|
|
Post by maggiethecat on Sept 17, 2005 9:28:01 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. . . . Excellent points, mlm, especially that Ron Eldard played the character in every episode, regardless of who had written or directed. Kyt, if you want to read the interview we're talking about here, it was through The Associated Press, called "Eldard goes eye-to-eye with Blind Justice," and was widely available when the series premiered. You can find it through Google; I believe it's still posted at MSNBC. Here's the quote in question: "I think if he got his sight back tomorrow, he would be cheating on his wife in three days," Eldard adds. "I think he hasn't really changed that much. So I am really not interested in his becoming a very noble man. I'm much more interested in his struggling like hell to not be a schmuck."If anyone wants to know if Ron Eldard was being flippant or if he meant what he said literally, I suppose the only recourse would be to write to him. I find his comments -- his interpretation, if you will -- to be straightforward and intelligent. Doesn't matter what Eldard said, Kyt? We can't give credence to the opinion of the man for whom the role was created? Sorry, but that just doesn't make sense to me. Granted, a lot of actors are dumb as mud, but Eldard seems -- at least in this interview -- to be smart and on point.  |
|
|
|
Post by housemouse on Sept 17, 2005 10:41:45 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 In the words of my incredibly hip little sister - "hold up!" I don't know how one could believe that it doesn't matter how the actor sees the character. So it didn't matter how Marlon Brando interpreted Vito Corleone, or how Robert deNiro interpreted Travis Bickle? Heck did the way Ted Danson interpreted Sam Malone matter? You bet it mattered! What makes these characters iconic is the way the character is played at least as much as the way it is written. I give you as an example the movie Scent of a Woman. In my humble opinion, not a great movie, but most assuredly an astounding performance by one Mr. Al Pacino. That movie was all about the way Pacino interpreted the role. |
|
|
|
Post by housemouse on Sept 17, 2005 10:51:53 GMT -5
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? He has had to slow down, he can't barrel through the world the way he once did. He has been forced to be more sensitive to his own and other's emotions. 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. We know for certain he was cocky, he was a womanizer, he was a boxer. He is no longer any of those things. Well maybe he is still cocky, but at this point it is probably to cover for his insecurities. 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. If your argument is that he went to Jim even though he knew he had been blinded, then it does make a difference. The fact that he didn't know he was blinded makes your argument moot. 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 mis perceptions and negative stereotypes; more than the average citizen. People change in the face of change. It is either evolve to be plowed over. He does what he has to do to move forward. My guess is the only people who truly see cops as "the enemy" are criminals. Most of us appreciate police officers and what they do. I would further speculate that those compelled to enter law enforcement rather enjoy having criminals view them as the enemy. This would not be a training ground for dealing with negative stereotypes. 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? Again, I defer to Eldard's interpretation of the character. |
|
|
|
Post by kytdunne on Sept 17, 2005 11:43:12 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. Toss reviewers out of this discussion, they have agendas and that automatically puts their reviews under suspicion. An author's intent is absolutely, 100% that author's intent, and that's the only thing she can honestly represent. She cannot *tell* a reader that he has interpreted her writing in the manner in which she intended him to. She can only ask. It behooves the author to determine which feedback is valid and which must be disregarded for future endeavors. Unless, of course, the author has no desire for feedback or an audience who wishes to read more of his or her works. If a reader is involved, then writing is not a one-way street. Kyt |
|
|
|
Post by kytdunne on Sept 17, 2005 11:53:45 GMT -5
Everyone Who Said Essentially: Doesn't matter what Eldard said, Kyt? We can't give credence to the opinion of the man for whom the role was created? Sorry, but that just doesn't make sense to me. Granted, a lot of actors are dumb as mud, but Eldard seems -- at least in this interview -- to be smart and on point. The question was how Dunbar is viewed by posters on this board, the audience. The answer was that Eldard said so. So... In regards to how the viewer interprets a character, no, it absolutely does not matter what the actor said about the character. If it mattered, then you would need to know what every actor said about every character you've ever watched. And we know that's not going to happen. If you choose to let the actor speak for you, based upon his opinion of the character he has played, then that's completely your option. However, that then means that by deferring to The Actor Said, then he apparently is the only one who can answer a question about how he arrived at that determination. And, interestingly enough, his opinion is not based on receiving the same data I have received. I'm the audience, he's the actor. He may have done a scene ten different ways before one was chosen. Is it interesting to know what an actor's opinion about his character is? Maybe, maybe not. Kyt |
|
|
|
Post by housemouse on Sept 17, 2005 12:03:03 GMT -5
