|
|
Post by maggiethecat on Feb 3, 2006 16:35:36 GMT -5
Hey, Eyephur! I moved the Christie fashion question stuff over to the "Christie:Villain or Goddess?" thread in Oddities and Analysis (and lost some of it in the transfer -- sorry!) See you there.  |
|
|
|
Post by kytdunne on Feb 4, 2006 3:17:48 GMT -5
Okay, Kyt, here we go again . . . without the presence of Ted the avatar (what happened, and I'm also not seeing all of your illuminating screencaps of Terry at the bank?!) All are showing for me, so assume the glitch has resolved itself again. I host them on a freebie server, have no control over what happens to them after that. I didn't find him particularly sympathetic. Antagonistic would've been closer to my mark. But understanding the stress he was under, I was intrigued enough to see if I would/could like the guy enough to care how he did. I believe we see -- deliberately -- very little of the "antagonistic" Dunbar in The Pilot, so I am once again intrigued by how we all interpret the same material differently. He's shown as smart, determined, stalwart, funny, etc., and, despite his admitted philandering, set up strongly and definitively as The Hero. Where was Dunbar -- apart from the gun on your hip confrontation with Russo -- antagonistic? Lynn Bodner's crime scene, where he suggests Karen hold back evidence so as not to have the case pulled "for punk ass reasons?" I didn't interpret his behavior with the generosity you did, so I found him more antagonistic than sympathetic. For instance: The guy's pushy: this is a crime scene, don't tell the boss, carrying a gun, etc. He's self-centered: today was all about Dunbar. Christie and Terry and the new coworkers just had to deal with him. He's got dual standards: he'd have made sure he wasn't saddled with a blind partner, but now that he's the blind guy.... If he's brazen enough to walk into the line of fire, and apparently hold it against his partner that his partner did not, just how safe is this guy, and how much worse will he be as a blind guy-with-a-chip-on-his-shoulder? Again, to me this is more than pride: it is indicative of Dunbar's character. Ever heard the old slam re someone who's badly clad? "He looks like he dressed in the dark." Not to state the obvious (!), but Dunbar does dress in the dark . . . and, it seems to me, in no way wishes to look as though he does. His well groomed appearance is all about wanting to look professional and on top of his game. Do you think this is how he dressed pre-blindness? How about pre-Christie? Or maybe it's a bit overkill. Kind of like putting a 2M house in a 500k neighborhood. Not like him for his demeanor in Fisk's office, Kyt? Again I wonder, for I would argue that here, in this seminal scene Dunbar is at his most likable. He's restrained, when he could have been confrontational and hostile, Not really. Dunbar giving Fisk attitude would've been the death knell for his job. Dunbar had to play nice, and as a good cop, that shouldn't be too difficult. It's part of the job. And he's had a bunch of practice at fending off insults. He's listening here, and I will be the first to admit that he does not always listen. His job is on the line. If he didn't listen, he deserved to be kicked out. I get why he acted as he did, but it didn't put me on his cheering squad. Kyt |
|
|
|
Post by housemouse on Feb 4, 2006 18:06:33 GMT -5
I didn't interpret his behavior with the generosity you did, so I found him more antagonistic than sympathetic. For instance: I don't think it takes generosity to interpret his behavior as not being antagonistic. The guy's pushy: this is a crime scene, don't tell the boss, carrying a gun, etc. If he isn't pushy, how else is he supposed to prove himself? They are all assuming he can't do the job. Unless he hits the ground running he is going to prove them right. He's self-centered: today was all about Dunbar. Christie and Terry and the new coworkers just had to deal with him. It probably took every bit of inner-strength he had to keep focused. He had to concentrate on succeeding in the job at hand. On this day he couldn't afford to be anything but self-centered. He's got dual standards: he'd have made sure he wasn't saddled with a blind partner, but now that he's the blind guy.... Before he lost his sight, Jim would not have stood for being partnered up with a blind guy. If he miraculously regained his sight, I'm sure he would have no qualms about being partnered up with a blind guy. That is not a double standard, just a change of perspective. If he's brazen enough to walk into the line of fire, and apparently hold it against his partner that his partner did not, just how safe is this guy, and how much worse will he be as a blind guy-with-a-chip-on-his-shoulder? On this day, how could he help but hold it against his partner? He is fighting for his career, he is trying at every moment to succeed against tremendous odds. Terry decides this is a good day to apologize? I am sure that with time Jim would learn to forgive and forget, but Terry waltzing in there on Jim's first day back, that was just bad judgment. Do you think this is how he dressed pre-blindness? How about pre-Christie? Or maybe it's a bit overkill. Kind of like putting a 2M house in a 500k neighborhood. Christie, being the fashion maven that she is, would never let a sighted or blind Dunbar walk out of the house looking like anything less than a "2M house." I get why he acted as he did, but it didn't put me on his cheering squad. I was on his side from the get go. I saw nothing more or less than a guy working hard to overcome a devastating, life altering tragedy. |
|
|
|
