Perhaps it's the thorough saturation of film and media in my life, but there is something magical about Christmas, or the holiday season, in New York. The lights, decorations, snow, the constant hussle and bussle and people everywhere, it all culminates in presenting this idea of a special time of year. The cold opening of this week’s episode Shop ‘Til You Drop exuded that sense of awe and wonder as Jo happily flitted her way through the crowds, excited to participate in one of the City’s holiday traditions. Seeing Mac’s curmudgeon Scrooge attitude was funny and well juxtaposed to Jo’s childlike excitement. Watching as a pickpocket moves through the crowd with Mac’s hawk-like gaze following him seemed very old school, and Jo’s humor had me giggling. It reminded me why I prefer CSI:NY over the other shows in the franchise. Unfortunately, the magic ended there, and the episode went down hill so fast I headed straight for the checkout line (and I happily ignore your collective groan at my pun!)
With the exception of usually a season finale/premier, it is often a bad sign when four people are credited with writing an episode--Trey Callaway & Aaron Rahsaan Thomas were credited with the teleplay, while Adam Targum & Christopher Silber were acknowledge with the story. The reason this is a bad sign is because it usually means too many cooks in the kitchen--or too many clerks behind the counter (I swear that was the last joke). This was made apparent as four very different writing styles clashed to give us a disjointed, choppy, and (more often than not) lack-lust dialogue and a story so trite that I can already hear the Hallmark Channel scrambling for the rights to this episode.
The episode was plagued by awkward moments of silence, like the cast was wondering around, not really sure what was going on. It reminded me of negative space in art. Even something as simple as shading can take a picture from being so one dimensional to being engaging, all by proper use of negative space. The show just keeps the negative space empty, showing a misuse of time and talent. I think I’ve decided an episode that does too little is more heinous than an episode that does too much.
The biggest surprise though is that with four writers not one of them chose to think outside the box. The show has become so formulaic that I can confidently predict each episode; Mac & Jo have a conversation where she teases him and Mac shuffles his feet, blushing, while at the same time solving all the crimes ever committed in New York, Danny & Don chase some idiot suspect and lay down some lame/cheesy lines that are meant to be funny, Lindsay & Adam work in the lab, Hawkes & Sid just appear at random times--they all have their assigned parts and they ain’t budgin’! When they become so transparent it’s hard to care, or stay focused on the story.
However, to contrast repetitive narrative style, we are also bombarded with characters who never seem to act like themselves. A few weeks ago Mac was moving hell and high water to go after Chief Carver, but this week he flippantly tells Don that there is nothing they can do about keeping Alena (Lisa Brenner), the woman suspected of the murder, because of some new District Attorney. Then we’ve got Jo filling in all the blanks for Danny. The scene at the make-up counter is a great example of this. Four pages of dialogue for Jo later, we are meant to understand Danny can no longer use his brain. He’s a pretty good CSI. He figured out that the Hollys used glass-shattering sound waves in It’s Not What It Looks Like, and he did it all by himself (excluding the dog of course) just like a big boy. But thank goodness Jo is on the scene now. Yes the audience needs help through the story, simply because most of us have no background in criminology and usually limited knowledge of science, but for crying out loud, I don’t need a color-by-numbers explanation--especially one that comes at the cost of the integrity of the characters I love.
I had hopes that with the season of giving right around the corner, we would be favored with a delicious cast episode, the likes of Manhattenhenge, or even in some part like Second Chances, but family was sorely neglected to instead give us the story of a dieing stranger. I didn’t know that girl, I didn’t care about that girl, which makes the “emotional” ending to the episode seem forced.
There’s not much more I can say that I haven’t said in prior weeks--Don and Danny are preparing to send out wedding invitations, Super Mac now has Super Jo to sit with him atop Mount Olympus, and every one else just kind of floats by. I’m being very critical because I am so disappointed, but I don’t think it's wrong to want something good to watch, particularly if I’m being asked to give up a chunk of my Friday night. Despite all that, I’m still not ready to give up on the show. I love the characters too much, I love what they represent in my life, the good times I’ve spent watching and discussing the show. I am a fan through and through, which is why the frustration is so severe. I usually will watch an episode 2 or 3 times before I write a review, to try and be as meticulous as I can, but I’ll be honest, I couldn’t really bring myself to watch it a second time, it was just too boring (which is also why this review is so short^_^) This episode just wasn’t good enough.
I want my money back (ok, so I had one more pun left in me)...what’s that? But I don’t have a receipt...Fine, I’ll take the store credit, or rather, how about the next new episode just be super awesome? I’d stand in line for that!
Highlight of the Week: We got an obscure, fleeting reference to Lucy! (This is getting sad)
Guilty Pleasure: Howie the pickpocket. He was entertaining and humorous, and wearing an awesome sweater!
Monday, December 6, 2010
Sunday, November 21, 2010
Eat Your Heart Out Joan Crawford! (7X09 Review) **out of 5
Murder isn’t what I think needed justification in this week’s episode, aptly named Justified. The real crime is what was done to the audience, and to the character of Mac Taylor. There were enough holes in this story to make me crave a good slice of swiss cheese. Is it wrong to say I’m sick of happy endings?
As you can probably discern, I did not enjoy this episode, which is disappointing considering it was written by John Dove. His episodes are usually strong attempts to think outside the box. Dead Reckoning brought in the idea of DNA contamination due to a factory worker not wearing gloves, or Sleight Out Of Hand using fetal alcohol syndrome and magic to tell a tale of murder. His episodes are usually entertaining and thought provoking. This episode was neither, and what is worse is that is was so obviously trying to be. It was apparent that the nephew was involved--my review last week predicted either Carver (John Larroquette) or the nephew was the killer--and I wish they had made the choice to really surprise us. Foreshadowing is a power tool, when used effectively, but when it fails it simply comes off as poor storytelling.
My biggest problem with this episode is what it did to Mac Taylor. His character has always been the more self righteous type. He usually claims to be the moral authority, though if you asked him he’d probably deny it. I always found that to be a believable character flaw. He’s in law enforcement, a former Marine, he’s worked his way through the ranks, and he obviously believes in what he’s fighting for. Playing the arbiter of all things ethical is understandable. However, he was completely ridiculous in this episode. He was out for blood with Carver. He showed up at Carver’s grand-nephew’s soccer game to accuse him of murder. Really? Mac’s going to treat the Chief of Detectives like that? Then to make Mac look even more unfeeling he shows up a wedding rehearsal to arrest Carver’s nephew of murder. Mac had no sympathy or consideration for either of those men, claiming, “my judgment has never been better.” That is until he found out the reason behind the murder, then he’s all ready and willing to help “one hell of a cop”. Jo acts like Mac was some type of hero at the end of the episode, that, along with Mac’s spewing of some bull crap about how “It’s not important what I think” when all episode it was only about what he thought, frankly strained credulity. It was one of the worst character assassinations I’ve witnessed in a while (and I’m including what they did to Lindsay two weeks ago). I can handle Super Mac. I can’t stomach Pillar Unto Himself Mac.
Which brings us to the actual “justification” of the crime. I felt for Jason. I was meant too. The story was one big emotional manipulation, as most stories are. The problem arises when I feel like I am being forced in one direction despite how I want to feel. Meaning, I wanted to feel sympathy for that little boy, but I couldn’t because the show had spent the entire time establishing what a great uncle Carver is. How can I believe as Jason said that “there was nobody else to protect them.” The definition of justified is showing to be reasonable or provide adequate grounds for, and it’s just hard to believe Jason had no other recourse than to kill his mother when he obviously had an uncle--a cop--who was willing to help. I don’t understand why this show won’t allow an episode to end with realistic consequences, no matter how uncomfortable or heartbreaking they are.
I like it when they use their brains to solve crimes. I don’t like it when things conveniently work out. Marcella Gomez (Alex Madison) was warned by Carver that the police were onto them so she flees, leaving her wallet behind with photo identification behind. Smart. A man remembers what the police officer who took his knife 15 years ago looked like. I got pulled over once 9 years ago and I remember nothing about what the police officer looked like. Adam doesn’t think to run the DNA on the gum against Roni Parker’s, despite Jo’s observation that the there are things “typical when a killer has a personal relationship with the victim.” A personal relationship doesn’t suggest a family member? Too many inconsistencies to look passed.
