|
|
Post by maggiethecat on Sept 16, 2005 11:51:57 GMT -5
You read my mind, maggie. I agree Christie is the one major character who doesn't define Jim by his blindness. Of course, at the time the series begins, she's had a year to reach this point. I also agree that, with the passage of time, Karen and Fisk no longer define Jim by his blindness, but I'm not so sure about Marty and Tom. Even though their attitudes toward Jim change over the course of the series, I think both of them still see Jim as a blind man first. And, yes, the same is definitely true of the Chief of Ds. Let's not forget that too that Christie is the only major character (Terry and Jim's snitch are minor characters) who also knew Jim before he was blinded. Karen knew of him from her friend, but that's not the same. I think that helps explain why Christie doesn't define Jim by his blindness. Hmmm. How do you suppose Christie defines Jim? The Gorgeous and Fascinating Man I Married Who Cheated on Me and Never Listens to a Word I Say? But your point is well taken! Love calling Terry a minor character, by the way . . . but one whose actions had major consequences. |
|
|
|
Post by housemouse on Sept 16, 2005 12:55:29 GMT -5
Let's not forget that too that Christie is the only major character (Terry and Jim's snitch are minor characters) who also knew Jim before he was blinded. Karen knew of him from her friend, but that's not the same. I think that helps explain why Christie doesn't define Jim by his blindness. Hmmm. How do you suppose Christie defines Jim? The Gorgeous and Fascinating Man I Married Who Cheated on Me and Never Listens to a Word I Say? But your point is well taken! Love calling Terry a minor character, by the way . . . but one whose actions had major consequences. Oooh, I just thought of an interesting point. At this point Terry defines himself by Jim's blindness. How's that for deep? |
|
|
|
Post by inuvik on Sept 16, 2005 13:19:02 GMT -5
Oooh, I just thought of an interesting point. At this point Terry defines himself by Jim's blindness. How's that for deep?[/quote] Love it! So deep you could be diving  |
|
|
|
Post by maggiethecat on Sept 16, 2005 13:26:14 GMT -5
[/quote] Oooh, I just thought of an interesting point. At this point Terry defines himself by Jim's blindness. How's that for deep?[/quote]
Ooh, let the Guilt Follies begin! What a great morsel to chew on, Mouse. He does, doesn't he? When he shows up in The Pilot, it's clear Jimmy's been ducking his calls so he, Terry, hasn't even had the chance to try out his cheesy, denial-soaked little apology. So he's been stewing for a year. Can we make the case that, even in The Pilot, Jim has "moved on" more than Terry has? We know by the end of "Up on the Roof" that this is true, but there are hints of it in their scene in The Pilot. Jim knows exactly what happened at the bank, and has had to deal with the consequences (boy, has he). Terry's still won't admit the truth of what happened, so there's no way he can even start to deal. And every time he looks at his old partner, all he sees is "blind."
Let's go!
|
|
|
|
Post by housemouse on Sept 16, 2005 15:11:21 GMT -5
Ooh, let the Guilt Follies begin! What a great morsel to chew on, Mouse. He does, doesn't he? When he shows up in The Pilot, it's clear Jimmy's been ducking his calls so he, Terry, hasn't even had the chance to try out his cheesy, denial-soaked little apology. So he's been stewing for a year. Can we make the case that, even in The Pilot, Jim has "moved on" more than Terry has? We know by the end of "Up on the Roof" that this is true, but there are hints of it in their scene in The Pilot. Jim knows exactly what happened at the bank, and has had to deal with the consequences (boy, has he). Terry's still won't admit the truth of what happened, so there's no way he can even start to deal. And every time he looks at his old partner, all he sees is "blind." Let's go! He doesn't merely see "blind" he sees "blind I caused." What a horrible burden to carry around. He knows he messed up. The life he once knew ended that day at the bank, and a whole new one began. Now here's another question. Did his base personality change after that day? I would argue that it did. Before the incident he was a brave and tough detective. He probably had a swagger. He was partnered with the best and he knew it. They probably had one of the best records in the department for closing cases. One split second changed all of that. Now he is a pathetic shell of a man who is afraid to take accountability for his own actions. If he did take accountability he might have to admit that he is not who he thought he was. He clings hopelessly to the past, hoping someone will take pity on him and help him out the abyss he has fallen into. One problem, he is asking Jim, the victim of his cowardice, to throw him a rope. The injury may have helped Jim evolve as a man, but not quite to that extent. |
|
|
|
Post by maggiethecat on Sept 16, 2005 19:42:57 GMT -5
