, because she HAD in the past gotten away from Tommy.
Patcat, I think my earlier post wasn't clear. It wasn't Josh's murder I found perplexing but the critic's murder. (I went back and tried to clarify.) It's the mechanics of two murders in one night while restaurant-hopping, especially when one of the murders is unnecessary to Tommy's ultimate goal...
Oh, and you're so right, that scene where Goren almost takes a drink while on duty (you know he was dying to taste the stuff!) was funny. I half expected Goren to say something like, "come on, Eames, just one little sip. it smells good."
|
|
MelTex
Detective
"I want a Jonny 7 all-in-one gun..."
Posts: 336
|
Post by MelTex on Mar 14, 2005 13:58:29 GMT -5
This episode is going to take a second viewing for me, as I felt either there were some "flat" points that really didn't grab me, or perhaps I missed them all together. I'm kinda on the fence on this episode. Great performance by Chris Penn, proving that again, the TPTB who choose the guest stars did another good job. He personified the "Abominable Ogre" as Goren so elloquantly put it to the daughter. His charm belied his ruthlessness, there for, as Pat said, putting him in the "Worst Villian" catagory for sure! The murder of the food critic was kind of a twisty almost red-herring. I had thought from reading some of the script before hand, that her death would be a bigger part of the crime formula. Though I admit, I didn't read the episode summary until later and found ot that darker things were going to come up. The pace of the show was sort of "ho hum" for me, Eames and Goren going through the motions. There were a few bright moments, when a little of the old animated Goren showed through. When Eames rained on his parade as he was about to take that shot of Tommy's home brew, he had that dissapointed little boy look like he did from CHERRY RED, when she informed him he had to get outta the car. *grin* Goren at the gynocologists, playing with his human model made me smile--and the steam scene brought a grin to my face as well. It just showed Goren (and D'Onofrio) cutting up, and after watching Goren earlier in the ep. not seem very interested in things, it was a treat to see the guy laugh and have some fun again. The incest wasn't very clearly brought out in the story, something I think they could have worked on more. The daughter rubbed me the wrong way, even though in the end I did feel sorry for what she must have gone through at the hands of that monster father. Basically, there were parts of the show I liked, and a lot of parts I think could have used some work. The death of Josh and the food critic seemd rushed and skimmed over--as though they wanted to cut to the incest and descriptions of "putting Josh in the meat grinder" (CSI already covered meat grinding a human 101 in a season 3 episode, so not a big eye-brow raiser for me). I think Tommy's partners who took in his daughter should have raised a few more alarms than they did, since the woman had been raped by Tommy in front of drunk-hubby. And Goren's bluntness about the table where Tommy "bent her over" was another example of Goren's capability of being harsh and in-your-face with the brutal facts. *eesh* I don't know ...I guess I liked most of this episode, it just left me feeling like they rushed it, left things out and could have injected "something" some more "Umph" into it. *grin*
|
|
MelTex
Detective
"I want a Jonny 7 all-in-one gun..."
Posts: 336
|
Post by MelTex on Mar 14, 2005 14:18:37 GMT -5
Hey, Goren worked at a restaraunt during the summer in his youth! Wonder when he found the time, while he was racing cars (or stealing them) with Lewis...lol! Guess thats what piqued his interest in cooking, and his affinity for it later on! *nice tid-bit* ;D
|
|
|
Post by BegToDiffer on Mar 14, 2005 15:08:13 GMT -5
I think Goren showed his disgust for Tommy at the end when he handcuffed him. He layed him over the table forward, just as Tommy had done to Duke's wife. In Goren's own words, a sign of humiliation.
|
|