The luxury suv, perfect for getting one’s golf clubs to the all important tee time, ideal for trips to the Hamptons, and made to accommodate the occasional bodily abduction of a member of the NYPD. (Rich people; they just don’t know how good they have it! I know when I kidnap someone I’m stuck with shoving them into my cluttered trunk--so unfair). Of course, that separation of class permeated this week’s episode, The Untouchable. From wealthy men who believe they are impervious to the law, to a homeless woman who’s mental degradation makes her unreachable on certain levels, this episode is all about contrast.
Writer Kim Clements makes her second foray into CSI:NY, and I believe my comments from her first episode hold true. In Scared Stiff, she strove for character interaction, effectively using the characters in her storytelling. It was clear they weren’t just pawns in the case, they were breathing, thinking individuals whose experiences contributed to the solving of the case. This episode was very similar in that aspect. Danny’s baseball knowledge, Jo’s pushing for answers, Mac’s desire to help Tessa James (Kate Towne), Lindsay’s useless trivia, are just a few examples of how the characters pushed the case forward. Clements seems to understand an important aspect of serial television; we come back week after week to see our favorite characters. To me, a great story is predicated on my connection to the characters. If a character doesn’t provoke some kind of emotional reaction, whether negative or positive, then I have no reason to be engaged. As I watched this week’s episode, I felt something.
Mac’s Close Encounters of the Crazy Candy-Eating Homeless Woman (a.k.a Ella McBride-lite) Kind were pretty sweet moments. I felt that Mac was truly concerned for this woman, and wanted to help her. Which is a pretty established characteristic of Mac Taylor--see the a fore mentioned reference to the other blond chick Mac got caught up in. It was also really cool to show Danny’s affinity for baseball (hip hip hooray for continuity!). I like it when a CSI’s history is used to solve a case, again it provides a deeper connection. Who else would be able to raddle off baseball information from 1919...of course his mustache may be the source of his power. Does anyone else worry that Danny is top hat and cane away from tying a girl to a railroad? Anyone? No? I’m the only one creeped out by his maniacal looking facial hair? That’s fine. I even like Jo’s up front approach with Mac. She sensed there was a problem and didn’t let him brood. I like Mac and Jo’s relationship, I like that they are friends, and I like that she forces him to step out of his comfort zone. I also like that it was there and then it was gone. The show “Jo”ed me out; too much too fast! Now that balance to the Force is beginning to be restored, I can again appreciate her character.
However, for all the strength in Clements writing involving characters and emotions, it is equally problematic. There were enough holes in the plot to literally convince me I was missing entire scenes. I had to watch the episode three times to ensure I wasn’t just blacking out at crucial moments. The actual crime solving seemed to mostly progress based on wild speculations. Lindsay petitions Mac regarding the legitimacy of Tessa’s claims. Mac responds, “Tessa wasn’t delusional Lindsay. She didn’t think people were listening in on her thoughts or that she was receiving messages from television or aliens.” Oh, well if Mac says it, then it must be true; as we all know the only two requirements to being delusional are paranoia and hearing voices. (As for me, I thought she was bat crazy!) Also, as they were spraying down the gentlemen’s club they come across a splattering of blood. Mac practically declares that the woman Tessa saw was murdered in that spot. I literally shook my head in wonderment at such a conclusion. That kind of conjecture keeps a story from being believable. The truth is, any defense attorney worth a dime is going to win against the “evidence” the team collected. Was the manager even arrested? I can’t think of a single reason they would have to arrest him. Yes they found his print on the coat, but as he pointed out, he handles lots of coats. The courts can’t use what Mac was told by Tessa James (again, I mention bat crazy) because it is hearsay. I’m not a lawyer but I did look up the law of hearsay; there are very strict parameters where an officer of the law can actually testify using what they were told by someone who isn’t able to testify on their own. This situation doesn’t qualify. So all they have is his print on a coat. Similarly, there wasn’t any hard evidence that the other two men were involved in either the prostitutes death or Tessa James’ murder. The word circumstantial comes to mind, and I don’t doubt someone with an actual law degree would be able to come up with several other words as well. A writer on this show has a responsibility to the integrity of the crime lab; Clements hasn’t grasped that yet. She relies too heavily on conveniences and dues ex machina-esqu conventions. Mac says he researched the names Tessa gave him, George Weaver and Billy Gleason, but came up with nothing. I googled their names and found plenty of articles on who they were. I don’t think that would necessarily have helped him solve the case, but that’s not the point. Also, Mac said that Tessa James had a job as an assistant at a law firm. Why not ask her former employers for information. Wouldn’t they have her I-9 form on file-which would include a social security number? I was expected to turn off my brain, and that kind of writing drives me crazy. The moment at the end of the episode was very touching, but it would have been even more effective if I wasn’t sitting there wondering why they were all ignoring the fact that they knew where she had worked. It’s not about solving a mystery (which is what happened in this episode), it is about legally catching the perpetrator(s) of a crime(s) (which is not what happened in this episode).
I did not care for Vikki Williams’ directing. It was choppy, and ill-balanced. As far as I can tell, or rather as far as imbd can tell me, it was her first time behind the camera on the show, and it was apparent. There was no flow from scene to scene, and some of the shots screamed of trial and error. We seemed to fly through some scenes, and then meander through others. It was too messy.
Now, having said all that, I still go back to the characters. Even an episode that buckles under the weight of heavy scrutiny still comes off as enjoyable to watch because I was able to see the characters I care about. If they could find someone to write the case aspect of an episode and simply use Clements to write the character aspect I think I would be quite pleased (basically if they can find two people to make one Peter Lenkov...sigh...Peter--said in my best teenage dreamer voice). For goodness sake, the woman gave us Danny and Lindsay talking to each other, teasing each other, working together. That fact alone puts this woman at the top of my list. So because I care more about the characters than I do the cases, I am giving this one a higher grade than it probably ultimately deserves, but sometimes it just boils down to watch-ability. And Mac Taylor was quite watchable this week.
Highlight of the episode: A tie: Mac’s “I’m her friend” moment was really rather beautiful-despite it’s plot flaws-and let’s see...what was the other thing...oh, I remember DL MOMENTS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! (enough exclamation points? No?)!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!(how ‘bout now?)
Guilty Pleasure: I will say it, I will proudly admit to it; when Mac pulled the bag off his head and was kinda staring straight at the camera I drooled on myself.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment