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!
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment