|
|
Post by maggiethecat on May 9, 2008 18:24:03 GMT -5
Thinking about this a little more, I think it's simply a case of things happening faster on TV than they do in real life, which occurs on a lot of TV shows, not only Blind Justice. Yes, you have to be willing to suspend disbelief and just go with the flow. Okay. Here I am. I finally, finally, finally joined the re-watch last night and jumped into the pool . . . and, although I am more than willing to suspend disbelief and go with the flow I went smash! against the rough concrete of the deep end. I need to go back and re-watch the earlier episodes, because after watching this ep after something like two years I hate to say it -- I really hate to say it -- but I am [small voice] I am not in love. Not my favorite, except for that lovely ending with Marty's epiphany and the "Moon River" segue in and out of the old sighted Jim and the new unsighted Jim. That was a tour de force of acting, and all in a few seconds. I missed angst-y Jim. I missed Galloway. I missed the acerbity and the anger and the film noir quality that first attracted me to this show. "I got jerked out of the story," if you will, with Hank going all cutesy in the elevator and Karen's crappy love life.  Come down on me like the proverbial duck on a June bug, but I treasured Blind Justice for the drama, not the comedy. I think I joined in with the wrong episode. This just makes me want to go back and watch "Up on the Roof." I think I will. Now there was an episode . . .  |
|
|
|
Post by mlm828 on May 9, 2008 23:32:46 GMT -5
Welcome to the re-watch - even if you didn't join in at the best possible time. "In Your Face" is not one of my favorites, either. But don't give up - there are all those early, angsty episodes to catch up on. And tomorrow we begin a new week with "Doggone" and Ted the Drug Dealer. |
|
|
|
Post by maggiethecat on May 10, 2008 9:55:12 GMT -5
Oh thank you, mlm, I feel better already.  Ooh. Ted. |
|
|
|
Post by hoosier on May 10, 2008 16:07:39 GMT -5
Okay. Here I am. I finally, finally, finally joined the re-watch last night and jumped into the pool . . . and, although I am more than willing to suspend disbelief and go with the flow I went smash! against the rough concrete of the deep end. I need to go back and re-watch the earlier episodes, because after watching this ep after something like two years I hate to say it -- I really hate to say it -- but I am [small voice] I am not in love. I missed angst-y Jim. I missed Galloway. I missed the acerbity and the anger and the film noir quality that first attracted me to this show. "I got jerked out of the story," if you will, with Hank going all cutesy in the elevator and Karen's crappy love life. I understand what you mean. The last episodes definitely had their own... flavor...different from the first ones that grabbed our attention. I guess it had to do with Bochco's idea of Jim "coming to terms with his blindness" so that they focus less on his trying to prove himself and more on what was going on around him. You know their acceptance of Jim would not have happened that quickly even when he showed them (and himself) that he could still do the job. Would it have been so out of character for them to have had one episode where they didn't solve the case? Where Jim was totally out of his element and/or comfort zone( excluding the upcoming Doggone)? Shown that he was human after all and not some super cop (though they touched on that in Marlon's Brando in the session with Galloway) Perhaps a crisis where he had to acknowledge his feelings about Terry and the bank and how he really felt about his blindness? There was more that could be gleaned from angsty Jim beyond the fear of ballroom dancing! And Ted? Ah, yessss. Ted ;D |
|
|
|
Post by mlm828 on May 10, 2008 17:19:02 GMT -5
I have always viewed "In Your Face" as the third of three episodes which don't focus on Jim's blindness and his efforts to prove himself on the job. This may have been a deliberate choice - perhaps an effort to add dimension to the character and make him more than a "blind guy" by showing him dealing with problems that anyone could have. If so, I don't think it was entirely successful, not only because we like "angsty Jim," but also because the show was supposed to be about Jim's struggles as a blind man, and it suffered when it lost that focus, in my opinion. Would it have been so out of character for them to have had one episode where they didn't solve the case? Where Jim was totally out of his element and/or comfort zone (excluding the upcoming Doggone)? Shown that he was human after all and not some super cop (though they touched on that in Marlon's Brando in the session with Galloway) Perhaps a crisis where he had to acknowledge his feelings about Terry and the bank and how he really felt about his blindness? I would have loved to see all of these! |
|
|
|
Post by maggiethecat on May 11, 2008 16:30:07 GMT -5
Would it have been so out of character for them to have had one episode where they didn't solve the case? Where Jim was totally out of his element and/or comfort zone (excluding the upcoming Doggone)? Shown that he was human after all and not some super cop (though they touched on that in Marlon's Brando in the session with Galloway) Perhaps a crisis where he had to acknowledge his feelings about Terry and the bank and how he really felt about his blindness? Amen and a major karma boost to you, hoosier, for bringing up such great talking points. ;D The only moments I can remember where Jim was "totally out of his comfort zone" were in "Marlon's Brando," where he stumbled into Nancy Dressler's room without either Hank or Karen at his elbow, and in "Doggone," when he was lost in Hoboken . . . can anyone remember others? We covered some of these points in the "Too Perfect?" thread, but I don't remember coming to a hard and fast conclusion. Yeah, Dunbar was set up as a damaged man but also as a strong and macho "Supercop." The moments of vulnerability humanized him and I wonder what would have happened had there been more.  |