Hmmm . . . so (she said, rubbing her hands together and sitting up straight) you see Terry as a "brave and tough" guy who was at the top of his game and ruined his life through one moment of aberrant (sp?) behavior? I always assumed/thought/inferred that Terry was the weak member of the Dunbar/Jansen partnership, that Jimmy was the "first one through the door," and that Terry did his job in a basically adequate way but was never fully tested. I think he was a basically weak man, and that one calamitous moment of cowardice at the bank exposed this flaw in his character -- which had never been exposed simply because he'd never been in that sort of situation before. Oh, I'm sure he was an okay partner -- Dunbar says as much in the river confrontation in "Up on the Roof" -- but not one able to handle extreme pressure, or think on his feet. If you assume these two men had never been in this sort of situation before -- a homicide detective's work is largely investigatory -- then what if their individual behavior that day was a reflection of their individual characters? Terry has a Before and an After, just as Jim does. But consider how Jim conducts his life After . . . and then consider Terry's actions. Let the games begin!  |
|
|
|
Post by kytdunne on Sept 16, 2005 20:02:18 GMT -5
What he's lost, I think, in the hellish transition between the old sighted Dunbar and the new, is spontaneity. No more walking down the street with your hands in your pockets. The simple act of crossing a room has to be planned. No matter how many times you've counted your way across the squad room to Fisk's door, every time you do it some small part of your brain has to do that count. No matter how many times you've crossed your living room to get a beer from the fridge, some small part of your brain has to keep thinking, Watch out for the coffee table. Don't trip on the area rug. How many candles did Christie light tonight? Remember where they are. Those micro-bursts of energy add up over the course of a day. The effect is cumulative. And ennervating. And, that, really, is all I meant when I said that for Jim to keep on doing what he does is going to require stamina, concentration, and those famous balls of steel. The mental aspects of the job haven't changed. The physical aspects have. And, as good as he gets, it will never be easy. That's what I meant about how it costs him, what it takes out of him. I took "no matter how many times..." to indicate a permanency. I'm not talking about all blind people -- I wouldn't presume! I'm taking taking my cues from The Pilot and the early episodes and as such, it's clear to me that the extra concentration and stamina needed to get through the day is an element of Dunbar's life. We can also assume that Dunbar was sighted for something like 40 years and blind for a year when the series opens, so over the long arc of a lifespan, blindness is still relatively new territory. No doubt the simple act of navigating through each day will become less onerous as the years roll on. But, as I said, I was taking my information from The Pilot and the early episodes. But now I'm not sure that's what you meant. Does this mean it's only applicable to the early adjustment phases and not later on? The earlier episodes, as you said? Kyt |
|
|
|
Post by housemouse on Sept 16, 2005 20:13:54 GMT -5
Hmmm . . . so (she said, rubbing her hands together and sitting up straight) you see Terry as a "brave and tough" guy who was at the top of his game and ruined his life through one moment of aberrant (sp?) behavior? I always assumed/thought/inferred that Terry was the weak member of the Dunbar/Jansen partnership, that Jimmy was the "first one through the door," and that Terry did his job in a basically adequate way but was never fully tested. I think he was a basically weak man, and that one calamitous moment of cowardice at the bank exposed this flaw in his character -- which had never been exposed simply because he'd never been in that sort of situation before. Oh, I'm sure he was an okay partner -- Dunbar says as much in the river confrontation in "Up on the Roof" -- but not one able to handle extreme pressure, or think on his feet. If you assume these two men had never been in this sort of situation before -- a homicide detective's work is largely investigatory -- then what if their individual behavior that day was a reflection of their individual characters? Terry has a Before and an After, just as Jim does. But consider how Jim conducts his life After . . . and then consider Terry's actions. Let the games begin! Excellent point. I would agree that Terry was the "weak link" in that partnership. However, I am sure he was a brave, strong, and most likely better that average cop. One reason for this theory is that a cop like Dunbar would settle for nothing less. I'm sure he was a hotshot in the department and had they partnered him up with the likes of Stemple, he would not have stood for it for a single second. Let's just assume that neither he nor Jim had ever been tested the way they were that day at the bank. I think (and I have said this before) that until that minute Terry thought he was a brave, strong, fabulous cop. That day his base personality changed because he was hit over the head with his shortcomings. Or to put it more accurately, Jim was shot in the head by Terry's shortcomings. |
|
|
|
Post by kytdunne on Sept 16, 2005 20:44:18 GMT -5