Post by mlm828 on Feb 4, 2006 19:26:43 GMT -5
I didn't interpret his behavior with the generosity you did, so I found him more antagonistic than sympathetic. I don't think it takes generosity to interpret his behavior as not being antagonistic. If he isn't pushy, how else is he supposed to prove himself? They are all assuming he can't do the job. Unless he hits the ground running he is going to prove them right. I would describe his behavior in the Pilot as assertive rather than antagonistic. At least, I don't think his intent was to antagonize Fisk and the other detectives. Jim is smart enough to realize he has to have their cooperation if he is going to succeed on the job. For this reason, I don't think his intent was to antagonize anyone, except maybe when he challenged Marty. However, I tend to think that was just the testosterone kicking in. This debate raises an interesting issue. It's my perception that people with disabilities often have to assert themselves just to be allowed to do things that others do without question. I think one of the problems Jim faced when he went back to work is determining how assertive he needed to be, in order to be allowed to do his job without alienating the people whose support he needed. This is somewhat uncharted territory for Jim. He's hasn't been blind all that long. Although he no doubt has encountered the issue before, it's a lot more important in the context of his return to work and his efforts to prove he can still do the job. When you look at it objectively, he was being assertive on a number of occasions: insisting the SUV was a crime scene; getting Karen to withhold information from Fisk so they wouldn't get pulled off the case; and eventually highjacking the "Tongue Collector" case. Was he too assertive? It's a difficult line to draw. On this day, how could he help but hold it against his partner? He is fighting for his career, he is trying at every moment to succeed against tremendous odds. Terry decides this is a good day to apologize? I am sure that with time Jim would learn to forgive and forget, but Terry waltzing in there on Jim's first day back, that was just bad judgment. It occurred to me, when reading this, that Terry going to see Jim on his first day back is all about Terry, not Jim. Terry goes to see him because Terry wants Jim to hear him say he's sorry. He's doing it for himself, not for Jim. He doesn't even wish Jim good luck on his first day back. Some friend. |
|
|
|
Post by housemouse on Feb 4, 2006 19:36:23 GMT -5
This debate raises an interesting issue. It's my perception that people with disabilities often have to assert themselves just to be allowed to do things that others do without question. I think one of the problems Jim faced when he went back to work is determining how assertive he needed to be, in order to be allowed to do his job without alienating the people whose support he needed. This is somewhat uncharted territory for Jim. He's hasn't been blind all that long. Although he no doubt has encountered the issue before, it's a lot more important in the context of his return to work and his efforts to prove he can still do the job. I agree with you. In the past, Jim was obviously not one to mince words or keep his opinions to himself. Here he is walking a fine line. He must assert himself to prove he is good at what he does, but he also has to be careful not to alienate anyone too badly. I think in certain circumstances Jim's true nature came out, the kit gloves came off, and Dunbar was fighting for the right to pursue a case he knew he could solve. |
|
|
|
Post by bjobsessed on Feb 4, 2006 20:36:18 GMT -5
This debate raises an interesting issue. It's my perception that people with disabilities often have to assert themselves just to be allowed to do things that others do without question. You have no idea. Please do not think that when I say this that I'm saying everyone is like that. Some people don't get hung up on the disability at all and others can't get past it. Personally, many people have been afraid to touch me because I might keel over and break into a million pieces, or they believe that I'm incapable of going up a few stairs without hurting myself. Do you think people like that are going to give you a chance at a job? Probably not. Then there are those who hire you with reservations about whether you can do the job. Once you get your foot in the door, you have to prove that you can do it, you belong there, and that your not going to hold them back or create more work for them. When I was doing my student teaching last year, my teacher had a hard time finding placements for me. The other girls in my class had theirs long ago and I kept getting rejected. A lot of the time the answer was just no with no reason given. After the third or fourth one, you can't help but wonder why. You can bet that when I finally found a placement that I worked my butt off and did the best job I could--not only for myself but for the next person that comes along. When Jim said to Fisk, "All I want is a chance. If it turns out that I can't, then I'll leave," I applauded him. Isn't that what everybody wants and deserves--disabled or not? He may have been a little too assertive in some cases, but he felt he needed to be. He was right. He had to prove that he could do his job, blind or not. |
|
|
|
Post by kytdunne on Feb 4, 2006 23:36:14 GMT -5