And on a more personal level of episode watchability, I can’t understand the lack of Danny and Lindsay. This episode was ripe with the opportunity to enjoy a moment between the couple, but instead we got another dose of Don and Danny. I think they are talking about moving in together. I feel like Steve Irwin (in my best Crocodile Hunter voice) “Ok, folks here we have the very rare DL moment. They are hard to spot so you have to be patient. And be ready ‘cause they are fast little devils too. They’ll be gone in a flash if you’re not careful.” I’m getting desperate here! It brings to mind a line from the film The American President, “They’re so thirsty for it [a DL moment] they’ll crawl through the desert toward a mirage, and when they discover there’s not water, they’ll drink the sand.” I’m tired of drinking the sand...it doesn’t digest well.
I went back and forth between one or two on this episode, but decided to go with two because I still loved Laroquette’s performance, no matter how I ultimately felt about his character, they also maintained the ensemble form of storytelling, and I thoroughly enjoyed Jeff T. Thomas’ directing style. He is one of the more talented directors they have on the show. He is able to weave through scenes effortlessly, and bring a flare to the narrative. The opening sequence where Mr. Shot Through the Heart-Giving Love a Bad Name beats the crap out of Fake Roni was violent and powerful. Thomas uses distorted reflections to heighten the tension, and create a world of un-rights. He also didn’t skip the science parts to ensure enough time for the long confession. Instead he interlaced them over different scenes. I think a lesser director would have settled for the old voice-overs, but he took the time to include them.
I will forgive Mr. Dove for this episode, because we are all allowed to be fallible, but I can’t in good conscience rate this episode any higher. I will even continue to look forward to his episodes, but this one I’ll shove in the closet under the box of Christmas ornaments I never have time to put up.
As you can probably discern, I did not enjoy this episode, which is disappointing considering it was written by John Dove. His episodes are usually strong attempts to think outside the box. Dead Reckoning brought in the idea of DNA contamination due to a factory worker not wearing gloves, or Sleight Out Of Hand using fetal alcohol syndrome and magic to tell a tale of murder. His episodes are usually entertaining and thought provoking. This episode was neither, and what is worse is that is was so obviously trying to be. It was apparent that the nephew was involved--my review last week predicted either Carver (John Larroquette) or the nephew was the killer--and I wish they had made the choice to really surprise us. Foreshadowing is a power tool, when used effectively, but when it fails it simply comes off as poor storytelling.
My biggest problem with this episode is what it did to Mac Taylor. His character has always been the more self righteous type. He usually claims to be the moral authority, though if you asked him he’d probably deny it. I always found that to be a believable character flaw. He’s in law enforcement, a former Marine, he’s worked his way through the ranks, and he obviously believes in what he’s fighting for. Playing the arbiter of all things ethical is understandable. However, he was completely ridiculous in this episode. He was out for blood with Carver. He showed up at Carver’s grand-nephew’s soccer game to accuse him of murder. Really? Mac’s going to treat the Chief of Detectives like that? Then to make Mac look even more unfeeling he shows up a wedding rehearsal to arrest Carver’s nephew of murder. Mac had no sympathy or consideration for either of those men, claiming, “my judgment has never been better.” That is until he found out the reason behind the murder, then he’s all ready and willing to help “one hell of a cop”. Jo acts like Mac was some type of hero at the end of the episode, that, along with Mac’s spewing of some bull crap about how “It’s not important what I think” when all episode it was only about what he thought, frankly strained credulity. It was one of the worst character assassinations I’ve witnessed in a while (and I’m including what they did to Lindsay two weeks ago). I can handle Super Mac. I can’t stomach Pillar Unto Himself Mac.
Which brings us to the actual “justification” of the crime. I felt for Jason. I was meant too. The story was one big emotional manipulation, as most stories are. The problem arises when I feel like I am being forced in one direction despite how I want to feel. Meaning, I wanted to feel sympathy for that little boy, but I couldn’t because the show had spent the entire time establishing what a great uncle Carver is. How can I believe as Jason said that “there was nobody else to protect them.” The definition of justified is showing to be reasonable or provide adequate grounds for, and it’s just hard to believe Jason had no other recourse than to kill his mother when he obviously had an uncle--a cop--who was willing to help. I don’t understand why this show won’t allow an episode to end with realistic consequences, no matter how uncomfortable or heartbreaking they are.
I like it when they use their brains to solve crimes. I don’t like it when things conveniently work out. Marcella Gomez (Alex Madison) was warned by Carver that the police were onto them so she flees, leaving her wallet behind with photo identification behind. Smart. A man remembers what the police officer who took his knife 15 years ago looked like. I got pulled over once 9 years ago and I remember nothing about what the police officer looked like. Adam doesn’t think to run the DNA on the gum against Roni Parker’s, despite Jo’s observation that the there are things “typical when a killer has a personal relationship with the victim.” A personal relationship doesn’t suggest a family member? Too many inconsistencies to look passed.
And on a more personal level of episode watchability, I can’t understand the lack of Danny and Lindsay. This episode was ripe with the opportunity to enjoy a moment between the couple, but instead we got another dose of Don and Danny. I think they are talking about moving in together. I feel like Steve Irwin (in my best Crocodile Hunter voice) “Ok, folks here we have the very rare DL moment. They are hard to spot so you have to be patient. And be ready ‘cause they are fast little devils too. They’ll be gone in a flash if you’re not careful.” I’m getting desperate here! It brings to mind a line from the film The American President, “They’re so thirsty for it [a DL moment] they’ll crawl through the desert toward a mirage, and when they discover there’s not water, they’ll drink the sand.” I’m tired of drinking the sand...it doesn’t digest well.
I went back and forth between one or two on this episode, but decided to go with two because I still loved Laroquette’s performance, no matter how I ultimately felt about his character, they also maintained the ensemble form of storytelling, and I thoroughly enjoyed Jeff T. Thomas’ directing style. He is one of the more talented directors they have on the show. He is able to weave through scenes effortlessly, and bring a flare to the narrative. The opening sequence where Mr. Shot Through the Heart-Giving Love a Bad Name beats the crap out of Fake Roni was violent and powerful. Thomas uses distorted reflections to heighten the tension, and create a world of un-rights. He also didn’t skip the science parts to ensure enough time for the long confession. Instead he interlaced them over different scenes. I think a lesser director would have settled for the old voice-overs, but he took the time to include them.
I will forgive Mr. Dove for this episode, because we are all allowed to be fallible, but I can’t in good conscience rate this episode any higher. I will even continue to look forward to his episodes, but this one I’ll shove in the closet under the box of Christmas ornaments I never have time to put up.
Sunday, November 14, 2010
Where's the rock salt when you need it? 7X08 review (***out of 5)
There’s not much in this week’s episode, Scared Stiff that warrants much scrutiny. As episodes go, this is one I would categorize as adequate. The main plot follows the death of a young woman who bears no obvious signs of murder, leading to a great deal of speculation and conversation amongst the main characters regarding the existence of ghosts and other such paranormal activity. The sub-plot involving John Larroquette’s character, more specifically the sudden discovery of his estranged sister’s corpse, was pretty heavy handed with it’s foreshadowing (getting Mac’s Spidey sense all a tingling) but effective enough for me to be interested in the story’s resolution next week.
I think the word that comes to mind when considering this episode is creepy. Opening with the empty, eerie gaze of a dead woman and the haunting tones of Graffiti6‘s heavily delayed (referring to the echoing sounds) Calm the Storm--the irony of course being the park is hit with a thunder storm--immediately gives the impression that things are going to get interesting. Sid, most notable for his well established creepiness, shines in this scene as he delicately, but deliberately begins manipulating the body, forcing her limbs from their petrified state. Robert Joy has the ability to seem disturbing and uncomfortable (ever seen his episode of Medium? The guy was amazing!), but then he turns around and he is the geekiest, goofiest, silliest character. I am thrilled to see him this season after his criminal under use last season. Similarly, the perp, Gordon Sprouse (brilliantly played by Jeffrey Vincent Parise) was an unnerving balance of being vulnerable and...well...how to put this delicately...freaky as hell. The interrogation scene between Hawkes, Flack, and Sprouse was entertaining and fascinating to watch. About Sprouse, Lindsay observes, “This guy can only relate to dead bodies. That’s really sad.” This perfectly captures the conflict that I felt as an outside observer to his neurosis. Sprouse’s own fears about life keep him living in an abandoned mortuary. He’s as stiff as the bodies he’s attempting to perfect. Eat your heart out Alan Ball!
