|
|
Post by inuvik on Apr 10, 2008 12:04:02 GMT -5
It isn't my least favorite scene in the series, not by a long shot, but I know what you mean about feeling uncomfortable. However, I think the viewers are supposed to feel uncomfortable. Jim definitely goes overboard "playing up the blindness," and then, to make things worse, the visions of Christie-as-victim pop up in his head. And if he's that uncomfortable, imagine how uncomfortable Nancy must be. I always thought Karen's logic - that Nancy would be more comfortable talking to a blind man - was fundamentally flawed. I agree with both of you. I really find that scene uncomfortable. I'm literally squirming! I also agree the logic is flawed. So what if he's blind--he's also a man alone in the room with her. Perhaps because of what happened, she would be more comfortable talking with a female--they could just have easily taken that route. |
|
|
|
Post by hoosier on Apr 10, 2008 18:38:21 GMT -5
More musings on the "safety" issue. Karen is the one person who should be worried about whether it is safe for her to go out on the street with a blind partner, and yet she never seems to have any concern about this. In the Pilot, she doesn't want to work with Jim, but that's because she's afraid working with him will hold her back in her career, not because she's concerned a suspect will pull a gun and Jim won't be able to do a damn thing about it. Did it become a non-issue for her after Jim had her back in Lyman's kitchen? It's understandable she wouldn't be thinking about these issues in the immediate aftermath of Condell's suicide, because she was traumatized by what she had seen. But I have to wonder whether it would have occurred to her later, as it did to Jim, that if Condell had turned the gun on her, Jim would not have been able to do anything about it. In one of the last episodes, Karen reminded Jim that detectives often go years without drawing their weapon. Maybe she thought that could be the case--though she did seem to draw hers a lot. I agree that the "playing up the blindness" scene is uncomfortable. I cringe when he bumps into the chair every time. I understand where Karen is coming from, seeking to put Nancy at ease, but you can see Nancy wondering why on earth they sent him there. |
|
|
|
Post by Chris on Apr 21, 2008 6:05:03 GMT -5
Like Martha I like the way the case and Jim's personal life gets intertwined. One thing I find interesting is when Karen asks Jim if there's something wrong and he tells about "the nasty images" in his head. He says it very lightly and pretends like it's nothing but I always wonder if Karen believes him or she just decides to let it go?? The "slashes" - First of all...the two vics seem to have gotten different treatment. Nancy was sewn up and then transferred to a room. It looked to me like she was going to spend the night at least. Did you all get that impression? Cheryl said she was attacked when she came home from dinner...so in the evening. When Karen mentioned the fact that Cheryl did not file a police report, Cheryl said it had been a long day and she just wanted to get out of there. So, doesn't sound like they kept her inspite of the fact that her cut was every bit as bad as Nancy's. Cheryl also was raped, but apparently didn't admit to it in the hospital. However, if Marlon worked in a pattern wouldn't Cheryl also have been naked like Nancy when she was found? Therefore, why didn't the doctors do a rape exam? I am sure that she would have to have consented to that type of exam. The only thing that matters to Condell is paying back what happened to him ie the raping and having a swastika cut into his chest. I don't think it mattered to him whether or not the two women were naked, all he wanted to do was to send a message to Leonard Mattis. He attacks Cheryl in the evening and Nancy early in the morning. If Cheryl was dressed it also explains why nobody thought of doing a rape exam. Nancy on the other hand was found naked in her bed so naturally the possibility of rape comes to mind. Karen must have come in the room as well after since he asked her arriving back at the squad what the scar looked like. "Did Nancy Dressler have a dressing on her face?" Wasn't that after they had visited the second time? Yes, it was after they visited Nancy for the second time. This is the kind of thing which stands out when re-watching an episode after a long time. We don't see Karen come into Nancy's hospital room after Jim questions her, but we could infer that she did. On the other hand, if she came into the room and saw Nancy's injury, why would she need to have the plastic surgeon e-mail a picture of it to her phone? But if Karen didn't see the wound, how does she know what it looks like when she starts to draw a picture of it for Jim, then traces it on his face? Since this results in the "Helen Keller moment," I'm not really complaining, but there's definitely some inconsistency here. I don't think there is any inconsistency here. When Karen interviews Nancy the