...how his inability to look someone in the eye, or needing to ask directions to the train station, changes "the pattern of collective character, behavioral, temperamental, emotional, and mental traits of a person" - specifically, Dunbar - in such a way that he's got a different personality. Character, probably not, mental, most likely not. Behavioral, temperamental, and emotional, absolutely. Can you give me an example of how you see his base personality changed in the above ways? The way I see it, his moments at the bank show he's going to face trouble head-on and deal with it to the best of his ability, and that's something he continues to do from the Pilot onward, from holding his own, to challenging, to winning against a variety of people and situations. By his interactions, and his prior and continuing success as a detective, I just don't see a base personality change. What do you base your determinations on? I realize that we don't have a lot to go on for pre-blinded Dunbar, but we can give it a good try. Sure he's still brave, sure he still has issues with his wife, the shooting and the blindness intensified these things. I'm not convinced Hermanson knew he was blind when he showed up. Whether that would have made a difference, I don't know. I'd have to say it doesn't make a difference to the outcome. Hermanson sought help from an old friend based on what he knew of Dunbar from years past, and he got it irrespective of the physical changes to Dunbar. And if it really does come down to the fact that being blind changes how he's viewed, and so changes his personality: Then are all blind people subjugated to the same category? Is Dunbar's character now more in line with that of other blind people? Some of his interests are probably the same and some are probably not. He can't enjoy boxing or basketball as much as he used to. He doesn't bowl or play pool anymore. But now he can really cut a rug. First, let me make it perfectly clear that I would not be so presumptuous as to speak for blind people. I am merely speaking of this character and the way he is portrayed in the show. A fundamental change in how people view him, as a man and a police officer, accompanied by a fundamental change in how he interacts with the world changed this character. One example is the fact that he is no longer interested in cheating on his wife. If a man with Dunbar's high levels of intelligence, confidence, determination, strength and perseverance can't maintain his base personality due to physical damage, then how would anyone with lesser capabilities be able to? Who would have higher capabilities, or a better chance? Additionally, Dunbar is used to dealing with strangers on a day-to-day basis where he is viewed as a cop, the enemy, and any other number of positive and derogatory things that have nothing to do who he is as a person. He is identified only by what he represents to the strangers he encounters. So he's had *years* of practice in dealing with misperceptions and negative stereotypes; more than the average citizen. One example is the fact that he is no longer interested in cheating on his wife. Are you sure he didn't determine cheating was a bad idea before he was blinded? Or do you think, if he had his sight, he'd be looking for more extramarital entertainment? And if so, what does that say about Dunbar? Kyt |
|
|
|
Post by kytdunne on Sept 16, 2005 21:28:45 GMT -5
His base personality(feelings, likes/dislikes) has not changed but as Galloway said , he will have to learn to reconcile how he sees himself now (as blind) as opposed to how he saw himself before (sighted) so even the esteemed Galloway feels there is a difference between the blind and the sighted Jim Dunbar. I am no psychologist, but any traumatic event tends to change a person. To what extent depends upon the degree of interference the changes cause, and how much that may or may not change the individual. Blindness is a change and it affects Dunbar, no disagreement there. It's typically not a simple thing for a person to reshape the way he or she views him- or herself without some long adjustment periods as alterations are tried out and settled into place or tossed out as hopeless causes. There is reshaping to be done, no doubt, and those levels are based upon the amount of interference the changes have brought about. How much those physical changes alter the individual's personality, as you said, depends upon the individual. As to Christie and the mixed signals. He said he had a good day and was busy. I think she saw that as an opening and pursued it not taking into account his body language and tone of voice. She was so eager to hear about his day that she just plowed in regardless of his feelings. She also ignored that he tried to end the conversation twice. And when he finally did blow up, only to calm down and tell her he does need her, she disagreed. But, you know, maybe that's how she unwinds after a stressful day of worrying about him. Kyt |
|
|
|
Post by mlm828 on Sept 16, 2005 21:32:12 GMT -5
Ron Eldard (who should know, I guess) was quoted as saying that if Dunbar got his sight back, he'd be cheating on his wife again within days.