I thought writer Kim Clements tried to ensure character involvement in the story. While the dialogue seemed a bit contrived, it still tried to give a personal side to those we come to see each week rather than treat them like strangers. She seemed to keep them in character--pretty impressive considering this was her first time writing for the show--and provided believable motivations for their actions. I loved the continuity of Hawkes and his side job as a park E.M.T from season six, and the more I thought about it the more I felt Lindsay’s comment about the 21 grams of weight lost at the time of death was hugely appropriate for her. The small moment before Hawkes walked in, the look of contemplation on her face--a night of great facial expressions from Anna Belknap, she killed that surprised look in the park--I took as a reference to what she had been through. Was she contemplating the loss of Shane Casey’s soul? Or her friends? I like that it was subtle and really open to interpretation.
I was disappointed at times by Clements use of cliches, stereotypes, and silliness. I felt having Lindsay see two ghosts (which looked like it had been created in Window’s Paint; sorry effect department) was completely ridiculous, and instead of adding tension to the scene it immediately took me out of it. And Sully (Lightfield Lewis Helen) was a walking punch line, which wasn’t very creative since most people make fun of those who believe in paranormal activity. And the worse part for me on a personal level was the missed opportunity for a Supernatural reference to AJ Buckley. (Yes, I may have a deep seeded love for all things Winchester).
The story line was fluff, nothing too deep or touching, nothing motivating thought or change, just a bit of fun. I can handle that. I don’t want it all the time, but the occasional bubble gum pop episode is fine. The deeper story line involving Larroquette, however, clearly sets up a more emotional meaning behind his sister’s murder. Did he kill his sister? Is he covering for someone? His nephew perhaps? I really thought Larroquette played it off well, and I can’t believe how much I am enjoying having him on the show. Nothing against the guy, I’ve just never been too involved in any of his previous works. But every time he’s on the screen I feel like he’s a perfect fit, and I like watching him.
The bromance continues between Danny and Don (they are apparently this season’s Danny and Lindsay) which is frustrating. I love the dynamic between the two men, but why make the decision to have two of your main characters marry and start a family if you then choose to neglect that relationship? We’ve had more Ellie references, including one in this episode, then we have Lucy. I try to keep my reviews focused on the episode as a whole and not simply focused on the DL factor, but even if I weren’t a fan of the Messer family I would still find this odd. So far we are at four straight episodes of no DL and no Lucy. And the minimal DL we had in episodes previous were ridiculous in their minuteness. That is pitiful!
This episode was more a pit stop to what I can only assume is going to be an intense episode next week. It had a middle of the road feeling and sometimes that’s ok. It had plenty of character interaction and even a little bit of heart. If Clements develops her humor to a sharper point, and matures a bit more in her presentation then I think she could be a great writer for the show. Next time just leave Casper out of it.
Highlight of the episode: I thought Gordon Sprouse was one of the better villains they’ve had. His crime was so ambiguous, and almost seemed harmless while being absolutely disgusting.
Guilty Pleasure: Mac processing a scene! It seems like it’s been forever since we’ve seen him getting down in the dirt.
I think the word that comes to mind when considering this episode is creepy. Opening with the empty, eerie gaze of a dead woman and the haunting tones of Graffiti6‘s heavily delayed (referring to the echoing sounds) Calm the Storm--the irony of course being the park is hit with a thunder storm--immediately gives the impression that things are going to get interesting. Sid, most notable for his well established creepiness, shines in this scene as he delicately, but deliberately begins manipulating the body, forcing her limbs from their petrified state. Robert Joy has the ability to seem disturbing and uncomfortable (ever seen his episode of Medium? The guy was amazing!), but then he turns around and he is the geekiest, goofiest, silliest character. I am thrilled to see him this season after his criminal under use last season. Similarly, the perp, Gordon Sprouse (brilliantly played by Jeffrey Vincent Parise) was an unnerving balance of being vulnerable and...well...how to put this delicately...freaky as hell. The interrogation scene between Hawkes, Flack, and Sprouse was entertaining and fascinating to watch. About Sprouse, Lindsay observes, “This guy can only relate to dead bodies. That’s really sad.” This perfectly captures the conflict that I felt as an outside observer to his neurosis. Sprouse’s own fears about life keep him living in an abandoned mortuary. He’s as stiff as the bodies he’s attempting to perfect. Eat your heart out Alan Ball!
I thought writer Kim Clements tried to ensure character involvement in the story. While the dialogue seemed a bit contrived, it still tried to give a personal side to those we come to see each week rather than treat them like strangers. She seemed to keep them in character--pretty impressive considering this was her first time writing for the show--and provided believable motivations for their actions. I loved the continuity of Hawkes and his side job as a park E.M.T from season six, and the more I thought about it the more I felt Lindsay’s comment about the 21 grams of weight lost at the time of death was hugely appropriate for her. The small moment before Hawkes walked in, the look of contemplation on her face--a night of great facial expressions from Anna Belknap, she killed that surprised look in the park--I took as a reference to what she had been through. Was she contemplating the loss of Shane Casey’s soul? Or her friends? I like that it was subtle and really open to interpretation.
I was disappointed at times by Clements use of cliches, stereotypes, and silliness. I felt having Lindsay see two ghosts (which looked like it had been created in Window’s Paint; sorry effect department) was completely ridiculous, and instead of adding tension to the scene it immediately took me out of it. And Sully (Lightfield Lewis Helen) was a walking punch line, which wasn’t very creative since most people make fun of those who believe in paranormal activity. And the worse part for me on a personal level was the missed opportunity for a Supernatural reference to AJ Buckley. (Yes, I may have a deep seeded love for all things Winchester).
The story line was fluff, nothing too deep or touching, nothing motivating thought or change, just a bit of fun. I can handle that. I don’t want it all the time, but the occasional bubble gum pop episode is fine. The deeper story line involving Larroquette, however, clearly sets up a more emotional meaning behind his sister’s murder. Did he kill his sister? Is he covering for someone? His nephew perhaps? I really thought Larroquette played it off well, and I can’t believe how much I am enjoying having him on the show. Nothing against the guy, I’ve just never been too involved in any of his previous works. But every time he’s on the screen I feel like he’s a perfect fit, and I like watching him.
The bromance continues between Danny and Don (they are apparently this season’s Danny and Lindsay) which is frustrating. I love the dynamic between the two men, but why make the decision to have two of your main characters marry and start a family if you then choose to neglect that relationship? We’ve had more Ellie references, including one in this episode, then we have Lucy. I try to keep my reviews focused on the episode as a whole and not simply focused on the DL factor, but even if I weren’t a fan of the Messer family I would still find this odd. So far we are at four straight episodes of no DL and no Lucy. And the minimal DL we had in episodes previous were ridiculous in their minuteness. That is pitiful!
This episode was more a pit stop to what I can only assume is going to be an intense episode next week. It had a middle of the road feeling and sometimes that’s ok. It had plenty of character interaction and even a little bit of heart. If Clements develops her humor to a sharper point, and matures a bit more in her presentation then I think she could be a great writer for the show. Next time just leave Casper out of it.
Highlight of the episode: I thought Gordon Sprouse was one of the better villains they’ve had. His crime was so ambiguous, and almost seemed harmless while being absolutely disgusting.
Guilty Pleasure: Mac processing a scene! It seems like it’s been forever since we’ve seen him getting down in the dirt.
Sunday, November 7, 2010
Tights and Cape Not Included 7X07 review (***out of 5)
It’s a bird. It’s a plane. It’s super Mac? Well, maybe and maybe not. Ambiguous enough for you? That’s how I was left feeling after watching this week’s episode, Hide Sight. I was confused, not by the episode, but by how it left me feeling. From the oxymoron title to the constant role reversals, I was unsure whether the episode was good or not (which is unusual for me). It took me realizing that as a story, separate from established mythology and canon, it was pretty good, but as an episode written within the confines of the CSI:NY universe it was a failure. This duality in viewing makes for an interesting review process. Mac fought the man, Sid was hurt in the lab (it says in his contract that this must happen at least once a season apparently), Lindsay was smart-then not-then smart again-then not, Jo morphed into Stella, and a psychopath is nurtured right into a killing spree. Yep, a rip roaring tale of neglect and how many lives are changed by the selfishness of one person. Tragedies aren’t meant to leave audiences with a warm happy feeling, they are meant to inspire thought and motivate change. This episode wanted to mean something, but didn’t want to put in the effort or the pain of actually being a tragedy.