Everyone Who Said Essentially: Doesn't matter what Eldard said, Kyt? We can't give credence to the opinion of the man for whom the role was created? Sorry, but that just doesn't make sense to me. Granted, a lot of actors are dumb as mud, but Eldard seems -- at least in this interview -- to be smart and on point. The question was how Dunbar is viewed by posters on this board, the audience. The answer was that Eldard said so. So... In regards to how the viewer interprets a character, no, it absolutely does not matter what the actor said about the character. If it mattered, then you would need to know what every actor said about every character you've ever watched. And we know that's not going to happen. If you choose to let the actor speak for you, based upon his opinion of the character he has played, then that's completely your option. However, that then means that by deferring to The Actor Said, then he apparently is the only one who can answer a question about how he arrived at that determination. And, interestingly enough, his opinion is not based on receiving the same data I have received. I'm the audience, he's the actor. He may have done a scene ten different ways before one was chosen. Is it interesting to know what an actor's opinion about his character is? Maybe, maybe not. Kyt Of course what the actor said about the character matters to the way the audience views the character. It matters in the sense that what he said about the character represents his feelings about the character. The way he plays the character is infused 100% with those feelings. One does not need to know what every actor has to say about every character that actor has played, it is evident watching the performance. In the hands of a lesser actor, Dunbar would most likely have a lot less depth. Let's say he were played by Tony Shalhoub, there would most likely be more humor. If he were played by Michael Weatherly he would come across as more of a cad. If Chris Noth were to play him he may be be more serious. If played by William Shatner (she typed in a bow to the trekkis out there), he would be more monotone. No question, it is all about the performer. |
|
|
|
Post by kytdunne on Sept 17, 2005 12:09:30 GMT -5
If your argument is that he went to Jim even though he knew he had been blinded, then it does make a difference. The fact that he didn't know he was blinded makes your argument moot. The point made was that Hermanson didn't view Dunbar as a different person post-blindness. So: Hermanson knew Dunbar as an individual with sight. He went to Dunbar for help. If Hermanson thought Dunbar was still sighted, he found out otherwise, and Dunbar helped him. If Hermanson knew Dunbar had been recently blinded, he still went to Dunbar for help and Dunbar helped him. If you believe that supports Hermanson viewing Dunbar as a different person post-blindness, then you do. I don't. My guess is the only people who truly see cops as "the enemy" are criminals. Most of us appreciate police officers and what they do. I would further speculate that those compelled to enter law enforcement rather enjoy having criminals view them as the enemy. This would not be a training ground for dealing with negative stereotypes. Not to be offensive here, but your guess is wrong. Of course, you are not required to believe me. Consider that police officers start out in patrol. They start out giving traffic tickets. They encounter a ton of people who are not criminals, but who have violated traffic rules. People getting tickets, aren't happy. And that's just the start. Part of a cop's training is to maintain his professionalism and calm under negative, emotional, stereotyped feedback. And a high percentage of the individuals cops deal with, are not criminals. Kyt |
|
|
|
Post by maggiethecat on Sept 17, 2005 12:14:46 GMT -5
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. Toss reviewers out of this discussion, they have agendas and that automatically puts their reviews under suspicion. An author's intent is absolutely, 100% that author's intent, and that's the only thing she can honestly represent. She cannot *tell* a reader that he has interpreted her writing in the manner in which she intended him to. She can only ask. It behooves the author to determine which feedback is valid and which must be disregarded for future endeavors. Unless, of course, the author has no desire for feedback or an audience who wishes to read more of his or her works. If a reader is involved, then writing is not a one-way street. Kyt I never said it was a one way street. If you want a good explanation of the process, I refer you to Stephen King's book On Writing.The only other thing I will say (and then I;m done! here!) is that, obviously, those who have been through publication have a different slant on it that those who have not. But it really is a recipe for bad work to let your readers dictate your direction, and again I refer you to King's book. You listen to what readers say, of course, but it's a question of proportion. |
|
|
|
Post by housemouse on Sept 17, 2005 12:15:55 GMT -5
My guess is the only people who truly see cops as "the enemy" are criminals. Most of us appreciate police officers and what they do. I would further speculate that those compelled to enter law enforcement rather enjoy having criminals view them as the enemy. This would not be a training ground for dealing with negative stereotypes. Not to be offensive here, but your guess is wrong. Of course, you are not required to believe me. Consider that police officers start out in patrol. They start out giving traffic tickets. They encounter a ton of people who are not criminals, but who have violated traffic rules. People getting tickets, aren't happy. And that's just the start. Part of a cop's training is to maintain his professionalism and calm under negative, emotional, stereotyped feedback. And a high percentage of the individuals cops deal with, are not criminals. Kyt The times I have received traffic tickets (yes, I have received traffic tickets), I was certainly not happy with the officers who wrote them. That however, in no way caused me to see police as the enemy. As bummed out as I was that I had to pay those tickets and go to traffic school, I still respect police officers, even the ones who issued the tickets. I must say that it is a sad state of affairs if the average citizen views police officers as the enemy. BTW, no offense taken. |
|
|
|
Post by kytdunne on Sept 17, 2005 12:47:22 GMT -5
Of course what the actor said about the character matters to the way the audience views the character. Again, I defer to Eldard's interpretation of the character. So in your case, I would need to ask Eldard how he made his determination, since your answer defers to Eldard's interpretation. Okay. Kyt |
