|
|
Post by osmondfan on Apr 17, 2006 14:08:06 GMT -5
I think one time Eames mentioned that her mother has suffered a stroke, but I don't know if she (the mother) is alive or anything else. But I am pretty sure she said something like, "I've seen what can happen with stroke victims because of my mom." That's not word for word ,but it was something like that .
|
|
|
|
Post by Observer2 on Apr 17, 2006 14:47:14 GMT -5
Yes, Eames' mom has had a stroke, apparently fairly severe. Eames referred to it in a way that suggested that both Goren and Deakins already knew about it. I think the episode was called In the Dark – the Halloween episode with the stone baby. IIRC, the tense Eames used suggested that her mom was still alive at the time of that episode.
It also made me think of a reaction Goren had in an older episode (Shandeh, I think) to the mention of someone’s mother having had a stroke. I noticed his reaction at the time because it seemed somewhat withdrawn – focused inward – as though it were a personal reaction of some kind, rather than an outwardly-directed empathetic response. I wondered about it at the time, and after the mention of Eames’ mom I now wonder whether it might have been a reaction to his partner’s situation. If so, that would put the time of Eames’ mother’s stroke at sometime prior to the middle of the second season. But that’s pure speculation. The only thing we know for sure is that her mom had a stroke, and lived long enough afterwards for Eames to see its effects on her – and those effects were intense enough that she reacted with sharp disbelief to the idea that the stone baby’s mother could have had one or more strokes.
Trisha asked, “...did anyone else feel like this was a little bit of an adventure into VDO's world of acting, his work with The Cell...”
And someone else mentioned mirrors...
Oh, yeah – though D’Onofrio’s form of acting goes a bit beyond basic Method.
For me, this episode was like finding myself in the middle of a set of mirrors arranged to reveal glimpses of writers, actors and characters in a series of infinitely reflexive images.
“...in the end she just manages baby talk...” ...eerie, knowing where that came from... a real tape of a real victim, part of D’Onofrio’s research for the Cell... And the mention of an FBI agent and a book on serial killers... was that poking a bit of fun at Balcer’s friend’s book, or at that other FBI guy’s book on serial killers? ...so many bits of echoes that I could track to D’Onofrio or Balcer... how many more were there that I didn’t catch...?
Normally, I want a show to draw me into the fictional world – I don’t want to be aware of the actors or the writers. I want to sink into the experience, like sinking into the sound of a symphony. This episode didn’t do that, but it was still totally absorbing, like listening to a fugue, being aware of different melody lines weaving in and out, in complementary counterpoint, creating a larger fabric of sound that has its own meaning, its own overarching theme.
The search for the truth – including the willingness to face your own difficult truths – is essential for the best kind of acting and the best kind of writing – so you know that the people who wrote and delivered that final line know what they’re talking about. Which for me, makes it the best ending line from any episode so far – and something of a tribute to the people involved.
This search for the truth... it’s not for the faint-hearted.
|
|
|
|
Post by mimi1802 on Apr 17, 2006 15:43:17 GMT -5
Yes, I often forget that characters go through the writers' mind before they surrender them to the actors. They take a similar journey than the actors, but aren't they able to keep a distance between them and their creation because they don't physically portray the character? Nonetheless, I think that characters can have an effect on writer as well as on an actor. I don't know? Is there such a thing as Method writing?
But don't you think that this relationship is not optional, it's simply there and isn't it inevitable that you will get a glimpse of the actor or writer to a certain extent, especially if you read articles or listen to interviews they gave?
|
|
|
|
Post by Sirenna on Apr 17, 2006 17:49:52 GMT -5
I'm not getting the title?!
Are you?
I was thinking somenthing along the lines of the "Method Man" or is that too obvious?
|
|
2011
Silver Shield Investigator
Posts: 51
|
Post by 2011 on Apr 17, 2006 17:59:09 GMT -5
I thought "Vacancy" referred to the vacant adjoining room from the bridesmaids'--but that seems WAY too obvious....and while we're on the subject of titles, could someone quickly clear up "Dollhouse" and "Anti-thesis" for me too?