No one wants an infallible hero. By the very definition, one cannot be considered a hero until an obstacle has been cleared. Superman could only be considered super because of his foil, Kryptonite. Without this deadly element then Superman would simply be someone who can fly. While I felt Mac’s pain over the situation, I never really felt him being tested. I know he was angry, I know he was sad, but there was no -as Aristotle puts it-“change from ignorance to awareness” nor did I feel the “tragic pleasure of pity and fear.” Mac’s righteous indignation comes off more as an unprofessional temper tantrum. I believe, as part of his established character, that Mac would be upset by being told to keep quiet about the sniper. However, I find it ridiculous to be expect to believe that a man as professional as Mac Taylor, would stoop to such theatrics as ripping up a directive from his superiors in front of his own subordinates, subordinates who are also subject to said superiors. Could you imagine Hawkes taking an order from Mac and telling the lab techs and other coworkers to ignore it? Of course not. We know Mac would never stand for it, and we know Hawkes is too mature to ever act that way. Why would I believe such behavior of Mac? Similarly, it is not Mac’s job to make those types of decisions. It belongs to those in office; mayors, commissioners, etc. There are times, as much as I wish the world was different, when it is important to contain information. Chief Ted Carver (guest star John Larroquette) effectively points out to Mac, “It’s not your call, and I’m not creating a city wide panic.” In February 2007 the FBI released a report, that has since been unclassified, entitled Sniper Tactics and Effects on the US Homeland which includes a study on the impact of a sniper situation on a community. The social and economic impacts are severe, not to mention the dramatic increase in post traumatic stress disorders that surface, nor is there any proof that alerting the public of a sniper situation saves lives. Mac’s job is to run the crime lab, not the city. If this were a story about a character I’d never met before I would be more willing to buy it.
There are several scenes I enjoyed that seem to characterize exactly what makes the CSI franchise unique. Getting to see Adam (though he was in the field, which is confusing) reconstruct the first sniper shooting and leading Jo and Lindsay to finding valuable evidence was very interesting. Danny, rocking out the face mask, had his own reconstruction--building bullets and shooting dummies--that had a very old school feeling to it and enjoyable to see. Also, the scene where Mac, Lindsay, Hawkes, and Adam are discussing the case felt very natural and well written. They were exchanging ideas and bouncing theories off each other effectively. Likewise, writer Bill Haynes and director Alex Zakrzewski, worked together to efficiently establish Michael Reynolds’ (Austin Michael Coleman) past as well as Mac’s emotional attachment to him. Told through choppy and distorted flashbacks, I felt empathy for the shooter. Of course, in an interesting twist, we soon find out that the physically and emotionally abused Michael, is not the sniper, but rather it is his younger brother Tom (Mark L. Young). I struggled with feeling the same empathy for Tom that I felt for Michael. While it is clear Tom’s life has been heavily influenced by Michael’s kidnaping and subsequent return (the room the brothers shared had been completely over run by Michael’s paintings, perversely taking away Tom’s identity) it is also very apparent that Tom has some serious psychological issues. (He pulled out what Mrs. PotatoeHead (Toy Story 2) would call his “crazy eyes!”)
A neighbor to the Reynolds brothers, Hayley (Tiffany Dupont), verbalizes one of the prominent themes that “it could happen to any of us.” She is referring to the kidnapping, but that sentiment is echoed in the episode by the sniper’s random shootings. Tom screams about being emotionally and mentally trapped in a hole, which ironically mirrors what had happened to his brother who was literally kept in a hole. Just as Michael suffered from Stockholm Syndrome and took on the last name of his kidnapper, Tom begins to take over Michael’s issues, leading him to kill Michael, thereby eliminating his emotional rival. One man, Author Francis, who fifteen years ago chose to take a young nine year old boy, forever altered the lives of countless number of people, and resulting in at least four homicides. This is all very interesting and intense. Based on that story line alone, the episode is quite good.
But this isn’t an independent story. And while I admit the episode was better the second time I watched it, there were still glaring errors that I found to be insulting as a viewer. Lindsay is the character that seemed the most ill used. She was routinely used as a way to explain to the audience what was happening, but it was done in such a way that left her looking inadequate to the job. This, of course, is the antithesis of what as has been established in her character. Jo steps into the situation to make up for Lindsay’s slack, which is more reminiscent of Stella’s character than Jo’s. Lindsay is also instructed to keep Hayley on the phone, which clearly didn’t happen, and don’t get me started on Lindsay not knowing about sibling mitochondrial connection. And let’s just avoid talking about the stale and over used device of Sid getting hurt in the lab to progress a story. While Haynes isn’t known for his writing, he has spent a great deal of time involved with the show as a technical adviser, so it is unfortunate that he would be so far off base.
There are deep and complex themes that move throughout this episode that are never quite developed. Sometimes the tragedy is what is left unsaid. I rather enjoyed Larroquette’s character and look forward to seeing more of him, but hope they have him as less of a push over next time. Also, I could have done without Jo’s “wild wild west” field kit belt reveal, that made me laugh, and not in a good way. So to sum up, a great story, but the CSI:NY characters proved to be Haynes’ Kryptonite. Hit the Google button dude and do some research, or you can even borrow my dvds as a refresher (though I need them back pretty quickly. I don’t do well if I don’t get my CSI:NY fix often enough). Next time come back with a great story AND a great CSI:NY episode.
Highlight of the episode: Danny’s reconstruction. Seeing him in that face guard took me back to Oedipus Hex which is one of my favorite episodes!
Guilty Pleasure: Gary Sinise. When Mac and Carver argue the first time I was reminded of the Gary from Apollo 13 and Of Mice and Men. I’m not sure what it was, but there was just something different about his facial expressions. Swoon!
No one wants an infallible hero. By the very definition, one cannot be considered a hero until an obstacle has been cleared. Superman could only be considered super because of his foil, Kryptonite. Without this deadly element then Superman would simply be someone who can fly. While I felt Mac’s pain over the situation, I never really felt him being tested. I know he was angry, I know he was sad, but there was no -as Aristotle puts it-“change from ignorance to awareness” nor did I feel the “tragic pleasure of pity and fear.” Mac’s righteous indignation comes off more as an unprofessional temper tantrum. I believe, as part of his established character, that Mac would be upset by being told to keep quiet about the sniper. However, I find it ridiculous to be expect to believe that a man as professional as Mac Taylor, would stoop to such theatrics as ripping up a directive from his superiors in front of his own subordinates, subordinates who are also subject to said superiors. Could you imagine Hawkes taking an order from Mac and telling the lab techs and other coworkers to ignore it? Of course not. We know Mac would never stand for it, and we know Hawkes is too mature to ever act that way. Why would I believe such behavior of Mac? Similarly, it is not Mac’s job to make those types of decisions. It belongs to those in office; mayors, commissioners, etc. There are times, as much as I wish the world was different, when it is important to contain information. Chief Ted Carver (guest star John Larroquette) effectively points out to Mac, “It’s not your call, and I’m not creating a city wide panic.” In February 2007 the FBI released a report, that has since been unclassified, entitled Sniper Tactics and Effects on the US Homeland which includes a study on the impact of a sniper situation on a community. The social and economic impacts are severe, not to mention the dramatic increase in post traumatic stress disorders that surface, nor is there any proof that alerting the public of a sniper situation saves lives. Mac’s job is to run the crime lab, not the city. If this were a story about a character I’d never met before I would be more willing to buy it.
There are several scenes I enjoyed that seem to characterize exactly what makes the CSI franchise unique. Getting to see Adam (though he was in the field, which is confusing) reconstruct the first sniper shooting and leading Jo and Lindsay to finding valuable evidence was very interesting. Danny, rocking out the face mask, had his own reconstruction--building bullets and shooting dummies--that had a very old school feeling to it and enjoyable to see. Also, the scene where Mac, Lindsay, Hawkes, and Adam are discussing the case felt very natural and well written. They were exchanging ideas and bouncing theories off each other effectively. Likewise, writer Bill Haynes and director Alex Zakrzewski, worked together to efficiently establish Michael Reynolds’ (Austin Michael Coleman) past as well as Mac’s emotional attachment to him. Told through choppy and distorted flashbacks, I felt empathy for the shooter. Of course, in an interesting twist, we soon find out that the physically and emotionally abused Michael, is not the sniper, but rather it is his younger brother Tom (Mark L. Young). I struggled with feeling the same empathy for Tom that I felt for Michael. While it is clear Tom’s life has been heavily influenced by Michael’s kidnaping and subsequent return (the room the brothers shared had been completely over run by Michael’s paintings, perversely taking away Tom’s identity) it is also very apparent that Tom has some serious psychological issues. (He pulled out what Mrs. PotatoeHead (Toy Story 2) would call his “crazy eyes!”)