|
|
|
Post by kytdunne on Sept 17, 2005 12:56:52 GMT -5
Toss reviewers out of this discussion, they have agendas and that automatically puts their reviews under suspicion. An author's intent is absolutely, 100% that author's intent, and that's the only thing she can honestly represent. She cannot *tell* a reader that he has interpreted her writing in the manner in which she intended him to. She can only ask. It behooves the author to determine which feedback is valid and which must be disregarded for future endeavors. Unless, of course, the author has no desire for feedback or an audience who wishes to read more of his or her works. If a reader is involved, then writing is not a one-way street. Kyt I never said it was a one way street. If you want a good explanation of the process, I refer you to Stephen King's book On Writing.The only other thing I will say (and then I;m done! here!) is that, obviously, those who have been through publication have a different slant on it that those who have not. But it really is a recipe for bad work to let your readers dictate your direction, and again I refer you to King's book. You listen to what readers say, of course, but it's a question of proportion. I have not suggested you let readers dictate your direction. And to be clear I had not, I put the onus of the determination of the validity of feedback, back on the author. My stance is that the author's intended message may not be same as that received by the reader. Therefore, if I'm asking the reader's opinion, I do not need the author's. Which is basically where this started: I asked viewers' opinions of a character and was referenced to the actor's opinion. Kyt |
|
|
|
Post by kytdunne on Sept 17, 2005 13:16:50 GMT -5
I must say that it is a sad state of affairs if the average citizen views police officers as the enemy. Just to be clear, I did not say that the average citizen views police officers as the enemy. I will, with 100% certainty, say that it is not only criminals who view cops as the enemy. Kyt |
|
|
|
Post by shmeep on Sept 17, 2005 13:51:40 GMT -5
Here's all I know:
--Jim tells Christie he was a different person "back then." When he had sight? That's what I took it to mean.
--Galloway tells Jim he was a different cop, a different husband, and a different man before and that his blindness has given him a shot at a second chance at all three.
--Sonny proclaims that "the Old Dunbar" would have done something different in a similar situation...and he would know.
All three characters, and this is including Jim himself, have made a distinction between Jim as a sighted person and Jim as a blind person.
As for Hermanson, I believe he knew Jim had been blinded, but I don't think that matters either way. He sure treats Jim differently at first, until Jim puts him at ease.
Everyone agrees that Jim has changed. He was sighted and now he is blind so that's a given. All other discussion is just about the extent to which Jim has changed and, since that aspect of it is entirely open to interpretation--apart from what has been specifically spelled out in the show, that is--I don't see this as having only one right answer. I'm looking at what everone is saying and I think interesting points are being made by everyone. I agree with some and disagree with others, but it is fun to get to see how everyone views this topic.
As for how much credence we are to give to the viewer for his/her interpretation compared with what the show was trying to portray...that's a really interesting topic as well. I agree that the point the show was trying to make (going by interviews with Ron Eldard and others as well as the way things were written) is that blindness has changed Jim, bringing out his humanity in an entirely new way. The goal seemed to be to show his struggle to accept the new person he has become. I always felt that Galloway was the character who was there to spell things out for us, telling us what was going on with Jim psychologically, so I listened to what he said very carefully. What I got was that this kind of a change in a person's life is too complex to label.
I'm a big believer in the notion that no two people who read the same book have the exact same story going on in their minds, no matter how skilled the writer is. Every story is filtered through our minds and experiences and imaginations so we all imagine things our own way. That said, when a writer is specific and clear, the interpretation by the reader can be wrong and a careful re-read can set the reader straight.
|
|
|
|
Post by housemouse on Sept 17, 2005 14:37:12 GMT -5
I must say that it is a sad state of affairs if the average citizen views police officers as the enemy. Just to be clear, I did not say that the average citizen views police officers as the enemy. I will, with 100% certainty, say that it is not only criminals who view cops as the enemy. Kyt Which non-criminals are you thinking of that might consider police officers enemies? Maybe during the time he is writing out the ticket, but beyond that... |
|
|
|
Post by housemouse on Sept 17, 2005 14:44:40 GMT -5
Of course what the actor said about the character matters to the way the audience views the character. Again, I defer to Eldard's interpretation of the character. So in your case, I would need to ask Eldard how he made his determination, since your answer defers to Eldard's interpretation. Okay. Kyt You don't need to ask Eldard, I'll quote the interview with him printed in the April 24th edition of TV Guide: "I didn't want him to be a frigging saint, a soothsayer or a superhero as blind people are mostly portrayed. He doesn't have superpowers. This is about a guy who thinks he has everything [before he goes blind]. He has all the women he wants, a beautiful wife, he's at the top of the world. Losing his sight kind of evens things out." There it is, Eldard's interpretation of the character. If you ask me, that is very, very, very important to how we see the character. It is not important that we know from an interview how Eldard sees him, we will know by watching his performance. |
|