first time she has a bandage on her face. Jim asks Karen "Did Nancy have a bandage on her face [when you talked to her]"? When Karen confirms that he continues "I would like to know how similar it was to Cheryl's" Karen answers "Yeah, it [Cheryl's] was like a jagged cut...." leading to the Helen Keller moment. So it's Cheryl's cut she draws on Jim's face and therefore it makes sense to ask Nancy's surgeon to e-mail a picture to her phone. When Mark Watt is interviewed his lawyer makes a comment about nobody having defined what the word "Visit" means. Why would he do that? For all he knows, his client was asked to visit Condell which sounds very innocent and not a crime. It would have made sense to me if Russo and Selway had made it clear that they thought "Paying Condell a visit" meant something more than that, but they don't, so why does the lawyer stress that the word visit can mean more that just that, a visit??? - Chris  |
|
|
|
Post by hoosier on Apr 21, 2008 16:31:48 GMT -5
When Mark Watt is interviewed his lawyer makes a comment about nobody having defined what the word "Visit" means. Why would he do that? For all he knows, his client was asked to visit Condell which sounds very innocent and not a crime. It would have made sense to me if Russo and Selway had made it clear that they thought "Paying Condell a visit" meant something more than that, but they don't, so why does the lawyer stress that the word visit can mean more that just that, a visit??? - Chris It reminded me of Bill Clinton questioning the meaning of the word "is". I guess it all has to do with context. |
|
|
|
Post by maggiethecat on Apr 21, 2008 19:12:38 GMT -5
Interesting . . . ! I always loved, loved, loved the "playing up the blindness" scene, and I think you're meant to cringe. It's uncomfortable, yes, but I think by design. (There was much discussion about this one scene in the "Too Perfect?" thread, as I remember.) Jim is so UNperfect, so flawed, so ill at ease -- and that's what gets Nancy to open up. I also find it interesting that this is the one scene in the show in which Jim is wa-a-a-a-a-y out of his comfort zone. He's not at his apartment, which he's memorized; he's not in the squad room, which he has also memorized; he doesn't have Hank, and he doesn't have Karen. (The only other time I can remember seeing him this disoriented is when he stumbleds into Randy Lyman's kitchen.) So when he bangs into the chair in Nancy's room, I think he was being shown in a realistic fashion. He didn't know the room, he only had Nancy's voice to go by, and so, yeah, he would have been out of his comfort zone. In the end, I always thought this was one of the more telling scenes in the series. Oh, and here's what I loved about this show -- they very neatly managed to avoid the cliche of having Jim "feel" someone's face to know what they looked like, for which I am eternally grateful. (It really is an awful cliche.) So of course I loved that the only face-feeling was done by . . . Karen.  PS. Am I the only one who ever wondered how he found his way to the right park bench to meet Christie at the end of the episode?  |
|
|
|
Post by Katryna on Apr 21, 2008 19:30:39 GMT -5
PS. Am I the only one who ever wondered how he found his way to the right park bench to meet Christie at the end of the episode? Nope, you aren't. Some of us set out to figure that out in person. In this picture you can see the Dunbar's building. There is a path leading toward it from the Brooklyn Bridge Park. For that scene the bench would have been at the park entrance right across the street (practically) from their front door. An easy trip with his cane. (In the "real world" there is no bench there.)  |
|
|
|
Post by rducasey on Apr 21, 2008 20:13:21 GMT -5
PS. Am I the only one who ever wondered how he found his way to the right park bench to meet Christie at the end of the episode? Nope, you aren't. Some of us set out to figure that out in person. In this picture you can see the Dunbar's building. There is a path leading toward it from the Brooklyn Bridge Park. For that scene the bench would have been at the park entrance right across the street (practically) from their front door. An easy trip with his cane. (In the "real world" there is no bench there.) And this is how we knew where the bench was as the sign is there but alas no bench. So it was just placed there for the scene. It is actually, as Kathy said, right across from their front door, perhaps only 20 yards away.  |
|
|
|
Post by maggiethecat on May 12, 2008 17:01:13 GMT -5