A neighbor to the Reynolds brothers, Hayley (Tiffany Dupont), verbalizes one of the prominent themes that “it could happen to any of us.” She is referring to the kidnapping, but that sentiment is echoed in the episode by the sniper’s random shootings. Tom screams about being emotionally and mentally trapped in a hole, which ironically mirrors what had happened to his brother who was literally kept in a hole. Just as Michael suffered from Stockholm Syndrome and took on the last name of his kidnapper, Tom begins to take over Michael’s issues, leading him to kill Michael, thereby eliminating his emotional rival. One man, Author Francis, who fifteen years ago chose to take a young nine year old boy, forever altered the lives of countless number of people, and resulting in at least four homicides. This is all very interesting and intense. Based on that story line alone, the episode is quite good.
But this isn’t an independent story. And while I admit the episode was better the second time I watched it, there were still glaring errors that I found to be insulting as a viewer. Lindsay is the character that seemed the most ill used. She was routinely used as a way to explain to the audience what was happening, but it was done in such a way that left her looking inadequate to the job. This, of course, is the antithesis of what as has been established in her character. Jo steps into the situation to make up for Lindsay’s slack, which is more reminiscent of Stella’s character than Jo’s. Lindsay is also instructed to keep Hayley on the phone, which clearly didn’t happen, and don’t get me started on Lindsay not knowing about sibling mitochondrial connection. And let’s just avoid talking about the stale and over used device of Sid getting hurt in the lab to progress a story. While Haynes isn’t known for his writing, he has spent a great deal of time involved with the show as a technical adviser, so it is unfortunate that he would be so far off base.
There are deep and complex themes that move throughout this episode that are never quite developed. Sometimes the tragedy is what is left unsaid. I rather enjoyed Larroquette’s character and look forward to seeing more of him, but hope they have him as less of a push over next time. Also, I could have done without Jo’s “wild wild west” field kit belt reveal, that made me laugh, and not in a good way. So to sum up, a great story, but the CSI:NY characters proved to be Haynes’ Kryptonite. Hit the Google button dude and do some research, or you can even borrow my dvds as a refresher (though I need them back pretty quickly. I don’t do well if I don’t get my CSI:NY fix often enough). Next time come back with a great story AND a great CSI:NY episode.
Highlight of the episode: Danny’s reconstruction. Seeing him in that face guard took me back to Oedipus Hex which is one of my favorite episodes!
Guilty Pleasure: Gary Sinise. When Mac and Carver argue the first time I was reminded of the Gary from Apollo 13 and Of Mice and Men. I’m not sure what it was, but there was just something different about his facial expressions. Swoon!
Monday, November 1, 2010
It's the game of LIFE 7X06 review (***out of 5)
Ever turned off the TV, pulled out the board games, and just enjoyed being with your family (or perhaps friends who are practically family)? Do Not Pass Go, as its Monopoly inspired name suggests, was permeated with that feeling. As writer Adam Targum’s first episode, it was a hodgepodge of personal relationships and crime drama, and hinted at the potential of Targum’s storytelling. It was the personification of my mother’s advice, reminding, “it’s not about the game, it’s about having fun.” Meaning, this episode was less about the actual crime and more about remembering what’s important. While the episode lacked a certain eloquence and finesse, needing a bit more polish, it uniquely deserves to be recognized for where it both failed and succeeded.
The episode opens with two windows, and two parents. Windows have long been accepted in the literary world as symbols of both hope and despair. Windows allow us to view what is beyond the world we are living and give us a chance to dream of possibilities, but they also only allow for a limited view, and in some cases act as barriers to the outside. This conflict of meaning mirrors the emotional state of the mother and father that sit gazing out of those windows; they long for freedom from the state of turmoil they are living in, but simultaneously fear the ramifications of that freedom. Their son has been missing for days and they face the opportunity to find him, unaware of whether they will find him alive or dead. Unfortunately, I felt disconnected from the power of the moment by Helen Slater’s portrayal as the grieving mother. Her delivery was stilted, and had an “acting workshop” feel to it, especially when compared to the other matriarchal figures that appear in the episode; Jo Danville (beautifully established by Sela Ward) and Sally Anderson (Stephanie Venditto).
There is an improvement this season with the use of Flack’s character, and that continues in this episode as he and Sally Anderson discuss her dead son, Craig. It was a tender scene used to establish the rules of three. We have three perspectives: one mother whose child is dead, one mother whose child is missing, and one mother whose child is very present.
The introduction to Ellie Danville (Sydney Park) allows us a moment to extend our understanding of Jo’s character. Ellie is plagued by what any pre-teen would suffer from following a move to a new school and Jo, an obviously loving, involved parent, who considers her child’s needs and strives to provide, handles it like a pro. She maintains the same easy going relationship with her daughter as we have seen her establish with the other characters of the show. It a light and beautiful connection that is made brighter by the juxtaposition of the hideously gory dead body and dark themes of hate, revenge and damnation.
The murderer, Allison Scott (Maïté Schwartz), has killed one young man she believes is responsible for the death of her fiance, and has attempted to kill a second, and is using the parents of one of her victims to destroy evidence for her since she is now in jail on a separate charge. (That’s right, they should have gone “straight to jail”... sorry, couldn’t resist the pun). Allison has allowed her anger to fuel her desire for revenge, becoming consumed with hate and unable to more forward, no longer able to “pass go.” She uses her love for her murdered fiance to justify her actions. I was thoroughly impressed by Jo’s reaction to Allison. Jo did not pull a sanctimonious card out, or begin spouting righteous judgments. Instead, she responded, “I could only imagine the anger you felt. God himself couldn’t save someone who wanted to hurt my family. I would hunt them down. I would make them suffer like they have never suffered before. I would need them to feel the unrelenting pain that I felt.” She wasn’t allowing Allison justification, but she was willing to accept that things are rarely black and white.
This was clearly a Jo centric episode, but it also was able to include each of the main characters. There were some wonderful scenes involving Hawkes and Sid (again, great seeing Sid out of the morgue, and just as fun seeing Hawkes back in it), Flack and Jo at the bar and chasing the subject added a dose of levity, Adam used his mad skills to help crack the case, and Danny and Lindsay shared a sweet moment that despite its brevity was long enough to arouse an emotional response. I am enjoying the friendship between Mac and Jo, a dynamic relationship of opposites, and look forward to their future interactions.
David Jackson’ directing was neither bad nor good, but was rather pedestrian. I also understand a suspension of reality (not sure how often a CSI is involved in an interrogation in real life, but I’m willing to accept it) however, there are still parameters that the show should stay within to keep me in the story. I find it highly unlikely that Flack and two CSI’s would show up the abandoned warehouse, and the Flack and two CSI’s would go to find the body on the barge. Typically CSI’s are called onto a scene by detectives, not the other way around. So Targum needs to learn to better manipulate his story to stay within the established laws of the CSI franchise, rather than just expect the audience to “buy” it. He also needs to find a better balance between character driven story arcs and plot driven ones, but at least he was trying, and gives me hope that his stories are going to be ones that I will be looking forward to, and you can take that straight to the bank(er). (Yep, that’s right, I went there)
Highlight of the episode: Jo. From her messy desk, to her love for her daughter, she really shined.
Guilty Pleasure: Don Flack running...in a suit!
The episode opens with two windows, and two parents. Windows have long been accepted in the literary world as symbols of both hope and despair. Windows allow us to view what is beyond the world we are living and give us a chance to dream of possibilities, but they also only allow for a limited view, and in some cases act as barriers to the outside. This conflict of meaning mirrors the emotional state of the mother and father that sit gazing out of those windows; they long for freedom from the state of turmoil they are living in, but simultaneously fear the ramifications of that freedom. Their son has been missing for days and they face the opportunity to find him, unaware of whether they will find him alive or dead. Unfortunately, I felt disconnected from the power of the moment by Helen Slater’s portrayal as the grieving mother. Her delivery was stilted, and had an “acting workshop” feel to it, especially when compared to the other matriarchal figures that appear in the episode; Jo Danville (beautifully established by Sela Ward) and Sally Anderson (Stephanie Venditto).