Thanks!
|
|
|
|
Post by mikeyrocks on Apr 17, 2006 18:13:50 GMT -5
I also didn't quite get the title for Vacancy  As far as the other two - I can help with Dollhouse! I think that it is refering to the relationship between the two sisters ( Danny and Claire ) AND the fact that they are fighting over Baby Charlie - At one point in the episode Barek makes the following comment - " Two sisters fighting over the same Doll " - Or something to that effect. |
|
|
|
Post by Techguy on Apr 17, 2006 20:18:18 GMT -5
I found this episode interesting and absorbing--up to a point. The descent into cabbie actor Lester Summerhill's psyche and absorption into the role that never materializes makes for a fascinating character study. But at the end of the day, I was left with a few concerns about problem areas that prevent it from being a boffo knockout episode for me.
The ride on the Method acting train is fascinating enough, so long as I get what Observer notes as a glimpse into a fictional world that brings me to places I do not know, or may decide I might not ever want to visit myself. But the way the episode unfolds, Method acting becomes almost a guest star character in its own right. I attribute this impression to the fact I could not escape what I already know about Vincent D'Onofrio's absorption into the Carl Stargher character in "The Cell." In this instance, maybe too much knowledge is a dangerous thing because I ended up feeling "Vacancy" is D'Onofrio's way of explaining the process he went through, or else exorcising whatever final demons remained from the experience. And this made me quite uncomfortable, because then I felt like I was eavesdropping on a session between D'Onofrio and his therapist--and I sure as hell did NOT want to go there. The line between fiction and reality had been crossed, which proved to be a major distraction for me.
Another area that bothers me is the entire involvement of the FBI guy in Summerhill's research on serial killers. Would a law enforcement officer get that involved in the personal research of a civilian in this way? I was especially aghast that the FBI guy allowed Summerhill to listen to tape of a victim's 911 call while the murder was in progress. I find this highly unprofessional no matter what the reasons given for it, except to serve the plot and throw more fuel on the fire of Summerhill's total absorption into the mind of a serial killer. Please excuse the next comment in advance, as I in no way intend it in an insensitive way and do not wish to offend the victims or their survivors. But...if the actions of this FBI guy are an indication of the current attitude toward security and handling of sensitive information, then it's no wonder terrorists were able to hijack commercial jets and fly them into skyscrapers and the Pentagon.
|
|
|
|
Post by LOCIfan on Apr 17, 2006 22:25:49 GMT -5
Yes, I often forget that characters go through the writers' mind before they surrender them to the actors. They take a similar journey than the actors, but aren't they able to keep a distance between them and their creation because they don't physically portray the character? Nonetheless, I think that characters can have an effect on writer as well as on an actor. I don't know? Is there such a thing as Method writing? Mimi, this really made me think!  And the more I thought about it, the more I kept thinking there must not be any other kind of writing than "method" writing. When it comes to actually creating a character, a three-dimensional being with a past and hopes and dreams and a reason for being in the world, well -- that seems to be about as "method" as it gets, because in order to create a character like that, the person creating it has to feel and understand it. Maybe that's the difference between good writing and bad writing? I don't know, but it sure made me think! And, actually, it made me like this episode more than I did when I first watched it. |
|
|
|
Post by LOCIfan on Apr 17, 2006 22:32:34 GMT -5
I found this episode very strange. As Observer and Techguy have said, I felt kind of like I was getting a glimpse, maybe too much of a glimpse, behind the curtain at the little man who's supposed to be the great and terrible Oz.
Not only did it kind of take me out of the whole Criminal Intent universe, but I also felt like there were aspects of it that had to do with VDO's style of acting, that I don't really want to know about, at least not in an episode of CI. It's the sort of thing I'd read an interview with him for.
To me, this felt like a very self-indulgent episode. Like maybe an episode that VDO had wanted to do for a long time, instead of being a story that Balcer wanted to tell. Given what's out there in terms of interviews of both VDO and Balcer, it would be hard for real fans of the show not to be thinking about them while watching this episode, and that whole thing didn't work for me while I was watching this.
