|
Post by onepoliceplaza on Feb 7, 2007 13:30:31 GMT -5
Greetings from the lurking corner --
I feel like such a junkie. Stuck in a board meeting last night, on Goren Night in America, the meeting going into extra hours and no way for me to get my fix. (No tivo either nor time ahead to schedule taping it). Augghhhh! Though I tried to appear calm, my restlessness was officially noticed ("Are you okay? You need to meet up with Detective Who? Can't you call him to reschedule? He's on A TV SHOW???!!")
So, thank you all for your comments until I can obtain a tape or watch it replayed on USA. I'm a little concerned about the reviews that the story seems to be on the lighter side (not too many interwoven plotlines going on), similar to "Privilege", than other Season 6 (and earlier seasons) episodes. "Privilege," outside of a few Goren moments ("SIT DOWN! AND ...") seemed underwhelming to me; watchable, but almost too much like a Logan episode.
At this point of CI/GorenEames withdrawal, however, as the VDO character Cholo would sneer, "Kill me! IT. DOESN'T. MATTER." I won't be able to think until I watch...
Barbara in Washington
|
|
|
Post by DonnaJo on Feb 7, 2007 14:06:32 GMT -5
Eames seems to be very unhappy lately. I found that exchange in the bar over drinks disturbing. Responding "I Hope So." to Bobby's earnest & humble question, "Are We OK?" was a bit cruel & unfeeling, IMO. Here the guy, your supposed good friend & partner for 6 years, is asking you to assure him that you are still OK with each other. If you're not , then say so. If you are, say,"Sure we are." I find Eames' ambiguity annoying. Or is that supposed to be a warning to Bobby to stay in line & don't get on her bad side, or else?
|
|
|
Post by caseyswife on Feb 7, 2007 15:36:23 GMT -5
The wonderful Frank Prinzi directed this episode, janet! I was so very happy to see his name at the beginning - he has directed some of my fave episodes and I really thought his style made the show even better. I agree with you Miss Ellie - Mr. Kelly Ripa's appearance added zilch and since Ross seems to be taking over the lines that Carver would have notched in previous seasons, why didn't they just have him deliver that little bit as well? caseyswife
|
|
|
Post by ragincajun on Feb 7, 2007 16:20:35 GMT -5
Had to watch it twice, due to the fact that I was angry at my cable company the first time. Seems Lately we have trouble with recieving NBC channel and especially at the end there was a lot of trouble with reception. Can't wait for it to come on USA so I can see it clearly. I have enjoyed it due to the fact that it was a G/E episode. But you can clearly see the old Goren is gone. Like I said before, Is this due to writting? or Due to the fact VDO is tired of playing the same character for the last 5 yrs? It has been said that many of the quirks we have come to love were of VDO's development. Is he just showing up and playing the scene, waiting for his contract to end, and get out? Only time will tell. I would love to blame the writers and hope things change. And if they are reading this, PLEASE get cut out the music video at the beginning, but next week I am sure we will get one. Love Mike Logan saying he listens to Rap, all the time, lol
PS he had to mention his Mom. Even though it was just her comment on why women stay with unfaithful men.
|
|
|
Post by MissEllie on Feb 7, 2007 16:35:29 GMT -5
ragincajun--I'd like to think it's due to writing rather than burnout by the actors. From what I've read about VDO's love for his craft, I think he would try to make the most out of the script he's given.
|
|
|
Post by janetcatbird on Feb 7, 2007 16:49:46 GMT -5
I completely did not pick up on Goren's "Are we OK"? line as referring to "War at Home". I thought of it as a nicely ambiguous statement that could be interpreted strictly professionally as Is this gonna screw up our case?, because Eames takes care of herself by working. However, he left it vague so that she could interpret it as Are you alright? to give her an opening if she wanted to talk. She didn't. I don't see why Goren would be worried about her with him--seems to me her general bad mood was related to the case, since she got that way (in a restrained manner) with Ross as well. I hadn't noticed any real tension since the Thanksgiving From Hell so I wasn't concerned it was a big issue--the characters patched things up off-duty in my mind.
I'm with Mimi that it feels somewhat insulting to women. Why must Eames get so defensive/tense around women in men's jobs? Whether it's a female cop who screwed up and made things harder on the rest of them, or getting pushy to demand everyone's views on abortion (way back in season one) or this politician. It stinks, because the rest of the time she's not the "girly cop" or "linchpin excuse to drag women's issues up" so why does it have to be so blatant when she does? I personally don't see why Eames got as upset as she did for this one lady: she heard her give a speech or two, it was nice to see in the media, but for someone without a personal connection she took it awful hard--and very out of character for Eames.
The only redeeming sisterhood triumph in this episode was the ballistics lady at the crime scene. (And no, I don't get radical and demand affirmation in every single bit of media, but in this episode we take what we can get.) I liked her even before I was desperate for something good. She was competent, really knew her stuff, obviously characterized that she wouldn't back down in a tough job (but not in a stereotype ball-busting way) and in a non-confrontational setting held her own with Goren--hoorah! (When will the writers let Rodgers do this?)
