Up on the Roof

[hoosier]

I watched this episode this morning--didn't even need an excuse I noticed when Jim met Terry at his house that Terry said he "was getting a little credit for stepping up and you can't accept it" . I always thought that Jim had been the "top dog" in that partnership. Was he accusing Jim of being a 'glory hound'(to use Marty's term) and resenting it and now here was his time to get a little of it and Jim was jealous and trying to sabatogue it? Or maybe he was tired of all the press Jim had gotten as a result of his heroics at the bank which just continued to rub it in that he had failed in his responsibility to cover Jim's back? Thanks Kyt--I think "responsibility" is better terminology for what what happened with Jim and Terry than "wrong". Ironic that on Jim's first day back at the work that that was one thing Fisk brought up to Jim--the responsibilty of having other cop's backs!!

Then later in the park when Jim confronted Terry with the evidence of the handkerchief,Terry said:"I can tell you what can make a man do that" ie the staged shooting. Maybe in his mind Terry did it to atone for not getting wounded at the bank like Jim and the other cops had been. He shot himself to show that he wasn't afraid to step up and do what needed to be done to get the perp. To prove to everyone that he had what it took to be a good cop. His guilt at letting a perp escape may have made him think up this wild scheme to cover that he had again blown it and let everyone down.

[kytdunne]

hoosier said:

...Terry said he "was getting a little credit for stepping up and you can't accept it"

I thought Terry was trying to derail Dunbar from pursuing the truth. If Terry could convince Dunbar that he was over-reacting because he still held a grudge against Terry, then Dunbar might back off. And Terry wouldn't be found out.

hoosier said:

Then later in the park when Jim confronted Terry with the evidence of the handkerchief,Terry said:"I can tell you what can make a man do that" ie the staged shooting....To prove to everyone that he had what it took to be a good cop. His guilt at letting a perp escape may have made him think up this wild scheme to cover that he had again blown it and let everyone down.

Yeah, I think Terry wanted to regain status as a good cop. I don't think he saw the situation as another let-down on his part, but he definitely wanted to regain status in Dunbar's opinion. 'Proof' that he wouldn't back down again.

That's a ton of desperation. Pretty sad.

Kyt

[housemouse]

I was watching Up on the Roof (again) this morning and I have a couple of more points.

I thought it was interesting that Jim kept his glasses on while talking to Terry in the hospital about what happened on the roof. I wondered if he might want to take them off just to remind Terry of what his cowardice caused, and maybe "guilt" him in to stepping up. Or, maybe the guilt thing is the little Catholic girl coming out in me again.

This might belong on the Hermanson/Terry thread (I might copy it there too), but I noticed something when Jim confronted Terry about the handkerchief. I think that Jim really wanted Terry just to step up and take responsibility for what happened at the bank. He was standing there just waiting for Terry to come out and say he screwed up. The fact that Terry kept saying it wasn't him there that day sealed his fate with Jim. Jim gave him every chance, and wanted him to admit his mistake. This is what really showed what kind of man Terry is.

[maggiethecat]

housemouse said:

I was watching Up on the Roof (again) this morning and I have a couple of more points.

This might belong on the Hermanson/Terry thread (I might copy it there too), but I noticed something when Jim confronted Terry about the handkerchief. I think that Jim really wanted Terry just to step up and take responsibility for what happened at the bank. He was standing there just waiting for Terry to come out and say he screwed up. The fact that Terry kept saying it wasn't him there that day sealed his fate with Jim. Jim gave him every chance, and wanted him to admit his mistake. This is what really showed what kind of man Terry is.

Hey, Mouse!

And I keep thinking that most of the stuff in the Jim/Terry/Greg thread belongs here!

I'll no doubt want to say more later (!) but I have always felt that -- even though of course it's behind everything that happens in the episode -- Jim's first priority when he confronts Terry with the handkerchief at the river is freeing Titus Oliver. Jim's waiting for Terry to admit to his most recent and most pressing action, staging the shooting so he, too, can finally look like a hero.