|
|
|
|
Post by Observer2 on Apr 17, 2006 23:30:05 GMT -5
...I ended up feeling "Vacancy" is D'Onofrio's way of explaining the process he went through, or else exorcising whatever final demons remained from the experience. And this made me quite uncomfortable, because then I felt like I was eavesdropping on a session between D'Onofrio and his therapist--and I sure as hell did NOT want to go there. The line between fiction and reality had been crossed, which proved to be a major distraction for me. Although I enjoyed the weaving together of fiction and reality in this episode, I can certainly understand that it is bound to be distracting for some viewers. What I don’t understand is why you would say the rest of what I’ve quoted here. The writers of this episode drew in part on things D’Onofrio has experienced and talked about. I expect the writers either talked to him about this episode, or read some of the same articles and interviews that I have, or both. But D’Onofrio did not write the episode. It’s not *his* attempt to explain anything. It’s an exploration and statement by the writers. D’Onofrio the actor, and some of his experiences, are among the things reflected – and reflected upon – in this episode; but it’s the writers who constructed the mirrors, chose what things they would reflect, and arranged them to produce those eerily reflexive images. If I were to hazard a guess, I would guess that Balcer probably heard about some of D’Onofrio’s experiences over time, and, as a writer, as someone interested in psychology, and someone who works closely with actors, found those bits and pieces sparking ideas and speculation. Perhaps he and/or his co-writer may have consulted with D’Onofrio as the script took shape... or they may not have. But either way, this was not some self-indulgent product of D’Onofrio wanting to work out his personal psychological issues in public. Trust me on this, that would be just about the last thing you’d ever find him doing. |
|
|
|
Post by Techguy on Apr 17, 2006 23:48:05 GMT -5
Observer, I did not use the term "self-indulgent" at any time in my post.
What I said was, given my prior knowledge of D'Onofrio's absorption into Carl Stargher in "The Cell," it felt like he was trying to explain the process and so I felt like I was eavesdropping on a therapy session. These are my own personal feelings which made me uncomfortable, and which was a major distraction as I watched.
I still feel I could have done without this kind of Method acting retrospective connection between reality and fiction. I probably would have been better off not knowing about D'Onofrio's preparation for "The Cell," the better to appreciate "Vacancy" for what it is on its own merits.
|
|
|
|
Post by Metella on Apr 18, 2006 8:17:53 GMT -5
Goren and Eames are definatly tough cookies. As such, it is nice to see their struggles sometimes - just not in a soapy way & this was ok for me.
I also felt like I was looking at D'Onofrio in the scene where he was at the cabbie's house. Oh well, it didn't really work for me - but I can see where it would work for those who are heavier into the acting and writing & producing than I am.
I thought the girlfriend was a great protrayal in a weak and clinging female - she could be coy and cute when she thought she had the attention of a male, but when on her own - she was a bubbling baby. Good character. I wanted to slap her silly.
|
|
|
|
Post by comedykicks on Apr 18, 2006 9:00:19 GMT -5
Wasn't this the second pycho cabbie episode? Logan and Barek had one now Goren and Eames. Remind me never to get into a cab!
|
|
|
|
Post by Cassie on Apr 18, 2006 15:12:54 GMT -5
I still need to rewatch the episode. But, I am beginning to wonder about Carver, sure I love him when he is wearing his suspenders. But he accepts the confession to easily,, instead of wanting to get the right person for the crime. We saw this in Suite Sorrow. When Goren and Eames felt that someone was pushing Julie’s buttons. Carver responded with something like “the jury likes nice straight lines, go with it” . I don’t know, he is dealing with a person life‘s, not a just another conviction in his cap.
|
|
|
|
Post by LOCIfan on Apr 18, 2006 15:23:37 GMT -5
Observer, I'm the one who described this episode as self-indulgent, and I still feel that way. For me, it hit the method acting note too hard. It was too meta for my taste, and I found Goren's fascination with the method, eye-rolling. I mean, an actor studying for a role as a serial killer who gets in touch with his inner serial killer, investigated by a character played by a method actor, etc., etc... I wasn't engaged.
|
|
Patrick Roy, 2006 inductee into the Hockey Hall of Fame
And the more I thought about it, the more I kept thinking there must not be any other kind of writing than "method" writing. When it comes to actually creating a character, a three-dimensional being with a past and hopes and dreams and a reason for being in the world, well -- that seems to be about as "method" as it gets, because in order to create a character like that, the person creating it has to feel and understand it. Maybe that's the difference between good writing and bad writing? I don't know, but it sure made me think!