Mr. Pagolis, what a blankety-blank-blank-something-I-shouldn't-say. Ugh. I agree that the ambiguity of "sometimes they get away" is a nice throwback to the olden days of CI as well as the mothership, but I wanted him to get what was coming. (But if he listened to the eavesdropping and knew what was going on, couldn't they get him on initiating the costume switch?) How nasty and callous is HE to put a decent man literally in front of a firing squad just to make his wife squirm?
One scene near the commercial breaks, when his wife burst into the room--were they implying spousal rape there? That's what I got from the way he grabbed her and pushed her on the bed--thankfully they had the white flash-out to commercials--although it could be seen as just an especially horrible, physical form of cat-and-mouse: you can't get away; fight all you want but I'm still in control.
I'm with a lot of people on this board. No psychology--a couple throwaway lines about Driver Wanna-be-Hawk and his mother, but that's it. They could have done so much with that! I'm not saying beat us over the head with Mama Goren--Techguy I am also glad that the angst is gone--but think of the parallel. Both men saw wrongs experienced by or done to their mothers, situations beyond Mommy's control when they were too young and powerless to help. So they grow up, and take their chances to right similar wrongs and thus vicariously redeem their mothers. (OK, one instance for the driver versus a whole career for Goren, but work with me here.) If you really wanna milk this for all it's worth, if that half-brother soldier was on the mother's side, maybe he got into the armed forces to try and stop bad people from hurting others. I know, stretching, but think of what they could have done with this! Instead it was "Well, you set it up, back to sleazebag and the lady politician!"
And the music video, oh good grief. Looking back from the whole story the title "Under Pressure" makes sense, but as somebody said upthread, it's such a famous song that it feels gimmicky and made me roll my eyes/fuss at the TV. I don't like these music videos anyways, but they're one step up from the stalker cam. If they must do it groan could they at least be subtle, or use not-big-hits or something?
I still love Ross. Yay history geeks! I didn't get a good look at the boys, did they really seem annoyed/disdainful at the set-up, or just nervous/confused after the shooting? How cool is that--no matter how nasty the divorce was Ross is consistently making an effort to be there for his kids; not just at a holiday when you kinda have to play nice, but regular day-to-day. (See how you can show characters' lives without beating us over the head with them dominating a melodramatic storyline? See?!?!) Love how he gave them something to do rather than sit around and stew. But when he bent down to check the judge--honestly, Ross, a pinky ring? I hadn't noticed it before, and it just seemed silly to me. Puh-leeze, Captain!
(Kudos to the writers that the first thing Eames said when she heard they were there was "Your boys? Are they OK?" Maybe a little too panicky a tone, but the sentiment is right on for Family-Lady Eames.)
I suppose I should watch this again. Sorry for the delay, but I had a Mythology exam today. And I doubt it will be seen tonight, because it's the Carolina/Duke game and I have my priorities.
--Catbird
PS: Metella, your comment about not wanting to watch--I know what you mean. I feel guilty for saying this but I just can't get whipped up about the show this season. I go through phases as is, but instead of "Oh yay, 'Criminal Intent' is on tonight!" I feel more a grudging obligation. "I suppose I should watch, see if they have anything important happen, sigh".
Mainly I love you people and want to be able to participate on this board. Y'all are pretty much the only thing holding me to the show at this point.
|
|
|
Post by caseyswife on Feb 7, 2007 17:33:53 GMT -5
Well, I still say that if they HAVE to use a song, I would rather it be Queen than something I can't understand.
caseyswife
|
|
|
Post by NikkiGreen on Feb 7, 2007 17:44:41 GMT -5
I thought that it was David Bowie. ? Of course, when it first started, I thought it was going to be Vanilla Ice and Ice Ice Baby. And, Catbird, I too thought that the exchange at the bar had nothing to do with TWAH. I thought it was in regards to the skepticism and cynicism during the investigation up to that point. I didn't understand it then and I don't understand it now about how a strong woman, a role model for so many, could continue to live in her situation the way she did. ETA: Watched the NBC airing last night. Still didn't care for the opening. Even after knowing how the song fits in.
|
|
|
Post by Sirenna on Feb 7, 2007 17:50:46 GMT -5
The song was written by Queen and David Bowie. At least they used the original and not a cover by say, Britney Spears. ;D
|
|
|
Post by janetcatbird on Feb 7, 2007 18:21:10 GMT -5
Nikki, if I remember correctly it was a collaboration between Queen and David Bowie--I heard Bowie's voice on the lyrics though I couldn't understand what he was saying. (And I panicked about Vanilla Ice too!) My roommate is a big Bowie fan so I made sure to tell her.
I must give credit where credit is due--song aside, I LOVED the visual montage of historical duel and sniper. Well done. Bad sound technicians! Yay cinematographers!! (Admittedly I'm a sucker for montages and parallels--just something so compelling about them when done right. Musically, Phantom of the Opera and Les Miserables will make me swoon not at the romances but the singing on top of each other. See Clear and Present Danger for an amazing example of soldiers being ambushed spliced with a military funeral. Shutting up now, back to topic.)