|
|
|
Post by mlm828 on May 12, 2008 0:54:03 GMT -5
The only moments I can remember where Jim was "totally out of his comfort zone" were in "Marlon's Brando," where he stumbled into Nancy Dressler's room without either Hank or Karen at his elbow, and in "Doggone," when he was lost in Hoboken . . . can anyone remember others? We covered some of these points in the "Too Perfect?" thread, but I don't remember coming to a hard and fast conclusion. Not to get ahead of ourselves, but some other moments when Jim is out of his "comfort zone" are coming up in "Dance With Me" - first, when Artie asks him to speak to Pete and, later, when he does speak with Pete. In a very well-done scene by Ron Eldard, Jim is sooo uncomfortable with Artie's request. And he apparently doesn't even tell Karen what he's doing until it turns out there's something to investigate. Incidentally, I'm not sure to what extent Jim was out of his comfort zone in Nancy Dressler's hospital room. At least part of it was putting on an act and intentionally "playing up the blindness" for the interview. I think he got really uncomfortable only when his thoughts of Christie intruded. Yeah, Dunbar was set up as a damaged man but also as a strong and macho "Supercop." The moments of vulnerability humanized him and I wonder what would have happened had there been more. I, too, would have like to see more moments where Jim acknowledges his vulnerability. Two of my favorites are coming up in "Under the Gun" - when he asks Karen if she'll still be his partner, and at the end of the episode, when he admits to Christie that the day's events "scared the hell" out of him. |
|
|
|
Post by maggiethecat on May 12, 2008 16:09:11 GMT -5
Incidentally, I'm not sure to what extent Jim was out of his comfort zone in Nancy Dressler's hospital room. At least part of it was putting on an act and intentionally "playing up the blindness" for the interview. I think he got really uncomfortable only when his thoughts of Christie intruded. I should probably go wrestle with this in the "Marlon's Brando" rewatch thread but here I am so what the heck. 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 dependant 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. And now to the very interesting points hoosier brought up: Would it have been so out of character for them to have had one episode where they didn't solve the case? They didn't solve the case with the woman who torched the apartment and her mother-in-law, did they? I seem to remember Karen grilling the woman quite effectively but she never cracked. Perhaps a crisis where he had to acknowledge his feelings about Terry and the bank and how he really felt about his blindness? Although Lord knows the fic writers on this board have brought Terry back for any number of return engagements (Guilty as charged, m'Lud.  ) I always thought that, within the context of the show, Jim came to terms with Terry at the end of "Up on the Roof" with his devastating lines about how he'd been pissed off at him all this time, etc. I don't need to write the rest, do I? Nah, we can all recite the lines . . . in our sleep. As to how Jim really felt about his blindness, despite what Steven Bochco said about his coming to embrace it by the end of the show . . . I'm not sure we ever saw this. (No, Jimmy, honey, ballroom dancing is not going to replace what you lost.) I'm not sure that -- had the show continued for another season -- we ever would have seen this, nor, in dramatic terms, should we have. A Blind Justice where Jim Dunbar was completely adjusted to the conditions and strictures of his life would have been a straight police procedural, bereft of the lovely wry humor that helped define the character . . . and, IMHO, damned dull. Nice eye candy and all that, but the wellspring of good drama is struggle and tension, not complacency and acceptance. MODIFIED TO ADD:I'm going to try to find the "Marlon's Brando" stuff re Nancy Dressler's room and Jim's comfort zone that I referenced in the "Too Perfect?" thread and roll it over to the right thread. See you there. |
|
|
|
Post by Chris on May 18, 2008 18:35:56 GMT -5
I'm not that fond of this episode, or more correctly, I don't like the Tuxhorns. Their suicide/ insurance scam is too premeditated and Joan is not very likeable. Jerry Tuxhorn half naked in the closet doesn't make it any better. I do like Todd Moncrief though. ;D Several things I like about this episode....Todd Moncrief...played so perfectly slimey...I repeat the words so often in my head..."Are you happy now?" and I hear him every time I think of it....  I always feel a bit sorry for poor Todd. Marty is being sarcastic as always and Tom is pretty hard on him too. Tom seems to be quite easy going but he's usually rather tough when interviewing suspects. The part of “In Your Face” that I like best is the whole Jim-Karen imbroglio. It picks up right where it left off in “Past Imperfect,” when Jim decides to stay at the crime scene instead of canvassing with Karen.  What’s up with that? Does he think she’s going to abandon him somewhere, as she did at the shooting scene in “Past Imperfect”? Or, since Karen actually asks him if he wants to stay or go with her, he stays because he gets the impression that Karen really doesn't want him to join her? I always get a laugh from Jim’s exasperated head shake at the end of their conference with Fisk, when Karen refuses to speak to him.  Love this too ;D Though it lasted only a few seconds, I liked the scene where Jim is using the bill reader. Too bad they didn't show more of his use of adaptive technology Maybe it's just me but doesn't he have a lot of cash?? I don't carry much cash around because I pay with my Visa almost everywhere so I'm surprised to see him carrying that much cash with him. The scene in the sports bar is so well done. When I watched it this time I knew exactly how Jim felt when he tried to keep up with the game without being able to see what's going on.  Something like that happens often when I'm interpreting. For instance if I'm interpreting for a student who's watching a TV documentary. I'll sit next to the TV set and can't see the screen which means that I have to guess what's going on. Very confusing and frustrating and I'm sure I sometimes have the same facial expression as Jim does.  One line always confuses me. When Tom says that Jim has to watch out because he shouldn't "Drink and Walk" they all laugh and then Jim says "That's not right" What does he mean? My favorite moment of the episode, however, has nothing to do with Jim and Karen. It’s Marty’s little epiphany as Jim leaves the sports bar and Tom asks, “Can you imagine that?” Marty’s one-word reply, “No,” and the look on his face say it all.  So well done!!!! - Chris |
|
|
|
Post by Dreamfire on May 18, 2008 22:31:06 GMT -5
Maybe it's just me but doesn't he have a lot of cash?? I don't carry much cash around because I pay with my Visa almost everywhere so I'm surprised to see him carrying that much cash with him. One line always confuses me. When Tom says that Jim has to watch out because he shouldn't "Drink and Walk" they all laugh and then Jim says "That's not right" What does he mean? - Chris Well, I hazard to guess that paying with Visa and trustng that the merchant has put the right amount through when you can't read the docket yourself could be iffy so, cash might prevail. And that line? I get a little hung up on it too. I always figured Jim would've liked to enjoy the translation from don't drink and drive to don't drink and walk but it just doesn't quite work. I know I haven't jumpedon this thread much but I have been reading you all and enjoying the chat. Being a wallflower for a change. |
|
|
|
Post by rducasey on May 19, 2008 6:08:29 GMT -5
Well, I hazard to guess that paying with Visa and trustng that the merchant has put the right amount through when you can't read the docket yourself could be iffy so, cash might prevail. And that line? I get a little hung up on it too. I always figured Jim would've liked to enjoy the translation from don't drink and drive to don't drink and walk but it just doesn't quite work. As for the cash thing, I too tend to carry very little as I depend on a debit card for almost everything. My husband, on the other hand, seems to always need a wallet full of cash. Maybe it's a man thing. But I never really thought about that N, using a VISA, could be iffy, since, how does he know if the correct amount is going through, without having it checked later? The "drink and walk" line, I always see as Jim showing he can take a ribbing about his blindness when it is done in good natured, not malicious, fun. The laughter he accompanies with his retort "that's not right" is letting them know he is ok with it. Very different from Marty's mean spirited jokes in the past . (cow bells, Helen Keller etc. ) There really was a turning point in his relationship with the squad at this time. It must have felt good to be just "one of the guys" in the squad once again. |
|
|
|
Post by Chris on May 19, 2008 17:38:40 GMT -5
Good to hear from you again, Natascha. Well, I hazard to guess that paying with Visa and trustng that the merchant has put the right amount through when you can't read the docket yourself could be iffy so, cash might prevail. And that line? I get a little hung up on it too. I always figured Jim would've liked to enjoy the translation from don't drink and drive to don't drink and walk but it just doesn't quite work. As for the cash thing, I too tend to carry very little as I depend on a debit card for almost everything. My husband, on the other hand, seems to always need a wallet full of cash. Maybe it's a man thing. But I never really thought about that N, using a VISA, could be iffy, since, how does he know if the correct amount is going through, without having it checked later? I never thought about that either. I agree. I just don't get the "that's not right" comment. Maybe I'm thinking too much but I keep wondering, what's not right, drinking and walking, or the idea that even that isn't allowed or joking about it?? Yup, I'm thinking too much!!! After all it's just a joke and here I am overanalyzing every little comment. - Chris |
|
) I always thought that, within the context of the show, Jim came to terms with Terry at the end of "Up on the Roof" with his devastating lines about how he'd been pissed off at him all this time, etc. I don't need to write the rest, do I? Nah, we can all recite the lines . . . in our sleep. 