I don't think it takes generosity to interpret his behavior as not being antagonistic. ... If he isn't pushy, how else is he supposed to prove himself? ... On this day he couldn't afford to be anything but self-centered. ... That is not a double standard, just a change of perspective. ... On this day, how could he help but hold it against his partner? ... Christie, ...would never let a sighted or blind Dunbar walk out of the house looking like anything less than a "2M house." I get why he acted as he did, but it didn't put me on his cheering squad. I was on his side from the get go. I saw nothing more or less than a guy working hard to overcome a devastating, life altering tragedy. So, you see his flaws and are automatically on his side because of his circumstances. Different takes. Kyt |
|
|
|
Post by kytdunne on Feb 5, 2006 0:44:55 GMT -5
I would describe his behavior in the Pilot as assertive rather than antagonistic. At least, I don't think his intent was to antagonize Fisk and the other detectives. Agreed: I don't think Dunbar intentionally provoked hostility (antagonized). I don't think there's any argument that his simple presence was antagonistic (acting in opposition) to the squad's preferences. He countered each of them during the pilot, so antagonistic worked for me, but it's a poor word-choice. A more careful word-choice would be that I thought Dunbar was abrasive. But more to the point of this thread, is that Dunbar didn't win over all viewers at the outset. This debate raises an interesting issue. It's my perception that people with disabilities often have to assert themselves just to be allowed to do things that others do without question. I think one of the problems Jim faced when he went back to work is determining how assertive he needed to be, in order to be allowed to do his job without alienating the people whose support he needed. Right. And what was unclear from the pilot, was how much of his behavior was the need to make a place for himself and fit in, and how much of it is his base personality. It occurred to me, when reading this, that Terry going to see Jim on his first day back is all about Terry, not Jim. Terry goes to see him because Terry wants Jim to hear him say he's sorry. He's doing it for himself, not for Jim. He doesn't even wish Jim good luck on his first day back. Some friend. Mags actually hit upon this one a bit ago. IMO, Dunbar made it pretty clear that they're not friends, he didn't want to hear anything from Terry, and he wussed out from dealing with Terry. Terry, however, was still agonizing over the incident, so Terry cornered him in a place where Dunbar was the most likely to hear him out. Kyt |
|
|
|
Post by housemouse on Feb 5, 2006 10:51:31 GMT -5
I don't think it takes generosity to interpret his behavior as not being antagonistic. ... If he isn't pushy, how else is he supposed to prove himself? ... On this day he couldn't afford to be anything but self-centered. ... That is not a double standard, just a change of perspective. ... On this day, how could he help but hold it against his partner? ... Christie, ...would never let a sighted or blind Dunbar walk out of the house looking like anything less than a "2M house." I was on his side from the get go. I saw nothing more or less than a guy working hard to overcome a devastating, life altering tragedy. So, you see his flaws and are automatically on his side because of his circumstances. Different takes. Kyt I don't see them as flaws, I see them as requirements to get him through the challenge that getting back on the job presents. |
|
|
|
Post by maggiethecat on Feb 5, 2006 12:07:14 GMT -5
A more careful word-choice would be that I thought Dunbar was abrasive. But more to the point of this thread, is that Dunbar didn't win over all viewers at the outset. And what was unclear from the pilot, was how much of his behavior was the need to make a place for himself and fit in, and how much of it is his base personality. Kyt Or D, all of the above. I think it's a balance between the rough or abrasive aspects of Dunbar's personality -- a kind of uncompromising tenacity that I would argue contributes to his effectiveness on The Job -- and the sweet. I believe that's the twofold purpose of the last scene, with Karen on the street, which not only gives hope that they will forge a gratifying partnership, but also gives us a glimpse of the sensitive side of Dunbar's nature. Coming almost directly on the heels of the fierce Lyman interrogation, it works as an illuminating contrast between the strong and the gentle. And it hits me as deliberate. The Pilot was constructed to sell this show first to the network and subsequently to the public, and it's a damned classy piece of work: $2 million budget, top of the line direction, cinematography and editing, terrific cast, and, at base, extremely specific writing to set up the main character as a flawed hero with enough sympathy points (and I don't just mean the blindness) to keep us watching. Cranky and abrasive and prickly is always interesting (see House), as long as you don't overdo it. You balance this with scenes where the character is treated poorly, beset, frustrated, misunderstood, softened by blows. It also helps if you cast a compelling and engaging actor like Ron Eldard. The creative team stacked the deck in the Dunbar's favor from the opening shot on. The writing in The Pilot is meticulous and very smart, and shows us a man who is complex and multi-faceted, the antithesis of your average cardboard TV cop. Different takes, sure, and I'm absolutely in the camp that was won over by the end of the hour (if not the first ten minutes). Part of that I attributed to the way in which the writers kept heaping trouble and strife and misery on the guy's head all . . . day . . . long. Actually, if you add up everything Dunbar goes through his first day back -- I think we can all run a mental list in a heartbeat so no need to write one -- the only thing missing is that old kitchen sink.  