|
Post by Metella on Oct 11, 2004 11:32:25 GMT -5
I LIKED it .... It seemed only 15 minutes went by & it was OVER. Now, I want to state that I most certainly did not like the hair, not only long - but slicked straight back. He looked much older and worn out. I most certainly did not like the general trend that LOCIfan mentioned & hope they snap this season back to CI and not TS - Therapy Sesson.
Great story line - even though we know who the bad guy is .... we see Goren & Eames struggling to "catch" him. I like that Carve and Goren locked horns again - those two are well matched opponents unlike that blond. AND it would be typical and totally believable and a source of continued storyline wealth to have those two just barely being able to interact without male ego flareups.
Great nose to nose scenes - totally engrossing and well shot visually. This time the low volulme seemed mostly in just appropriate places.
If this Goren crumbling goes on much longer - I say fire his emotional hinney and get another actor in and lets get back to the L & O I never thought I would say that - as a real goren rabid fan - but this is not the goren character I knew & since I am not married to him; I'm going to have to leave him if he doesn't snap out of it.
|
|
Leonore
Silver Shield Investigator
Posts: 145
|
Post by Leonore on Oct 11, 2004 11:58:37 GMT -5
I really liked this episode and I'm glad I resolved my computer problems and can join in the discussion. The scene that made the episode for me was the office confrontation with the four principles.
D'Onofrio showed Goren's agitated state before the discussion even began (fiddling with his notebook) and Eames took the lead talking to Carver. Goren was cutting his eyes around the room (gauging reactions, looking for support?) as he dropped the cannibalism bombshell and again when he reacts to the death penalty comment by Carver. He then says something about Tagman's acts being monstrous and no one knows that better than he (it looked almost like he was going to say ME then covers with HE).
After Carver tells him to get the evidence Goren shakes his head "No" and asks how they're supposed to do it and then becomes (I think) angry when Carver tells him to use one of his tricks (a nice bow to their previous confrontations where Carver has been on the receiving end of a few of his tricks!).
The scene ends with each of the others rejection of him/his position exiting and leaving him alone and abandoned in the office.
|
|
|
Post by LOCIfan on Oct 11, 2004 13:11:45 GMT -5
Locifan, I strongly disagree with your assessment of Tagman as a misogynist. Misogynists *hate* women. John loved them, and desperately wanted to be loved by one. He just didn't know how to form a relationship with one, and every time he got close, he said or did the wrong thing and they left. He wanted someone who he could hug and love, not a sex slave. If that was his intent, he would have had sex with at least the one who lived, if not both of them. He didn't. It wasn't about sex, it was about profound loneliness, and maybe most of you are lucky enough never to have experienced it, but it seems clear that Goren has a firm grasp of what that can do to a persons psyche, and he was empathetic enough for me to believe that he has personal experience in the matter, perhaps currently. trisha, here's where you and I disagree. i don't believe that misogyny is determined or defined by whether or not an individual identifies himself as liking/loving or disliking women. i belive misogyny is defined by the manner in which an individual treats women. according to my definition, tagman was absolutely a misogynist. and his actions had everything to do with sex, because he lobotomized the women he captured in order to ensure that they wouldn't leave him -- either before or after sex. rather than negotiating real relationships with real women, Tagman chose to kidnap, mutilate, lobotomize and drug women in order to get them to stay with him. that, ipso facto, to me is misogyny. it is not treating women like individuals, but as objects. and, yes, Goren sympathized and fought for Tagman much harder than he has for most of the criminals he's brought down in the past three seasons. this is why i was creeped out by the episode, disappointed in Goren and worried for the future of this character.
|
|
|
Post by trisha on Oct 11, 2004 14:03:55 GMT -5
I define misogyny the way it is defined in both the Websters Dictionary, and numerous psychological texts. The word misogyny is derived from the Greek word misogynia. Misein: to hate, and Gyne: women.