There is an improvement this season with the use of Flack’s character, and that continues in this episode as he and Sally Anderson discuss her dead son, Craig. It was a tender scene used to establish the rules of three. We have three perspectives: one mother whose child is dead, one mother whose child is missing, and one mother whose child is very present.
The introduction to Ellie Danville (Sydney Park) allows us a moment to extend our understanding of Jo’s character. Ellie is plagued by what any pre-teen would suffer from following a move to a new school and Jo, an obviously loving, involved parent, who considers her child’s needs and strives to provide, handles it like a pro. She maintains the same easy going relationship with her daughter as we have seen her establish with the other characters of the show. It a light and beautiful connection that is made brighter by the juxtaposition of the hideously gory dead body and dark themes of hate, revenge and damnation.
The murderer, Allison Scott (Maïté Schwartz), has killed one young man she believes is responsible for the death of her fiance, and has attempted to kill a second, and is using the parents of one of her victims to destroy evidence for her since she is now in jail on a separate charge. (That’s right, they should have gone “straight to jail”... sorry, couldn’t resist the pun). Allison has allowed her anger to fuel her desire for revenge, becoming consumed with hate and unable to more forward, no longer able to “pass go.” She uses her love for her murdered fiance to justify her actions. I was thoroughly impressed by Jo’s reaction to Allison. Jo did not pull a sanctimonious card out, or begin spouting righteous judgments. Instead, she responded, “I could only imagine the anger you felt. God himself couldn’t save someone who wanted to hurt my family. I would hunt them down. I would make them suffer like they have never suffered before. I would need them to feel the unrelenting pain that I felt.” She wasn’t allowing Allison justification, but she was willing to accept that things are rarely black and white.
This was clearly a Jo centric episode, but it also was able to include each of the main characters. There were some wonderful scenes involving Hawkes and Sid (again, great seeing Sid out of the morgue, and just as fun seeing Hawkes back in it), Flack and Jo at the bar and chasing the subject added a dose of levity, Adam used his mad skills to help crack the case, and Danny and Lindsay shared a sweet moment that despite its brevity was long enough to arouse an emotional response. I am enjoying the friendship between Mac and Jo, a dynamic relationship of opposites, and look forward to their future interactions.
David Jackson’ directing was neither bad nor good, but was rather pedestrian. I also understand a suspension of reality (not sure how often a CSI is involved in an interrogation in real life, but I’m willing to accept it) however, there are still parameters that the show should stay within to keep me in the story. I find it highly unlikely that Flack and two CSI’s would show up the abandoned warehouse, and the Flack and two CSI’s would go to find the body on the barge. Typically CSI’s are called onto a scene by detectives, not the other way around. So Targum needs to learn to better manipulate his story to stay within the established laws of the CSI franchise, rather than just expect the audience to “buy” it. He also needs to find a better balance between character driven story arcs and plot driven ones, but at least he was trying, and gives me hope that his stories are going to be ones that I will be looking forward to, and you can take that straight to the bank(er). (Yep, that’s right, I went there)
Highlight of the episode: Jo. From her messy desk, to her love for her daughter, she really shined.
Guilty Pleasure: Don Flack running...in a suit!
Monday, October 25, 2010
We Wants It! 7X05 review (****out of 5)
The ethical debates abound as the search for the “One Ring” presents the quandary: are we the Gollums of the world or the Frodos? This weeks episode title, Out of the Sky, refers to more than a bag of jewels dropping down from no where, but to the emergence of a long lost partner/friend, and how quickly a person can fall to the “dark side.” The story was fast-paced, full of nice character driven plot points, growing teamwork, and had a parade of hilarious one-liners. The parallels in the story aren’t very subtle (we get it, everyone has to chose right or wrong), but they are--more importantly--effective. This episode manages to epitomize Voltaire’s statement, “Judge an [episode] by [its] questions rather than by [its] answers.” Let’s be honest, there wasn’t much doubt that Danny’s former partner, James Belson (Coby Ryan McLaughlin) was involved, but when a story is well told then I feel engaged, and excited to see how it will all play out, and that is how I felt watching this episode.
Writer Christopher Silber and director Nathan Hope are a dream team of subtle emotional manipulation. We feel the first moments of intensity as an obvious gang member places the gun he used to murder someone on the coffee table of his up-scale, wealthy lawyer, Roland Carson (umbrageously played by TV veteran Gregory Harris) as they discuss the legality of Carson keeping the weapon. This would be interesting enough as its own plot point, but intersperse their conversation with a helicopter hovering above the building and two men in black garb dropping down Mission Impossible style, and it is clear things are about to get a whole lot uglier. We again see this form of storytelling as Hawkes and Mac first discuss Belson’s guilt, only this time Silber and Hope improve upon it, using two distinct devices: a flashback showing Belson’s involvement and slow motion Danny walking towards an empty hospital room, essentially having three different scenes playing on top of each other. (A nod to those in the editing department; that couldn’t have been easy. Plus I love slow motion. You know something's about to go down when the slo-mo action starts.)
The story moved quickly through competent scene changes and snappy dialogue, maintaining a great pace. This is definitely an improvement from last weeks heavy handed jargon and boring moments. The dialogue was razor sharp at times. Mac accuses Carson of no longer wanting to be his clients’ errand boy by saying, “Maybe you got sick of carrying their water,” or how about in the same scene when Mac returns with a witty “They’re a little bit dead right now”? Adam joking about “ass dialing” an ex-girlfriend, Flack interrogating a suspect and citing him for having a knife to which the suspect responds, “Not my knife” prompting Flack to humorously reply back with the line, “It was in your pocket when we picked you up” are just a few examples of Silber making the effort to not only give us something to watch but to give us something we can actually enjoy watching, allowing the audience to move through drama and comedy effortlessly . Hope then adds depth to the language by using more than stationary camera shots. As Flack and Hawkes discuss petty thief Arnold Vonley’s (Mike Foy) inability to preform the heist, they are walking down the halls of the precinct, moving around corners and negotiating through co-workers--a classic West Wing-esque “walk and talk.” This scene very easily could have been filmed with them standing still, but the extra work paid off and the scene is much more memorable.
On top of the “who done it?” scenario that is playing throughout the episode, there is also an underlying character driven arc; Good Danny versus Evil Danny. (Anyone else find the light haired Messer/dark haired Belson difference to be interesting? Not sure if they meant that metaphor to be present, but it is immediately what I thought about.) Belson is an ex-cop, has a failed marriage, kids live thousands of miles away from him, and he is stuck working for the “bastard Carson.” Danny is questioning fate and luck, being forced to face what his life would have been like if he had made the same mistake Belson had. This also brilliantly adds believability to Danny’s reaction in the first season episode On the Job when he is accused of fatally shooting a cop. We gain insight into where Danny’s paranoia extended from, and why he was so concerned about what people were saying behind his back and the way they were looking at him. Danny was clearly effected by what had happened to his former partner, and Belson cleverly plays into that. When Danny first questions Belson in the hospital, Belson offers to help get Danny a job in the “private district” prompting Danny to respond, “I don’t plan on retiring anytime soon.” Belson then abruptly replies, “Yeah, well, neither was I if you remember.” This, of course, immediately brings that memory and its associated emotions to the forefront of Danny’s mind, which is established by Danny’s now reticent and withdrawn behavior, effectively distracting Danny and allowing Belson “off the hook” long enough for him to get out of the hospital and begin his rampage of killing. However, we see Danny’s growth as a character when he powerfully tells Belson at the end of the episode that it’s time for him to take responsibility for the life of crime he has created while at the same time we see Danny taking responsibility for the life that he has chosen to create.
This was a strong episode for many of the actors and characters, and Carmine Giovinazzo really stepped up to very tenuously show a range of emotions, including a slightly vulnerable side of Danny. Likewise, we saw both a tender and hard-nosed version of Flack, wonderfully delivered by Eddie Cahill (I was reminded why he was so successful on Friends; the guy has great comedic timing), and a chance to reconnect with light-hearted and clever Lindsay--who shared a few nice moments with Jo. Again, an episode that included every member of the team working together to solve crimes, and to help each other. The episode was sprinkled with great personal conversations that really helped to connect with the audience. I also appreciated Silber treating the audience with some modicum of intelligence. I was ready to go crazy over Belson noticing a little ring missing from a duffel bag full of jewelry, and him being willing to go back to the apartment and murder again for it. I was up in arms over how ridiculous I thought that was, but Silber efficiently solved that problem for me by having Carson explain to the audience it’s worth and importance. This is a type of detail that tends to get over looked on the show, the writers just expecting the audience to “go with it.”