I like Housemouse's statement that Dunbar's perceived flaws can also be read as "requirements to get him through the challenge that getting back on the job presents." The first scene with Fisk is a good example: Dunbar needs all his tenacity and perseverance to make his case with Fisk, who, Chief of Ds notwithstanding, certainly had the authority to keep him chained to a desk as a civilian aide. Everything is going to be a fight, nothing is going to come easily. Dunbar is going to have to push to get anywhere, at least initially. Any flashes of the rough side of his personality gave me the sense that if anyone could "make it work," it would be this guy. And again, it made me like him. I believe we were supposed to be "on his side because of his circumstances." He's the Hero, the focus, in dramatic construction terms "the prime mover of the action." (Which is why, referring back to an earlier comment, the first day is "all about Dunbar." Of course. It's his show.) To not be on Dunbar's side after that first day back, to not root for him to make the journey, to not hope he would earn his place in the world and on The Job . . . would have made the show an exercise in pointlessness. Which it certainly wasn't.  Mags |
|
|
|
Post by mlm828 on Feb 5, 2006 12:59:17 GMT -5
I would describe his behavior in the Pilot as assertive rather than antagonistic. At least, I don't think his intent was to antagonize Fisk and the other detectives. Agreed: I don't think Dunbar intentionally provoked hostility (antagonized). I don't think there's any argument that his simple presence was antagonistic (acting in opposition) to the squad's preferences. He countered each of them during the pilot, so antagonistic worked for me, but it's a poor word-choice. A more careful word-choice would be that I thought Dunbar was abrasive. But more to the point of this thread, is that Dunbar didn't win over all viewers at the outset. I agree that Jim could be, and was, abrasive, contentious, and defensive at times. But I saw more of these traits in later episodes than in the Pilot. He definitely didn't back down an inch in the Pilot, but I really didn't expect him to do otherwise, under the circumstances. Perhaps this is why I reacted more positively than negatively to the way he handed the situation in the Pilot. I suppose his refusal to back down could itself be considered abrasive, but I didn't see it that way. I do agree with maggie that the character was written and acted in a way that caused us to be engaged with the character, in spite of (or maybe because of) his flaws, and, ultimately, to be won over. It occurred to me, when reading this, that Terry going to see Jim on his first day back is all about Terry, not Jim. Terry goes to see him because Terry wants Jim to hear him say he's sorry. He's doing it for himself, not for Jim. He doesn't even wish Jim good luck on his first day back. Some friend. Mags actually hit upon this one a bit ago. It finally happened -- we've dissected this episode to the point that we've started repeating ourselves!  |
|
|
|
Post by kytdunne on Feb 5, 2006 13:40:19 GMT -5
So, you see his flaws and are automatically on his side because of his circumstances. I don't see them as flaws, I see them as requirements to get him through the challenge that getting back on the job presents. Interesting. Did you ever find flaws in his behavior? Kyt |
|
|
|
Post by housemouse on Feb 5, 2006 13:49:45 GMT -5
I don't see them as flaws, I see them as requirements to get him through the challenge that getting back on the job presents. Interesting. Did you ever find flaws in his behavior? Kyt Certainly I found flaws in his behavior. No one behaves flawlessly all the time. A couple of examples of what I consider less than exemplary behavior: 1. His smart alec attitude with Galloway at times. 2. Challenging Marty to take the gun - but as mlm pointed out, that was probably mostly testosterone. 3. Closing Christie out. 4. Not knowing when to drop something. I just watched Seoul Man, and that problem is all through that episode. I am pointing out, however that on that first day, several behaviors that would probably have been unacceptable in the past are now a necessity. The rules of the game have changed, Jim didn't change them, he is just adapting to them. I was willing to cut him some slack for what others might have deemed a bad attitude. I was on his side from the beginning. |
|
|
|
Post by kytdunne on Feb 5, 2006 13:51:05 GMT -5
The Pilot was constructed to sell this show first to the network and subsequently to the public, and...to set up the main character as a flawed hero with enough sympathy points (and I don't just mean the blindness) to keep us watching. is the key. And the pilot did that for me. It left enough unresolved questions with enough promise of answers to come and more to be revealed, that I kept watching. Different takes, sure, and I'm absolutely in the camp that was won over by the end of the hour (if not the first ten minutes). How about shifting over to Four Feet Under and seeing how charming Dunbar is there to nab viewers who are still undecided, and how they kept viewers who were already in his camp? Kyt |
|
|
|
Post by kytdunne on Feb 5, 2006 13:53:45 GMT -5
...the character was written and acted in a way that caused us to be engaged with the character, in spite of (or maybe because of) his flaws, and, ultimately, to be won over. Right. Ultimately. So, still everything-you-expected and more in Four Feet Under? Kyt |
|