A misogynist is a woman hater, not a person who objectifies them. Plenty of people objectify women, including many women themselves! That doesn't mean they hate them, which means that they are not, by definition, misogynists. I want to be clear about this because it really bothers me to see this term tossed around as a general term for people who don't treat women in a way that they would term equally or respectfully. It's possible to be disrespectful of a person without actually hating them.
Spencer in The Posthumous Collection is a good example of a misogynist. John Tagman is not. He want to love a woman, and his desperate need took the form of horrible acts. He felt terrible that he hurt them, but he needed someone to love so badly, and couldn't fathom any other way to get one, that he took the only measures he could think of to satisfy his need.
Though what he did was terrible, a true misogynist would not have lobotomized the girls, or probably even thought about it. Tagmans super soft porn is another thing you would NEVER find in the home of a misogynist. That was a vital clue to who Tagman was.
A true misogynist would have tied his victims up and repeatedly raped them- probably only when they were conscious and could experience all of the horror of the acts. He would beat them and degrade them. He would never hug them for hours, bath them, dress them, and pose them to keep them from being degraded. He wouldn't leave them where their they would be found for burial. There is just no way Tagman can be truly labeled as a misogynist, or even of having misogynistic tendencies unless you want to redefine the term.
|
|
|
Post by Sirenna on Oct 11, 2004 14:20:13 GMT -5
Wow. This was a great episode but so difficult to watch. Creepy is a good word. This show is the last thing I do on my weekend and delving into such dark subject matter is a rough way for me to start each work-week.
If this case went to a jury, John would be acquitted of 1st degree because he didn't want to kill. I think Goren understood the monstrosity of John’s crimes and wanted him punished (life, no parole). His concern was whether John had the intent to kill his victims, hence the reference to the "law of unintended consequences". Trisha’s right. He intended to keep them alive physically but dead mentally and emotionally - much worse a fate. How pathetic that John turned the woman into ‘a living doll’ and she still wouldn't stay with him.
Goren's anger and frustration, in the confession scene, was driven by his concern that the death penalty was simply state sanctioned murder: society’s irrational response to an individual’s irrational criminal act made because the act was so repulsive. Just? Yes, if you're the victim or the victim’s family. Hell yes.
But not just according to the letter of the law which is supposed to be society's rational, balanced response against what Goren calls ‘evil’.
Look, Goren and Eames don't solve crimes because they believe all people are bad. They believe their work, as difficult as it is, makes the world a better place. Although it looks like Goren is struggling to remember why he became a cop this season. G&E couldn’t be as good as they are unless they were visionaries. If they were reactive, short-term problem solvers they'd follow Carver’s decision because a tough stance and strong sentences look good in the City Hall's annual report. But they don't do this.
Because it would mean they would be dealing with this sick s**t (sick criminal acts) forever and so would the next generation. How would, to use a cliché, the world become a better safer place? What would Goren’s life's work be worth at the end? These questions were in Goren’s mind when he blasted Carver’s decision. Goren was right to understand the nuance in the charge and stand up for it. But I don’t think he stood up for John.
The writers used such a graphic violent case to show several things: We (society) are not so far from ‘monstrousness’ ourselves by invoking the death penalty when there clearly was no cause. All we need is a good excuse. Goren’s stressed but still the most rational of all. Eames has the powerful ability to look beyond her initial repulsion at offering John mercy and, even if she still doesn’t like it, understands there may be another way out. If John’s brain is used for scientific study, it might prevent this happening in the future. Her ability to keep her mind open no matter how weird or disturbing her reality is, is redeeming on a larger scale. It's hope for us all to choose a better future.
Goren's mistake, and the irony of all this, was expecting the punishment, life in jail, to remain static and controlled. The law of Unintended Consequences foreshadowed John's violent, vigilantic death at the hands of hardened criminals. The one thing that came to be was the one thing Goren never intended to happen.
|
|
jaquetta
Silver Shield Investigator
Posts: 171
|
Post by jaquetta on Oct 11, 2004 16:38:41 GMT -5
I thought it was a pretty good episode. I'm a little bored with the constant parade of mentally ill homicidal psychopaths, but I suppose they need that to underwrite Goren's personality flaws. He is overly empathizing with the criminals for my taste, but he did display compassion for the lobotomized girl.