It's easy to think of this scene as *just* being about Terry and what happened at the bank . . . but all of that has resulted in Terry's framing an innocent man for shooting a cop, which carries a life sentence in New York State (it used to be an automatic death penalty offense). So while the scene by the river inevitably segues into what happened at the bank, Dunbar is there to close a case and has no more interest in dredging up the past than he usually does. For Jim, it's all about the wrong done to Titus -- Terry's latest screw-up, the one that needs to be attended to as soon as possible.

I don't feel Jim went there hoping to get any kind of confession out of Terry about the shootout at the bank. Terry never has been honest before, and after what happened on the roof, he'd be even less likely to "fess up." When they talk at Terry's house, Terry's response to Jim's trying to pin him down about the staged shooting is: "So that's it, you still have a grudge on me from the bank." And Jim makes that disgusted "give me a break" face -- in other words, Terry's off point. This is about Titus -- and the fact that he's young and poor and black and Terry seems to think he's disposable, like a piece of used Kleenex, is galling to Jim.

So while all the other stuff is simmering away under the surface, I think Jim -- as the smart and seasoned detective he is -- is really trying to stay focused on the staged shooting and its ramifications, throughout that scene by the river.

Gosh, Mouse, could we yammer on and on and on about "Up on the Roof" FOREVER?

Absolutely.

[housemouse]

maggiethecat said:

I'll no doubt want to say more later (!) but I have always felt that -- even though of course it's behind everything that happens in the episode -- Jim's first priority when he confronts Terry with the handkerchief at the river is freeing Titus Oliver. Jim's waiting for Terry to admit to his most recent and most pressing action, staging the shooting so he, too, can finally look like a hero.

Yes, I agree, freeing Oliver is his first priority. However, I believe that getting Terry to admit his mistake is in there somewhere. Although it is mostly about the case, the look on Jim's face tells me there is something under the surface. It started out being all about Titus, but there is no way that Jim could separate the two with all the water under the bridge at this point.

maggiethecat said:

It's easy to think of this scene as *just* being about Terry and what happened at the bank . . . but all of that has resulted in Terry's framing an innocent man for shooting a cop, which carries a life sentence in New York State (it used to be an automatic death penalty offense). So while the scene by the river inevitably segues into what happened at the bank, Dunbar is there to close a case and has no more interest in dredging up the past than he usually does. For Jim, it's all about the wrong done to Titus -- Terry's latest screw-up, the one that needs to be attended to as soon as possible.

I don't know that it is all about that. Again, this whole thing brought the incident at the bank right up to the surface. Jim doesn't have to drudge it up, it is there inevitably because of Terry's latest screw up.

maggiethecat said:

I don't feel Jim went there hoping to get any kind of confession out of Terry about the shootout at the bank. Terry never has been honest before, and after what happened on the roof, he'd be even less likely to "fess up." When they talk at Terry's house, Terry's response to Jim's trying to pin him down about the staged shooting is: "So that's it, you still have a grudge on me from the bank." And Jim makes that disgusted "give me a break" face -- in other words, Terry's off point. This is about Titus -- and the fact that he's young and poor and black and Terry seems to think he's disposable, like a piece of used Kleenex, is galling to Jim.

So while all the other stuff is simmering away under the surface, I think Jim -- as the smart and seasoned detective he is -- is really trying to stay focused on the staged shooting and its ramifications, throughout that scene by the river.

Yes, Terry is waay off point, and Jim is trying to keep this about Titus, but I just don't think this is possible. The bank happened, it happened and now it is front and center in their relationship. Your point about Jim being offended by the way Terry sees Titus is a great one. It speaks volumes for the type of cop and man Terry actually is. I'm sure if someone were to point that out to Terry he would be surprised himself and deny it til the end. Terry is a man who doesn't know his own mind.

maggiethecat said:

Gosh, Mouse, could we yammer on and on and on about "Up on the Roof" FOREVER?

You bet! I could just keep talking and talking and talking about this episode. It is just so good and so multi-layered.

[kytdunne]

maggiethecat said:

This is about Titus -- and the fact that he's young and poor and black and Terry seems to think he's disposable, like a piece of used Kleenex, is galling to Jim.