Assuming that is the case, the answer to the last question will take some more thought.
|
|
|
|
Post by kytdunne on Sept 16, 2005 21:48:49 GMT -5
Ron Eldard (who should know, I guess) was quoted as saying that if Dunbar got his sight back, he'd be cheating on his wife again within days. Assuming that is the case, the answer to the last question will take some more thought. Was that comment made before or after they were done shooting the series? Was Eldard being flippant? Making a basic comment so that people would at least comprehend the idea that Dunbar's no saint so don't look for one? Did he mean it literally? And then extend that to the writers, the director, and include your audience. Eldard's not the only one with input into the character. Even an author writing a novel is not the sole interpreter of his or her character(s) unless no one else ever reads it. So honestly, it doesn't matter what Eldard said. He may have thought that was the way the character was going. The director may have yanked Dunbar & Christie in another direction. The writers may have had a different view. Or maybe everyone thinks that Dunbar's a pathetically inept womanizer now. Question is, as the viewing audience, do we think the same thing or do we have - as usual - varying viewpoints? (Or - my favorite - Eldard was reflecting his personal opinion on life with Christie.) But, presuming he's a hindered adulterer, will be interested in reading your response. Kyt |
|
|
|
Post by mlm828 on Sept 17, 2005 0:30:26 GMT -5
The interview in question was published around the time the series began, but in it, RE mentions that 13 episodes have been shot.
I tend to give considerable weight to what RE says about Jim Dunbar. I think he gave a lot of thought to the character. He did not seem flippant when discussing the character in the interview.
I agree that RE's ideas are not the only ideas about the character, but I wonder if he would have been able to play Dunbar so well if his ideas about the character were significantly different from the writers' and directors'. Besides, RE plays the character in every episode; the writers and directors change.
Still pondering the other questions. . . .
|
|
|
|
Post by shmeep on Sept 17, 2005 8:57:21 GMT -5
I've been scared to jump into this topic because just reading it makes me tired but...about the adultery. I've thought about this a lot and the quote from RE was in my mind as well as I watched the series.
In my opinion, Jim may or may not have been contrite about cheating before being blinded but, after he lost his sight, Christie took on a new significance to him. He may have realized he needed her more (think of his quote to Pete about his wife and a safe home) and his trauma may have made him realize that his marriage was important to him. I would never say that Jim Dunbar could become an inept adulterer (or however Kyt phrased that) and was only refraining because he couldn't have affairs any longer (what red-blooded straight woman wouldn't still be tempted when confronted by blind Jimmy?), but two things made cheating lose its appeal: no more visual temptation (and maybe when confronted with just the personalities of other women, he wasn't so tempted) and more of an emphasis on Christie and his own marriage post-blindness. At the end of Rub a Tub Tub, when Jim asks for a Mulligan, he tells her he isn't the same person he was before and that he would never do that again and I believe it is for the reasons stated above.
And this leads to--I'm almost scared to put down any opinions here--did Jim change? Of course he changed. I think most of the change was for the better. He was admirable in many ways when he was sighted, but he still had some growing up to do and going blind forced him to do it. I agree that he didn't become perfect once he lost his sight (how boring would that have been?) but he did grow. Just the act of adapting to blindness without allowing it to control one's life is a change. Did the core of his nature change? I doubt it. He's still the same guy he always had the potential to be, but going blind made him use a lot of the strength he already had.
In reading through this thread, I think that many of the points and counter points are not even at odds with each other. Jim changed and he didn't change. He's the same person and he isn't. It all depends on how people perceive him and on how he perceives himself (and both can change by the moment, depending on what Jim is trying to do at any given time).
|
|
|
|
Post by maggiethecat on Sept 17, 2005 9:10:29 GMT -5
Even an author writing a novel is not the sole interpreter of his or her character(s) unless no one else ever reads it. Kyt Been there, done that. Unless you're the kind of insecure writer who actually pays attention to reviews, your interpretations of the material will always be more important than those of others. After all, you created these little people who run around in your head and talk and get into trouble. Of course the opinion of friends matters -- if they're savvy and sensitive and have some idea of the process -- but the only "interpretations" germane to the work itself are those of your agent, who has to sell the book, and the editor you work with pre-publication. If it's not your vision on the printed page, well, then, you need another editor. |
|