I didn't catch the nuances of the death penalty. Personally, life in prison or death? Equally sucky.
And, once again, celebrity personality character. Jeffrey Dahmer/Hannibal Lector. Okay, so one is a literary figure and it's already been pointed out.
Just to nitpick, a true misognynist wouldn't necessarily torture the women, that would be a sadist. I didn't get woman hating vibes off Tagman either, but I did get deeply dysfunctional interactions with them. Yep, all that from eating a woman's calf. I should hang out my own shingle, you think?
|
|
|
Post by trisha on Oct 11, 2004 17:12:28 GMT -5
That is very true, Jaquetta, I should have made that distinction.
In the case that a misogynist wanted to kidnap and "own" a woman, it would most likely be for sadistic purposes.
I should also note that not all misogynists are men.
ETA: I have a little nitpick of my own, I don' think we have seen a constant parade of psychopaths. In fact, I don't think we've seen one at all since Shrink Wrapped (or for those who don't see it there, Mis-Labled).
|
|
|
Post by Observer2 on Oct 11, 2004 18:40:05 GMT -5
Observer2, How do you figure it squares with G's opinion on the death penalty? Goren has threatened countless other suspects with mental illnesses with death penalty prosecution and has never once blinked. What, aside from his "sympathy" toward this particular perp -- who happens to be a flesh-eating, mysoginist -- is different? My general impression is that Goren doesn’t like people getting killed, period. But that’s just an impression. What I can point to are things like Carver telling him, in Stray, that the DA is going for the death penalty. Carver knows Goren well enough to show understanding and concern as he asks, “You okay with that?” They were on their way to the funeral of the cops the guy murdered, and Goren still didn’t answer with “Oh, yeah, you bet!” And the guy in Stray wasn’t even driven by a distinct mental illness or personality disorder. As someone else pointed out, using the death penalty as a threat to help pressure people into doing what they need to do in order to avoid it, hardly indicates that he supports it. I can’t say for sure how he would feel about the death penalty for, as an example, the non-schizophrenic brother in Gemini. He never gives us that information directly. But he does let us know something about where he draws the lines. He tells that brother that the other brother is sick, “but you’re evil.”<br> In Want he tells us clearly which side of that line Tagman is on. “You’ve done evil things, but you’re not evil,” and “I know that you want to stop. I know you want to be a good person. I can see it, because you have remorse.”<br> And, of course, as Nick5oh pointed out, Goren knows that Tagman did not intend to kill the women – so the law is also on his side. I don’t think Goren over-identified with this suspect – though there were some personal echoes, such as his reaction to Tagman saying that you never really get used to being alone. But I do think it’s another striking example of how Goren can compartmentalize, or split off, his reactions to people’s pathologically-driven evil acts, from his responses to the people, themselves. That’s one way this episode echoes things in Semi-Detached – things I’ve been thinking about a lot since seeing that episode, because they may relate back to his childhood experiences with his mother. LOCIfan, I also have to agree with Trisha on the meaning of misogynist. You may have your own personal definition, which is fine. But for discussions that involve other people, there’s a more generally accepted meaning for that word, and Tagman did not fit it. Metella, A classic disagreement rears its head again. You said, “I like that Carver and Goren locked horns again - those two are well matched opponents unlike that blond. AND it would be typical and totally believable and a source of continued storyline wealth to have those two just barely being able to interact without male ego flareups.”