Now wait a minute. Terry's screwed up enough without adding to his list of crimes. The person he thought he was framing was not only a man who'd previously been convicted, but one he believed they'd be putting away for two more murders.

If Titus had been guilty, there's a chance that Dunbar really would have kept his mouth shut.

Kyt

[mlm828]

kytdunne said:

Terry's screwed up enough without adding to his list of crimes. The person he thought he was framing was not only a man who'd previously been convicted, but one he believed they'd be putting away for two more murders.

If Titus had been guilty, there's a chance that Dunbar really would have kept his mouth shut.

Kyt

Yes, but. . . . Even after Jim told Terry (at Terry's house) that Titus did not commit the two murders, Terry still tried to get Jim to back off by accusing Jim of carrying a grudge over what happened at the bank and not wanting Terry to get a little credit.

It's only after Jim confronts Terry with the evidence of the handkerchief that Terry impliedly admits what he did. And even then, he doesn't really accept responsibility. His immediate reaction is "Don't do this to me, Jimmy." Later, he impliedly admits blowing it at the bank and shooting himself when he says, "That wasn't me" and "I can tell you what would make someone shoot himself" (or something to that effect). But he's still trying to explain or make excuses for his actions rather than accepting responsibility for them. And Jim definitely isn't buying it.

As for Jim not saying anything if Titus had committed the two murders, possibly. But after his session with Galloway, not likely. He knows that letting an innocent man be convicted of a crime he didn't commit (even if guilty of other crimes) is not "who he is" (to use Galloway's phrase).

[housemouse]

mlm828 said:

kytdunne said:

Terry's screwed up enough without adding to his list of crimes. The person he thought he was framing was not only a man who'd previously been convicted, but one he believed they'd be putting away for two more murders.

If Titus had been guilty, there's a chance that Dunbar really would have kept his mouth shut.

Kyt

Yes, but. . . . Even after Jim told Terry (at Terry's house) that Titus did not commit the two murders, Terry still tried to get Jim to back off by accusing Jim of carrying a grudge over what happened at the bank and not wanting Terry to get a little credit.

Kyt makes a good point. Looking at her post then mlm's post, I started to see Terry as kind of a cornered animal. He was stuck and he would do anything to protect himself. Although it might not be in Terry's make-up to put a "bad one on an innocent man" (Jim's words), at that moment he was so freaked out and scared of what might happen he would have said or done anything to get Jim to let him off the hook.

[maggiethecat]

housemouse said:

mlm828 said:

Yes, but. . . . Even after Jim told Terry (at Terry's house) that Titus did not commit the two murders, Terry still tried to get Jim to back off by accusing Jim of carrying a grudge over what happened at the bank and not wanting Terry to get a little credit.

Kyt makes a good point. Looking at her post then mlm's post, I started to see Terry as kind of a cornered animal. He was stuck and he would do anything to protect himself. Although it might not be in Terry's make-up to put a "bad one on an innocent man" (Jim's words), at that moment he was so freaked out and scared of what might happen he would have said or done anything to get Jim to let him off the hook.

Wow. Just when you thought everything had been said . . . !

Great points, Kyt, mlm88, and Housemouse. Perhaps I was damning Terry with too much perfidy -- clearly, he did think Titus Oliver was disposable, but disposable with a record and two murders on his sheet. But it is amazingly telling that, even after Jim tells him that Titus has been cleared of the two murders that his brother DeShaun actually committed, Terry *still* won't back down.




As for Terry being freaked out and scared? Not sure. Certainly he's cornered at the river, but let's think for a minute about how quickly he had to act in that stairwell to grab the gun Titus dropped, fold his handkerchief in four, and then fire the .022 into his shoulder. Terry's clever. His actions in setting up Titus are swift and deliberate. And, I feel, it's the deliberate nature of that act -- the calculated aspect of it -- that Jim can't get around. Nor would we expect him to, considering the kind of man he is and the kind of moral code that is intrinsic to his character. Terry's actions (or lack of them) at the bank were a terrible, life-altering moment of weakness: What he does to Titus Oliver is dishonest, and just plain wrong.

Would Jim have let Terry skate free, perhaps "keeping his mouth shut" as Kyt suggested, if Titus had been guilty of the attendant crimes? I can't believe he would have, especially after that trenchant scene where Galloway asks him, "Is this who you are?" And -- even if Titus had been the most despicable kind of gang scum, which he may once have been but has risen above -- we know the answer. Jim would have come forward with his knowledge that Terry staged the shooting. A black man shooting a New York City cop carries a terrible weight, far more than shooting two gang members.

How many times is this man expected to cover up Terry's rash and desperate actions? He kept his mouth shut about the bank -- or so we presume, since Terry's still on the job -- and for Terry to ask him to cover for him again is just over the top. "I don't see how you can ask more of me than that," Jim says by the river, after he's presented Terry with the accidental discharge scenario. It's far more than Terry has a right to expect: he can keep some shreds of his reputation (for a while, at least) and he can leave the force with a reduced pension. This is about Jim being fairer than most would be under the circumstances. This, as Galloway said, is "who he is."

And Jim could not have let Terry off completely, not without compromising Karen, who was there at the roof, saw the powder burn-stained handlerchief, and knows the truth.




Would Terry have said anything, being cornered, to get Jim to let him off the hook? Probably. The first thing he does is play the emotional card by bringing up The Good Old Days. "How long were we partners?" What strikes me again is how hard Jim tries to keep Terry on point, how hard he tries to keep Terry on the Oliver shooting . . . and it's Terry who keeps bringing up the bank, again and again, still looking for forgiveness and expiation, still looking for Dunbar to tell him it somehow didn't matter . . . .

Well, maybe Terry is cornered. Certainly he pleads with Jim, pleads with him to let it go, let him stay on the job, even offers to get therapy -- and don't we all just love the expression on Jim's face when he comes out with that little statement!




But you're right , Mouse, the shootout at the bank is always there, like a dark current running under every scene in this episode. It haunts Jim's dreams, playing out in various ways. It's the elephant in the living room. But Jim keeps trying to get past it, keeps trying to get Terry to own up to the shooting on the roof because this time it's not just about the two of them and their past -- it's about another man's life. And that just takes it to another level.

Okay, it's official. We have now spent more time on this episode than the writers did ;D.

[housemouse]

maggiethecat said:

As for Terry being freaked out and scared? Not sure. Certainly he's cornered at the river, but let's think for a minute about how quickly he had to act in that stairwell to grab the gun Titus dropped, fold his handkerchief in four, and then fire the .022 into his shoulder. Terry's clever. His actions in setting up Titus are swift and deliberate. And, I feel, it's the deliberate nature of that act -- the calculated aspect of it -- that Jim can't get around. Nor would we expect him to, considering the kind of man he is and the kind of moral code that is intrinsic to his character.

I am not sure Terry thought it out to that extent. All he thought of was that if he was "shot" by the perp he would become a hero. I don't see it as much about setting Titus up as about Terry trying to do something for himself. I am sure that after all the hooha died down Terry started to realize what he had potentially done to Titus, but not during the act. Granted, once he thought it through he had to have realized the consequences for Titus and just didn't care. To Terry, Titus was just collateral damage. That is where the tissue analogy rings very true for me.

BTW, I love the way RE's voice cracks when he tells Terry he doesn't know how he could expect from him anything more than what he is willing to give. Great acting.

[maggiethecat]

housemouse said:

maggiethecat said:

As for Terry being freaked out and scared? Not sure. Certainly he's cornered at the river, but let's think for a minute about how quickly he had to act in that stairwell to grab the gun Titus dropped, fold his handkerchief in four, and then fire the .022 into his shoulder. Terry's clever. His actions in setting up Titus are swift and deliberate. And, I feel, it's the deliberate nature of that act -- the calculated aspect of it -- that Jim can't get around. Nor would we expect him to, considering the kind of man he is and the kind of moral code that is intrinsic to his character.