Found it -- can we talk? As for the physical aspects of Ron Eldard's portrayal, the tiny subtle gestures and the cautious stillness spoke volumes. I really don't know how much more "blind" the guy could have been! I think the show covered Jim's limitations extremely well, especially since they started at a point in his life where he was highly functional. There is one scene that underscores Jim's limitations really well, and that's where he "plays up the blindness" for Nancy Dressler. Of course he exaggerated by practically falling over the chair first thing, and by what he said to her -- I'm newly blind, Am I facing you, etc. -- but in a weird way the physical aspects of that scene ring true in a way we didn't get very often. Fumbing to find the door latch? Real. Having to locate the end of the bed with his cane before he could reach out and touch the footrail? Real.  I think a lot of Jim's so-called perfection is attributable to his either being seated, in familiar surroundings, with Hank, or at Karen's elbow. If you think about it, the scene with Nancy Dressler is one of the few times in the series we saw Jim walk into an unfamiliar room without Karen. And he just doesn't seem all that sure of himself. |
|
|
|
Post by mlm828 on May 12, 2008 17:46:49 GMT -5
If you think about it, this scene is one of the very few times -- if not the only time: I know there are those on this board who can correct me! -- when we see Jim entering into a situation in which he is solely dependent on his cane skills. No Karen at his elbow and no Hank. So, although he definitely "played up the blindness" with his disingenuous remarks to Nancy about how he was newly blinded and needed to be sure he was facing people when they spoke, etc., I never thought the moment where his cane got tangled up in the chair and he stumbled was anything other than the truth of the situation. There are very few times when we see Jim relying only on his cane, and so we never got a complete sense of how good his technique was. If this scene is any indication, I would say: Not very. I'm going to have to disagree. I think tripping over the chair was part of the act of "playing up the blindness." It looked to me as if he found the chair with his cane and then crashed into it intentionally. As far as I can recall, the only other time we saw him using the cane was when he was learning his way around the squad room in the Pilot. He looked pretty proficient to me, but what do I know? Wouldn't he have had to be proficient in cane travel before he could get a guide dog? |
|
|
|
Post by hoosier on May 12, 2008 18:34:00 GMT -5
If you think about it, this scene is one of the very few times -- if not the only time: I know there are those on this board who can correct me! -- when we see Jim entering into a situation in which he is solely dependent on his cane skills. No Karen at his elbow and no Hank. So, although he definitely "played up the blindness" with his disingenuous remarks to Nancy about how he was newly blinded and needed to be sure he was facing people when they spoke, etc., I never thought the moment where his cane got tangled up in the chair and he stumbled was anything other than the truth of the situation. There are very few times when we see Jim relying only on his cane, and so we never got a complete sense of how good his technique was. If this scene is any indication, I would say: Not very. I'm going to have to disagree. I think tripping over the chair was part of the act of "playing up the blindness." It looked to me as if he found the chair with his cane and then crashed into it intentionally. As far as I can recall, the only other time we saw him using the cane was when he was learning his way around the squad room in the Pilot. He looked pretty proficient to me, but what do I know? Wouldn't he have had to be proficient in cane travel before he could get a guide dog? The Pilot is the only time I can remember Jim using his cane and he seemed to handle it very well. He only stumbled etc. was when he tried to go about the room without the cane. He was going to use it in Seoul Man until Karen brought up the fact of his finding the car. Had Jim become rather complacent, relying too much on Karen ? What if something came up and he, with his cane or with Hank, had to make their way back to the car, or anywhere, on their own? When he travels with Hank he has to remember how many times he crosses a street to arrive at his destination ( the bar scene when he asks for directions) so why was he so totally at a loss here? |
|
|
|
Post by mlm828 on May 12, 2008 20:41:32 GMT -5
He was going to use it in Seoul Man until Karen brought up the fact of his finding the car. Had Jim become rather complacent, relying too much on Karen? What if something came up and he, with his cane or with Hank, had to make their way back to the car, or anywhere, on their own? When he travels with Hank he has to remember how many times he crosses a street to arrive at his destination (the bar scene when he asks for directions) so why was he so totally at a loss here? When Karen is guiding Jim, he may not pay close attention to the route, as he would do when on his own. According to one blind author I read, this is what happens when he is guided by a sighted friend. He says it's especially true if he and his friend are having a conversation, because it's difficult if not impossible to have a conversation and focus on the route at the same time. Perhaps that is why Jim didn't know the way back to the car in "Seoul Man." It's possible he and Karen were talking about the case as they walked from the car, and Tom was definitely talking to them at one point:  |