<br> I’ve never understood where people got the idea that Carver and Goren had so much friction between them – or that any of it was rooted in male ego issues. I’ve never seen it, and wouldn’t want to. I certainly wouldn’t like to see that be a major theme in the series. One of the things I especially like about Want is the way it demonstrates, within a single episode, that anger between the two men is not the same as animosity. Carver is both angry and disapproving over what Goren did; but the moment the call comes in, he changes. His anger takes a back seat to his knowledge that this will be painful to Goren. There was one moment of an alpha male staking out territory in this episode, but it wasn’t Carver *or* Goren. It was Deakins, acting as Goren’s CO. After he gets the confession out of Tagman, Goren comes into the observation room and virtually stands to attention, ready to accept the consequences. Carver steps up, and might have been about to say something, but Deakins intervenes. “I think Tagman’s ready to take a plea, Counselor. You should get in there.” He’s essentially saying to Carver, “He’s my detective. If there’s any reprimand to be given, it’s my business.” And Carver goes. It’s interesting, how many potent little scenes take place in the observation room... That one in Want reminds me a bit of the one in Yesterday, when Deakins acknowledges that the boyfriend didn’t do it. Different content, but it’s similar in conveying a lot about both Goren and Deakins, and about their relationship. The scene that got me hooked on Criminal Intent also took place in the observation room – a scene at the end of Semi-Professional that was primarily between Carver and the judge, but also involved Goren. If Goren had any animosity towards Carver, or even a lack of concern for his feelings, that scene would have looked different, and would not have gotten me hooked. I’ve got more to say about the relationship between Goren and Carver, but it’s not specific to this episode, so I’ll take it over to the General CI Discussion area.
|
|
jaquetta
Silver Shield Investigator
Posts: 171
|
Post by jaquetta on Oct 11, 2004 19:10:21 GMT -5
Ack. The board is designating me a guest again - after I've logged in. But I shall persist.
You're probably right, Trisha, about there not being a constant parade of psychopaths. I've just watched the few that would fall under that - the killing of the DJ last week and my re-watching Geminii last night before last night's episodes and I tend to notice the mental health issues because of family & friends dealings with them, and Goren's past history.
As for Goren and Carver - there was one scene in the ......first season, I think? Where the husband framed the wife for murder basically because she was doing better than he was and Goren ran an end run around Carver and Carver was not happy about it. That's the only instance I can think of though. In fact, their relationship has seemed fairly civil since then.
|
|
|
Post by Observer2 on Oct 11, 2004 21:25:04 GMT -5
You're probably right, Trisha, about there not being a constant parade of psychopaths. I've just watched the few that would fall under that - the killing of the DJ last week and my re-watching Geminii last night before last night's episodes and I tend to notice the mental health issues because of family & friends dealings with them, and Goren's past history. Jaquetta, Nelda was a vividly portrayed example of someone with borderline personality disorder – not a psychopath. One of the hallmarks of a psychopath is shallow affect – definitely not her issue. As far as Gemini goes, I didn’t really spot the non-schizophrenic brother as a psychopath. I haven’t seen it in a while, so I could be mis-remembering. But in general, actual psychopaths are fairly rare, and they don’t turn up on Criminal Intent very often. As for Goren and Carver - there was one scene in the ......first season, I think? Where the husband framed the wife for murder basically because she was doing better than he was and Goren ran an end run around Carver and Carver was not happy about it. That's the only instance I can think of though. In fact, their relationship has seemed fairly civil since then. You’re talking about Best Defense, in the second season. It wasn’t just an end run... the husband was one of Carver’s prosecutors, someone who worked under him. The detectives knew he was the doer for a couple of days, and didn’t tell Carver. They sprang it on Carver at the same time they sprang it on the suspect. It wasn’t just Goren, it was Eames, as well. And Carver was more than just angry, he was also hurt. I think it was a couple of episodes before his manner with them got back to normal. The first season episode you may be also thinking of is the Faithful, in which Carver says something like, “Run one by me like that again, and I’ll have your badge.” A number of people see that as evidence of friction between them. Considering the circumstances, I see it a bit differently.
|
|
|
Post by trisha on Oct 12, 2004 8:25:48 GMT -5
I am one who felt some friction there, and I do think it was intentional. I think that is one of the ways the coach in Mad Hops nailed him, "You have a problem with authority figures. You defy them, but deep down inside, you're intimidated by them." I think this rang very true, and it brought back memories of him and Carver quite clearly for me.