I am not sure Terry thought it out to that extent. All he thought of was that if he was "shot" by the perp he would become a hero. I don't see it as much about setting Titus up as about Terry trying to do something for himself. I am sure that after all the hooha died down Terry started to realize what he had potentially done to Titus, but not during the act. Granted, once he thought it through he had to have realized the consequences for Titus and just didn't care. To Terry, Titus was just collateral damage. That is where the tissue analogy rings very true for me.

BTW, I love the way RE's voice cracks when he tells Terry he doesn't know how he could expect from him anything more than what he is willing to give. Great acting.

Oh, yeah, the voice cracking. That scene by the river is so wonderfully well played, with so many unexpected moments. The restraint is amazing -- a lesser show, with less talented writers, less artistic directors, and less gifted actors, would have gone for the obvious scene-chewing drama. But it's really a very quite scene, which is one reason why it is just so compelling.

And you called Terry's attitude toward Titus with the phrase "collateral damage." Terry's not a COMPLETE villain, or even a completely bad man -- he's just has such a dramatically interesting collection of character flaws. I'm not sure that it's even that he doesn't *care* about Titus or what he did to him -- Terry's self-absorbed, concentrated on what he perceives as his own miseries, and more comfortable blaming others for his troubles. It still knocks me out that his reaction to the handkerchief is, "Jimmy, don't do this to me." That line, to me, says almost more about his character -- or lack of it -- than any other line. Oh, maybe except when he has the nerve to say to Jim that they've "both suffered," then has to add quickly, "You more than me, obviously." Well . . . yeah.

And a lesser show would have kept Terry around for a few more episodes and drawn out the conflict. They really did polish off an amazing amount of character development "issues" in the first half of the series, didn't they? Terry's gone by #4, Galloway's gone by #6 and Marty's started to come around. Maybe that's why I keep coming back to the first half of the series as my favorite episodes (with the exception of "Doggone"), since they were so dense, so packed with good stuff, so worth rewatching !

[kytdunne]

mlm828 said:

kytdunne said:

Terry's screwed up enough without adding to his list of crimes. The person he thought he was framing was not only a man who'd previously been convicted, but one he believed they'd be putting away for two more murders..

Yes, but. . . . Even after Jim told Terry (at Terry's house) that Titus did not commit the two murders, Terry still tried to get Jim to back off by accusing Jim of carrying a grudge over what happened at the bank and not wanting Terry to get a little credit.

My basic point was that describing Titus as the poor, young, innocent black man, was painting Terry into a darker corner than he's already made for himself. Terry thought he knew precisely what kind of man he was framing; he just happened to be wrong.

Finding out that he's framed the wrong man after the fact, does nothing to change things. So yeah, Terry's going to keep up the act as long as possible in an effort to save himself, because now his future is on the line.

mlm828 said:

As for Jim not saying anything if Titus had committed the two murders, possibly. But after his session with Galloway, not likely. He knows that letting an innocent man be convicted of a crime he didn't commit (even if guilty of other crimes) is not "who he is" (to use Galloway's phrase).

I think there's a possibility Dunbar wouldn't have said anything if Titus had been a 2-time murderer. Dunbar ended up with a clear-cut, moral high-ground route and he *still* covered for Terry.

Kyt

[mlm828]

kytdunne said:

My basic point was that describing Titus as the poor, young, innocent black man, was painting Terry into a darker corner than he's already made for himself. Terry thought he knew precisely what kind of man he was framing; he just happened to be wrong.

Finding out that he's framed the wrong man after the fact, does nothing to change things. So yeah, Terry's going to keep up the act as long as possible in an effort to save himself, because now his future is on the line.

I basically agree -- once Terry has falsely accused Titus, he's going to stick to his story as long as possible. It occurs to me, however, that at the time he first accuses Titus, he doesn't know that Titus committed the two murders. The results of the ballistics tests and Titus's false confession come later. At most, Titus is a suspect who fled when the cops arrived at his apartment. What Terry does know at the time he accuses Titus of shooting him is that Titus is a young black man with a criminal record, whom no one will believe when he denies shooting Terry. We know this is part of Terry's thinking, because he later asks Jim if Jim is taking the word of an ex-felon over his.