A few flaws keep the episode from being perfect, having worked in the alarm industry I know for a fact you cannot disable an alarm by simply cutting a wire. Also, the thieves broke into the safe using the code so why didn’t anyone immediately wonder if this was an inside job? And if the water splashed on the guy’s clothing as he was walking home from work, and he was taking the duffel bag to the police the next morning, why was he wearing the same water splashed clothes when he was killed? I am also curious if it would have had more impact to show the girlfriend standing at the fountain with the ring in her hand, and end with us wondering what choice she made rather than show her tossing the ring into Fount(ain) Doom, but these are pretty minor issues in an otherwise excellent episode. So which is? Do you return the jewelry or keep a ring or two? You ponder on that while I take a quick trip to New York. There’s a fountain near Lucy’s I gotta go digging through...my precious...
Highlight of the episode: Lindsay dancing in a purple shirt.
Guilty Pleasure: Danny in glasses! (Yes, I actually squealed when I saw them). Although a close second would be Lucy’s--I know they were talking about the restaurant, but that’s how desperate I am for a mention of our girl.
Writer Christopher Silber and director Nathan Hope are a dream team of subtle emotional manipulation. We feel the first moments of intensity as an obvious gang member places the gun he used to murder someone on the coffee table of his up-scale, wealthy lawyer, Roland Carson (umbrageously played by TV veteran Gregory Harris) as they discuss the legality of Carson keeping the weapon. This would be interesting enough as its own plot point, but intersperse their conversation with a helicopter hovering above the building and two men in black garb dropping down Mission Impossible style, and it is clear things are about to get a whole lot uglier. We again see this form of storytelling as Hawkes and Mac first discuss Belson’s guilt, only this time Silber and Hope improve upon it, using two distinct devices: a flashback showing Belson’s involvement and slow motion Danny walking towards an empty hospital room, essentially having three different scenes playing on top of each other. (A nod to those in the editing department; that couldn’t have been easy. Plus I love slow motion. You know something's about to go down when the slo-mo action starts.)
The story moved quickly through competent scene changes and snappy dialogue, maintaining a great pace. This is definitely an improvement from last weeks heavy handed jargon and boring moments. The dialogue was razor sharp at times. Mac accuses Carson of no longer wanting to be his clients’ errand boy by saying, “Maybe you got sick of carrying their water,” or how about in the same scene when Mac returns with a witty “They’re a little bit dead right now”? Adam joking about “ass dialing” an ex-girlfriend, Flack interrogating a suspect and citing him for having a knife to which the suspect responds, “Not my knife” prompting Flack to humorously reply back with the line, “It was in your pocket when we picked you up” are just a few examples of Silber making the effort to not only give us something to watch but to give us something we can actually enjoy watching, allowing the audience to move through drama and comedy effortlessly . Hope then adds depth to the language by using more than stationary camera shots. As Flack and Hawkes discuss petty thief Arnold Vonley’s (Mike Foy) inability to preform the heist, they are walking down the halls of the precinct, moving around corners and negotiating through co-workers--a classic West Wing-esque “walk and talk.” This scene very easily could have been filmed with them standing still, but the extra work paid off and the scene is much more memorable.
On top of the “who done it?” scenario that is playing throughout the episode, there is also an underlying character driven arc; Good Danny versus Evil Danny. (Anyone else find the light haired Messer/dark haired Belson difference to be interesting? Not sure if they meant that metaphor to be present, but it is immediately what I thought about.) Belson is an ex-cop, has a failed marriage, kids live thousands of miles away from him, and he is stuck working for the “bastard Carson.” Danny is questioning fate and luck, being forced to face what his life would have been like if he had made the same mistake Belson had. This also brilliantly adds believability to Danny’s reaction in the first season episode On the Job when he is accused of fatally shooting a cop. We gain insight into where Danny’s paranoia extended from, and why he was so concerned about what people were saying behind his back and the way they were looking at him. Danny was clearly effected by what had happened to his former partner, and Belson cleverly plays into that. When Danny first questions Belson in the hospital, Belson offers to help get Danny a job in the “private district” prompting Danny to respond, “I don’t plan on retiring anytime soon.” Belson then abruptly replies, “Yeah, well, neither was I if you remember.” This, of course, immediately brings that memory and its associated emotions to the forefront of Danny’s mind, which is established by Danny’s now reticent and withdrawn behavior, effectively distracting Danny and allowing Belson “off the hook” long enough for him to get out of the hospital and begin his rampage of killing. However, we see Danny’s growth as a character when he powerfully tells Belson at the end of the episode that it’s time for him to take responsibility for the life of crime he has created while at the same time we see Danny taking responsibility for the life that he has chosen to create.
This was a strong episode for many of the actors and characters, and Carmine Giovinazzo really stepped up to very tenuously show a range of emotions, including a slightly vulnerable side of Danny. Likewise, we saw both a tender and hard-nosed version of Flack, wonderfully delivered by Eddie Cahill (I was reminded why he was so successful on Friends; the guy has great comedic timing), and a chance to reconnect with light-hearted and clever Lindsay--who shared a few nice moments with Jo. Again, an episode that included every member of the team working together to solve crimes, and to help each other. The episode was sprinkled with great personal conversations that really helped to connect with the audience. I also appreciated Silber treating the audience with some modicum of intelligence. I was ready to go crazy over Belson noticing a little ring missing from a duffel bag full of jewelry, and him being willing to go back to the apartment and murder again for it. I was up in arms over how ridiculous I thought that was, but Silber efficiently solved that problem for me by having Carson explain to the audience it’s worth and importance. This is a type of detail that tends to get over looked on the show, the writers just expecting the audience to “go with it.”
A few flaws keep the episode from being perfect, having worked in the alarm industry I know for a fact you cannot disable an alarm by simply cutting a wire. Also, the thieves broke into the safe using the code so why didn’t anyone immediately wonder if this was an inside job? And if the water splashed on the guy’s clothing as he was walking home from work, and he was taking the duffel bag to the police the next morning, why was he wearing the same water splashed clothes when he was killed? I am also curious if it would have had more impact to show the girlfriend standing at the fountain with the ring in her hand, and end with us wondering what choice she made rather than show her tossing the ring into Fount(ain) Doom, but these are pretty minor issues in an otherwise excellent episode. So which is? Do you return the jewelry or keep a ring or two? You ponder on that while I take a quick trip to New York. There’s a fountain near Lucy’s I gotta go digging through...my precious...
Highlight of the episode: Lindsay dancing in a purple shirt.
Guilty Pleasure: Danny in glasses! (Yes, I actually squealed when I saw them). Although a close second would be Lucy’s--I know they were talking about the restaurant, but that’s how desperate I am for a mention of our girl.
CSI: West Side 7X04 review (**out of 5)
It’s the Sharks versus...well, the Sharks (Jets need not apply) as a gang leader begins systematically killing members of his own gang in this weeks episode Sangra Por Sangra; however, don’t expect a romantic duet between Mac Taylor and guest star Edward James Olmos’ character Luther Devarro--they prefer to swap trite, uninspiring, and stagnant dialogue as they engage in what can only be referred to as one epic stare-down. To paraphrase Don Flack, this episode starts out as a hot shot, but ends up a shish-kabob, as writer Aaron Rahsaan Thomas weaves an uneven, poorly developed tale of righteous indignation and hypocrisy, leading us all to the grand conclusion: vigilantism never ends well.
If you’re like me, then you were immediately engaged by the opening scene of a clearly wounded Mac with blood rolling down his arm, moving silently in and out of the shadowy darkness with his gun drawn as he hunts his prey, or perhaps he is the hunted with the deadly opponent just around the corner. Sounds and colors are muted, heightening the tension and we find ourselves in a damp underworld, watching as Mac comes face to face with the barrel of Luther’s gun. We are left with a cliff hanger moment when Luther pulls the trigger, releasing the bullet in Mac’s direction and the scene changes, providing no resolution. This of course follows the old adage ‘leave the audience wanting more’ and is rather effective...the first time around that is. A few scenes later and we have the exact same cliffhanger moment as a perp aims his gun at Don Flack and fires, cut to commercial. This is obviously the second time the episode deals with this particular story device and the second time definitely comes off as cheap and lazy. This may be blamed more on the director, Norberto Barba, than the writer, but I still think it goes back to the fact that one can’t really force a poorly written episode into a good one, but the narrative wasn’t helped any by the choppy pacing--some scenes lasting too long, while others weren’t afforded enough time.
The storyline follows the notorious gang member Luther Devarro (Olmos), recently released from prison and founder of the rough and tough El Puno (the fist), as he secretly--or not so secretly since I found the plot to be rather obvious--murders the members who ran the gang while he was behind bars for fifteen years. The motivation we are presented for his killings basically seems to boil down to semantics. The younger generation defines “the fist” as a weapon to be used to fight, destroy, and batter the community, to be used as offense. Devarro’s definition of “the fist” is about control, maintaining a tight grip on the community, to be used as defense. As he tells Mac, “I never intended to create something violent.” This statement is made after it is revealed that Devarro is the one responsible for the dead bodies *insert your own disbelieving tone*. His character is riddled with such inconsistencies. In one of the more well written lines of the episode, Devarro validates his lack of willingness to involve the police by stating, “Last thing I want is an army of badges canvassing my neighborhood with itchy trigger fingers. Someone’s son [is] liable to be out on a stoop, holding a cell phone and catch bullets.” A disheartening sentiment, but unfortunately also a very believable possibility. His statement, however, is rendered moot when he blows up a building, in the middle of the day, on a crowded street. He didn’t seem too concerned with the number of innocent lives he could have taken.
Can a person really take the moral low ground? When Hazel Ortega (Lymari Nadal-who gave one of the better performances of the evening) was being accused of one of the murders, Devarro, knowing that members of El Puno were thirsty for revenge and cognizant of his own guilt, did not do enough to try and protect her, resulting in the before mentioned shoot out between Flack and two members of El Puno. It is revealed that Ortega witnessed Devarro killing, but her fear of retribution kept her silent, and Devarro didn’t hesitate to use that fear, otherwise he would have killed her to protect his own identity. Instead, he was willing to use his status as El Puno’s infamous cutthroat leader--a status he gained not by his own devices, but by the actions he professes to despise of the younger gang members--to ensure her silence. This undermines Devarro’s claims of for an “aw shucks, mom ’n’ pop” type of gang operation he dreamed of.
We again see the repetitive nature of Thomas’ storytelling when Mac confronts Devarro, twice, each time promising the hand of justice to come down--note to writers, a threat loses its power when it has to be made twice. These cringe-worthy moments were inundated with boring, cliched, George Lucasesque lines such as “a handshake used to mean something” and “If you don’t, this fair man will lock you up again, and this time you won’t get out.” Tension has to be created organically because if it’s forced, for example Mac making the ridiculous choice to go into a gang’s hangout alone and without back up, it takes one out of the situation with its lack of believability, therefore voiding the intensity, nearly make a mockery of it.
There is plenty to pick apart in this episode (the occasional role inversion between Mac and Devarro, the lack of commentary on what effects it would have socially and fundamentally on a community when one gang is whipped out leaving it’s rival full rein, Devarro’s misguided Utopian view, his God-like-complex failing to understand “that you first make thieves and then punish them”, choppy editing, stilted scenes, and jokes that just weren’t funny) which is disappointing considering last week’s fantastic episode, and the deep respect I have for Edward James Olmos as an actor. It’s a shame we can’t have a re-do, bring him back for episode worthy of his caliber.
On a positive note, I am thoroughly enjoying the inclusion of all cast members in most of the episodes this season, each having a role to play in the weekly fight against crime, and I hope that trend continues, especially the continued use of Team Messer. I am glad the writers are realizing that they worked well together before they were married, and they can continue to work well together post matrimonially as well. Here’s hoping next weeks episode maintains a better balance.
Highlight of the Night: Seeing Sid out of the morgue.
Guilty Pleasure: Danny’s sexy voice when he was talking to Lindsay about “kiss and tell”
If you’re like me, then you were immediately engaged by the opening scene of a clearly wounded Mac with blood rolling down his arm, moving silently in and out of the shadowy darkness with his gun drawn as he hunts his prey, or perhaps he is the hunted with the deadly opponent just around the corner. Sounds and colors are muted, heightening the tension and we find ourselves in a damp underworld, watching as Mac comes face to face with the barrel of Luther’s gun. We are left with a cliff hanger moment when Luther pulls the trigger, releasing the bullet in Mac’s direction and the scene changes, providing no resolution. This of course follows the old adage ‘leave the audience wanting more’ and is rather effective...the first time around that is. A few scenes later and we have the exact same cliffhanger moment as a perp aims his gun at Don Flack and fires, cut to commercial. This is obviously the second time the episode deals with this particular story device and the second time definitely comes off as cheap and lazy. This may be blamed more on the director, Norberto Barba, than the writer, but I still think it goes back to the fact that one can’t really force a poorly written episode into a good one, but the narrative wasn’t helped any by the choppy pacing--some scenes lasting too long, while others weren’t afforded enough time.
The storyline follows the notorious gang member Luther Devarro (Olmos), recently released from prison and founder of the rough and tough El Puno (the fist), as he secretly--or not so secretly since I found the plot to be rather obvious--murders the members who ran the gang while he was behind bars for fifteen years. The motivation we are presented for his killings basically seems to boil down to semantics. The younger generation defines “the fist” as a weapon to be used to fight, destroy, and batter the community, to be used as offense. Devarro’s definition of “the fist” is about control, maintaining a tight grip on the community, to be used as defense. As he tells Mac, “I never intended to create something violent.” This statement is made after it is revealed that Devarro is the one responsible for the dead bodies *insert your own disbelieving tone*. His character is riddled with such inconsistencies. In one of the more well written lines of the episode, Devarro validates his lack of willingness to involve the police by stating, “Last thing I want is an army of badges canvassing my neighborhood with itchy trigger fingers. Someone’s son [is] liable to be out on a stoop, holding a cell phone and catch bullets.” A disheartening sentiment, but unfortunately also a very believable possibility. His statement, however, is rendered moot when he blows up a building, in the middle of the day, on a crowded street. He didn’t seem too concerned with the number of innocent lives he could have taken.
Can a person really take the moral low ground? When Hazel Ortega (Lymari Nadal-who gave one of the better performances of the evening) was being accused of one of the murders, Devarro, knowing that members of El Puno were thirsty for revenge and cognizant of his own guilt, did not do enough to try and protect her, resulting in the before mentioned shoot out between Flack and two members of El Puno. It is revealed that Ortega witnessed Devarro killing, but her fear of retribution kept her silent, and Devarro didn’t hesitate to use that fear, otherwise he would have killed her to protect his own identity. Instead, he was willing to use his status as El Puno’s infamous cutthroat leader--a status he gained not by his own devices, but by the actions he professes to despise of the younger gang members--to ensure her silence. This undermines Devarro’s claims of for an “aw shucks, mom ’n’ pop” type of gang operation he dreamed of.
We again see the repetitive nature of Thomas’ storytelling when Mac confronts Devarro, twice, each time promising the hand of justice to come down--note to writers, a threat loses its power when it has to be made twice. These cringe-worthy moments were inundated with boring, cliched, George Lucasesque lines such as “a handshake used to mean something” and “If you don’t, this fair man will lock you up again, and this time you won’t get out.” Tension has to be created organically because if it’s forced, for example Mac making the ridiculous choice to go into a gang’s hangout alone and without back up, it takes one out of the situation with its lack of believability, therefore voiding the intensity, nearly make a mockery of it.
There is plenty to pick apart in this episode (the occasional role inversion between Mac and Devarro, the lack of commentary on what effects it would have socially and fundamentally on a community when one gang is whipped out leaving it’s rival full rein, Devarro’s misguided Utopian view, his God-like-complex failing to understand “that you first make thieves and then punish them”, choppy editing, stilted scenes, and jokes that just weren’t funny) which is disappointing considering last week’s fantastic episode, and the deep respect I have for Edward James Olmos as an actor. It’s a shame we can’t have a re-do, bring him back for episode worthy of his caliber.
On a positive note, I am thoroughly enjoying the inclusion of all cast members in most of the episodes this season, each having a role to play in the weekly fight against crime, and I hope that trend continues, especially the continued use of Team Messer. I am glad the writers are realizing that they worked well together before they were married, and they can continue to work well together post matrimonially as well. Here’s hoping next weeks episode maintains a better balance.
Highlight of the Night: Seeing Sid out of the morgue.
Guilty Pleasure: Danny’s sexy voice when he was talking to Lindsay about “kiss and tell”
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)