I also think that Goren respects Carver as a human being, for the most part. I think Goren knows that Carver is basically a good and moral person, but he also knows that Carver has a political agenda, i.e., him wanting to making the Third Horseman case about abortion, and wanting to try a capital case so bad that he would overlook intent. These are things that he wanted so he could get his name in the paper, and it makes sense with the character description Courtney Vance gave about Carver being a "political animal."
How is a man like Goren supposed to react to the use of someone's emotional or psychological horrors as political stepping stones? Do you think Goren could ever conceive of the cases he's solved as notched in his belt? I don't. But, Carver certainly does, and Goren will never really respect him because of it, and clashes between them are bound to happen.
|
|
|
Post by Patcat on Oct 12, 2004 10:01:39 GMT -5
I think we're seeing a bit of a reversal of roles here. Carver and Deakins are reacting emotionally to the horror of Tagman's crimes. While Goren understands why Tagman is committing these acts, he also has a more controlled response to them, and as a result, reacts more logically. As I've posted before, I believe it's Goren who's right about these case not fulfilling the requirements of the death penalty, at least as required by New York State. (Admittedly, my knowledge of this is shaky, and as always, I could be wrong). And in this case, it's Carver who's willing to bend the system to get results.
I agree that Goren and Carver's relationship is largely one of respect. They agree, for the most part, about the big picture, but clash in the details. I see their relationship evolving from one of suspicion in the first season to one of respect over the next two seasons.
Patcat
|
|
jaquetta
Silver Shield Investigator
Posts: 171
|
Post by jaquetta on Oct 12, 2004 12:45:43 GMT -5
Observer2 "shallow affect"? I'm not familiar with the term. My knowledge of the mentally ill comes pretty much from dealing w/family members and friends. I went with the Merriam Webster definition " mentally ill or unstable person; especially : a person having a psychopathic personality (psychopathic: /psychopathy)mental disorder; especially : extreme mental disorder marked usually by egocentric and antisocial activity". Killing a DJ seemed anti social, but but that definition, I get to include everybody everywhere I guess. I'll try not to use sloppy thinking/writing/shortcuts, but it's against my slovenly nature. I don't see Goren and Carver having the kind of antagonistic relationship that involves posturing and the intense desire to "win" over the other at any cost (and by any, I mean even slightly) but I do see them as having conflict on how cases are solved, evidence gathered, or outcomes desired stemming from different personalities and backgrounds. I do agree w/Patcat that their relationship does involve respect for one another viewpoints, if not always for methods.
|
|
|
Post by trisha on Oct 12, 2004 13:27:40 GMT -5
I don't know if I would want to use Websters for psychological terms, sometimes it's all in Greek ;D
Shallow affect is used to describe emotive responses. Cold, distant, apathetic, etc.
Psychopaths are typically incapable of feeling deep emotions like love and empathy. They are very "Me" orientated. A person who displays signs of such is described as having a shallow affect.
|
|
|
Post by Sirenna on Oct 12, 2004 13:55:50 GMT -5
As in shallow affections, perhaps? Psychopaths are unable to form 'connections' as Goren said to Nicole/Eliz. They're also supposed to be charming with the ability to pretend to be social but lie and are manipulative. I don't know that Nelda would be considered a psychopath in the clinical sense.
I think Carver and Goren have more in common than not but I don't know if Carver, as assistant DA, has authority over Goren, in Major Case. In terms of who wins out in the school yard, it's Goren. His insistence on prison won out here and he's won debates in other episodes.
I'm not convinced Goren and Carver are friends. Respectful, yes but all their conflicts are value-based rather than bureaucratic. Also I don't think Carver takes his work home with him mentally, the way I suspect Goren does. Nor is he 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.
|
|