I don't think Terry thought all of this through while he was running up to the roof after picking up Titus's gun in the stairwell. I think shooting himself was an emotional and impulsive act. But after shooting himself, he surely realized that Titus was the ideal person to accuse of doing it.

This leads to another question: what pushed Terry over the edge at this particular time and place? His guilt over the bank and Jim's blindness had been festering for more than a year. I wonder if the last straw was seeing Jim that day, plus Jim's putting him off when he tried to talk to Jim before leaving the squad room. This is not to suggest, by the way, that I think Jim has any responsibility for Terry's shooting himself.

I think there's a possibility Dunbar wouldn't have said anything if Titus had been a 2-time murderer. Dunbar ended up with a clear-cut, moral high-ground route and he *still* covered for Terry.

Kyt

Yes, Jim "covered" for Terry, to the extent he didn't insist that Terry confess to shooting himself. But, as I've said before, I think this was as much for himself as for Terry -- it was a way he could be "done" with Terry. And he insisted on a resolution that had significant consequences for Terry.

[kytdunne]

mlm828 said:

It occurs to me, however, that at the time he first accuses Titus, he doesn't know that Titus committed the two murders. The results of the ballistics tests and Titus's false confession come later. At most, Titus is a suspect who fled when the cops arrived at his apartment. What Terry does know at the time he accuses Titus of shooting him is that Titus is a young black man with a criminal record, whom no one will believe when he denies shooting Terry. We know this is part of Terry's thinking, because he later asks Jim if Jim is taking the word of an ex-felon over his.

Terry knows the guy, he's familiar with the gangs and their rivalries. Titus has come up as the primary suspect, especially given the phone calls, and probably other information that's too minute to bother putting in the episode. Bottom line: he suspected Titus and he had the right gun, wrong brother.

mlm828 said:

I don't think Terry thought all of this through while he was running up to the roof after picking up Titus's gun in the stairwell. I think shooting himself was an emotional and impulsive act. But after shooting himself, he surely realized that Titus was the ideal person to accuse of doing it.

I'd just change the order of that some. Terry thinks Titus is guilty, Titus runs. Terry has a wild idea and follows through with it.

mlm828 said:

This leads to another question: what pushed Terry over the edge at this particular time and place? His guilt over the bank and Jim's blindness had been festering for more than a year. I wonder if the last straw was seeing Jim that day, plus Jim's putting him off when he tried to talk to Jim before leaving the squad room.

Yeah, I think Dunbar avoiding him again, while Terry has to try to work with Dunbar, gave Terry that extra dose of desperation to prove that his moment of cowardice at the bank was an aberration and not *him.* When the opportunity presented itself (to a somewhat unbalanced mind), he took it. At least at the outset, it was working. Dunbar not only spoke to him, but showed *concern.* And Terry hadn't been 'a coward.'

mlm828 said:

And he insisted on a resolution that had significant consequences for Terry.

Unless you can point out a solution that would've been less consequential, I thought Dunbar took the least-painful route for both himself and Terry while accomplishing his primary goal of clearing Titus.

Kyt

[mlm828]

kytdunne said:

Yeah, I think Dunbar avoiding him again, while Terry has to try to work with Dunbar, gave Terry that extra dose of desperation to prove that his moment of cowardice at the bank was an aberration and not *him.* When the opportunity presented itself (to a somewhat unbalanced mind), he took it. At least at the outset, it was working. Dunbar not only spoke to him, but showed *concern.* And Terry hadn't been 'a coward.'

Another thing that may have pushed Terry over the edge was the contrast between his former partner, Jim, and his current partner, Glen. Terry must have been embarrassed at the way Glen introduced himself to Jim, causing Jim to respond, "I'm blind, not deaf," and at Glen's statements to Tom about "black-on-black" crime.

mlm828 said:

And he insisted on a resolution that had significant consequences for Terry.

Unless you can point out a solution that would've been less consequential, I thought Dunbar took the least-painful route for both himself and Terry while accomplishing his primary goal of clearing Titus.

Kyt

I was thinking of Jim's rejection of Terry's last-ditch plea to Jim to let him change his story (so Titus wouldn't be prosecuted) and get counseling, allowing him to keep his job.