I've never seen Nancy Grace so I can't comment on the accuracy of Faith Yancey, but I love how they've kept her in the background. Just one more factor in the L&O universe. Has she popped up on Mothership or SVU? While the random cutaways to words on the street were annoying, they made sense in the context of the newscast.
Why do women stay in such situations? I think a lot of times they don't feel they have a choice. Whether it's brainwashing from the abuser, or hard facts, my understanding is that they genuinely don't see any options. I know at least one older woman in my family who stayed in a hell of a marriage to an emotionally/verbally abusive asshole all her life. (Pardon my language, there's no other word for him.) In rural North Carolina of the 50s and 60s she didn't think she could support herself and two daughters on her own. Besides, she was part of a very conservative Southern Baptist congregation which strongly disapproved of divorce and didn't support women very much. (Please don't think I'm trying to talk ugly in blanket statements for one group of people. I know that every denomination can do for good or bad within the communities.)
Even today you can channel surf and find televangelists who talk about your marriage may not be that great and you and your husband don't have a good relationship but the Lord put you in that place and it is your Christian duty to stay and submit. (Mama and I promptly retched and changed channels.)
Of course, religion is hardly the only determinant, that certainly wasn't the case for Pagolis. ("Magnificat", though...)At least Mrs. Pagolis said she was starting to consider a divorce. I was glad that they didn't let sex completely dominate--they could have had a secret affair between her and the judge, so I was relieved they didn't go there.
My thought at the end shot of Eames was that she was supposed to stand for Everyman/woman having to cope with fallen heroes. Disappointed, but you have to work with reality and move on. Looking back, I'm just glad they didn't do an Aesop summary.
--Catbird
|
|
|
Post by SarahIvy on Feb 7, 2007 18:25:17 GMT -5
"Under Pressure" was by Bowie and Queen as a collaboration. I do love me some Bowie and Queen. (hah! crossposted with you, Catbird! ) That said...I adore the song, I adore my show, but this was a case of two great tastes that do not taste great together. And for now I think I'm going to leave my thoughts on this episode at that alone...I'm feeling incredibly "meh" about it. So much so that I don't really feel like rewacthing it, but I also don't feel like I should post without doing so. Hmmmph.
|
|
|
Post by caseyswife on Feb 7, 2007 19:17:17 GMT -5
I am absolutely not trying to flame anyone or insult anyone's opinion (you know I love you, my darling Catbird ) but I have a question... If you don't really want to watch the show, don't you think that feeling sort of insinuates itself into your opinion of the episode in a way? I mean even if it had been the best episode ever (which I agree it wasn't) wouldn't that feeling somehow find it's way into whatever views you end up having of it? I know that if I felt I was somehow obligated to watch something I really didn't want to or no longer enjoyed it would. I know I am showing my ignorance here and I sincerely hope I didn't offend... I am honestly just curious. caseyswife
|
|
|
Post by DonnaJo on Feb 7, 2007 19:23:09 GMT -5
Janet, I definitely think the scene between the Mr. & Mrs. Pagolis was supposed to imply spousal rape. That makes her behavior towards her marriage & its obligations all the more horrific.
I believe in marriage. Have been married myself for 21 years & my husband & I counsel couples for Pre-Cana, a required workshop for engaged couples to be married in the Catholic Church. No one, not even a priest, would condone accepting such behavior in marriage. Her reasons for staying married to such a creep were all mercenary & ego-related.
|
|
|
Post by janetcatbird on Feb 7, 2007 19:57:37 GMT -5
I am absolutely not trying to flame anyone or insult anyone's opinion (you know I love you, my darling Catbird :-* ) but I have a question... If you don't really want to watch the show, don't you think that feeling sort of insinuates itself into your opinion of the episode in a way? ... I know that if I felt I was somehow obligated to watch something I really didn't want to or no longer enjoyed it would. caseyswife No offense taken Caseyswife, and I love you right back. * Hug!* I'm sure you're right, if I'm feeling lackluster and poopy going into an episode I am more likely to be critical. I think part of it is OK, it's a rough spot, if I just stick with it it'll swing back. But hopefully I can still find some redeeming aspects! (And no, it's not ignorance if you can't make out my babbling--probably a sign of rational thought! That'll teach me to write incoherently.) DonnaJo, that's terrific about your own marriage and the counseling. I agree, no truly good person of any faith would accept such; I just know that in some situations that is a factor. There had to be some kind of emotional ties there, didn't she say they used to have a great time early on? (Probably dumping him would have been the expedient thing to do for politics; weren't all her constituents urging her to dump his sorry butt?) Possibly she was so tied up in politics as an outlet to be away from her husband that she couldn't get away from her husband because it'd mess up her outlet to get away from him? That was (intentionally) circular, I know, but you never know what can backlash and she did feel vulnerable. --Catbird --Catbird
|
|
|
Post by caseyswife on Feb 7, 2007 20:03:51 GMT -5
Bless you, Janet; I am so glad my question was taken as intended. A BIG hug right back at you, girl. And what I meant by 'showing my ignorance' was that I am obviously not as educated and thorough with my thoughts as you are, friend. There is absolutely no babble to your wonderful posts! caseyswife
|
|