|
|
|
Post by maggiethecat on May 13, 2008 17:34:03 GMT -5
I'm going to have to disagree. I think tripping over the chair was part of the act of "playing up the blindness."? When you get right down to it, the concept of "playing up the blindness" is overkill. A man walks into your room wearing shades and carrying a white cane, he doesn't exactly have to bash into the furniture to send the message. ;D It looked to me as if he found the chair with his cane and then crashed into it intentionally. Never noticed that -- it looked to me as thought the cane got tangled up in the chair legs. Am I going to have to watch this again?! Quelle tragedie. As far as I can recall, the only other time we saw him using the cane was when he was learning his way around the squad room in the Pilot. He looked pretty proficient to me, but what do I know? Wouldn't he have had to be proficient in cane travel before he could get a guide dog? Aaaaah, the Pilot.  We-e-e-e-e-el, as best as I remember he had the place to himself and as far as he knew was unobserved, which is freeing; he did have a general sense of the layout from the preceding day, and he did, after all, knock a chair over when he went solo. All by way of saying that I always thought JIm was new enough at the game to not have all he kinks worked out, which, of course, just made the character all the more endearing. Good enough to do the job, but maybe his finesse wasn't all it could have been. As for Jim's getting a guide dog being contingent upon his proficiency with a cane, I always got the sense (from discusisons here, probably) that some blind people were good with canes and some were good with dogs and maybe there wasn't a correlation? The Nancy Dressler scene is still one of my favorites, and if Jim was at his worst it just underscored the point that he was having a really crappy day. That's my story and I'm stickin' to it! |
|
|
|
Post by hoosier on May 13, 2008 19:02:12 GMT -5
Aaaaah, the Pilot. We-e-e-e-e-el, as best as I remember he As for Jim's getting a guide dog being contingent upon his proficiency with a cane, I always got the sense (from discusisons here, probably) that some blind people were good with canes and some were good with dogs and maybe there wasn't a correlation? I always imagined that Jim got as proficient as he needed to be to qualify for a dog now. He had set a goal and this (cane travel) was just one step toward it. |
|
|
|
Post by mlm828 on May 13, 2008 22:23:26 GMT -5
As for Jim's getting a guide dog being contingent upon his proficiency with a cane, I always got the sense (from discussions here, probably) that some blind people were good with canes and some were good with dogs and maybe there wasn't a correlation? I always imagined that Jim got as proficient as he needed to be to qualify for a dog now. He had set a goal and this (cane travel) was just one step toward it. It's my understanding, based on my reading, that the choice of a cane or a dog is generally a matter of personal preference. In addition, taking care of a guide dog requires considerable time, effort, and expense, and some people are unwilling or unable to make that commitment. The admissions requirements of Guiding Eyes for the Blind, which I believe are pretty typical of guide dog programs, include the ability to travel independently with a cane. |
|
|
|
Post by maggiethecat on May 20, 2008 15:11:57 GMT -5
Good points, mlm! Makes perfect sense and thank you for checking it out. Ahem, since I now have a lurvely new set of BJ DVDs thanks to the angel of the board (who needs Bochco when you have bjo?) I took a quick look at the Nancy Dressler scene last night. Looks to me like when Jim enters her room, he genuinely hits the chair with his cane, then reaches forward and gets it out of the way; using the cane to find the end of the bed and his distance from same so he can reach out and touch the bedrailing also seems natural. So . . . maybe the "playing up the blindness" is really there in the dialogue, which is definitely over the top.  Oh, and maybe my one of favorite moment from the episode, if not the series, is when Jim goes to enter Nancy's room. The way he feels for the door handle and the look of compassion on Karen's face as he does is so telling. It's a tiny little detail but this show was so good at tiny little details.  |
|
We-e-e-e-e-el, as best as I remember he had the place to himself and as far as he knew was unobserved, which is freeing; he did have a general sense of the layout from the preceding day, and he did, after all, knock a chair over when he went solo. All by way of saying that I always thought JIm was new enough at the game to not have all he kinks worked out, which, of course, just made the character all the more endearing. Good enough to do the job, but maybe his finesse wasn't all it could have been. 
