Up on the Roof

[housemouse]

I re-watched just this part of Up on the Roof. I must say that this may well be my favorite moment of any episode of the entire series.

Before I narrow it down, let me point out a few subtle things - I have no doubt pointed them out before - but they continue to astound me. Jim very slightly lifts each of his feet as he is getting riled up talking to Galloway - WOW!!! Galloway gets up and moves while Jim is talking, Jim is surprised by this and a little upset that he was talking to thin air while Galloway had moved.

Now, to the exchange about Terry on the roof. I think Jim actually meant to say Terry blew it at the bank. The line goes "he already blew it at the bank." To quote Dr. Seuss - "I meant what I said and I said what I meant." Why Galloway corrected him, I do not know. Maybe he wanted to pull Jim back to the issue at hand, Terry shooting himself on the roof. As Shmeep said, Galloway doesn't miss anything so his response was most likely purposeful.

That is my final assessment and I'm sticking to it... until someone talks me out of it.

[mlm828]

After watching "Up on the Roof," I now think Galloway purposely directed Jim back to the issue of what happened on the roof, when Jim said Terry "already blew it at the bank." I think he did this, because what happened on the roof was the immediate issue they had to deal with. In addition, Galloway felt it was important -- for both Jim and Titus -- to prevent Titus's being wrongfully charged with a crime he did not commit.

I think Galloway had a pretty good idea that there was some problem between Jim and Terry arising from what happened at the bank. The fact that Jim was shot during an attempted bank robbery was common knowledge. Jim said Terry blew it at the bank. Galloway would not have missed Jim's vehemence when he said, referring to Terry, "He's not my partner!" or his obvious distress when discussing the subject of Terry. When Galloway asks Jim if he is the kind of person who would let Titus be charged with a crime he did not commit, he says, "Whatever happened with Terry, is that who you are?" This indicates to me that Galloway had figured out that Jim had unresolved issues involving something that happened with Terry on the day Jim was shot.

I like to think Galloway did follow up on these issues, but in another session -- which we all would have loved to see.

[maggiethecat]

Ah, “Up on the Roof.” Jim and Terry’s final face-off, Galloway at his finest, and a handkerchief with four powder-burned holes (does anyone know a gent who still carries a laundered handkerchief these days?).

If a simple question like how Jim opens his take-out coffee at the beginning of “Seoul Man” can generate a fistful of posts, then why not keep going here?

The scene with Galloway. I now agree with you all that Galloway was probably trying to keep Jim “on point” when he corrected him, on reflection and on repeated viewings. (I know, Mouse, I’m supposed to be writing my infamous “Leap of Faith” recap, but I don’t have all that much time for Blind Justice watching/indulgence/guilty pleasure. And when I do, I invariably find myself drawn back, magnetized, to The Pilot or “Up on the Roof.”)

Galloway had to have sensed the bad blood between Terry and Jim in their sessions before this. How could he not have? Every time Terry’s name is even mentioned, Jim’s voice goes cold and his face goes stiff. Even Marty Russo -- hardly the most sensitive soul on the planet -- picked up on it. And there is his fierce, almost uncontrolled, rage when he blurts out, "He's not my partner." Terry, he is telling Galloway, is over. His mistake, and Jim's not about to be part of it. Not again.

So, yeah, Galloway is trying to keep Jim to the most important issue on the table at that moment. Which is whether Jim will keep quiet about what he knows to be true and allow Titus Oliver, innocent but with priors, to go down for a crime he not only didn't commit but which never happened. As Galloway says, “Forget your problems with Terry -- is this who you are, Jim?” (Or words to that effect and I apologize for paraphrasing.) And, of course, the answer is no.



We know even before Jim ends the session early and walks out the door that he will do the right thing. He always does the right thing, no matter the cost.

Oh, that scene by the river is so rich, so multi-layered, so full of nuggets and stunning moments. Every time I see something different, something new “jumps off” with a fresh resonance. This time? Watching Jim wait for Terry at the beginning of the scene, his head down, deep in thought, as though rehearsing what he will say, mentally steeling himself for what's coming . . .



Another tiny moment? When Terry starts to say, “I don’t know what you think happened . . .” Whoa. Back up, Jack. What you think happened? They both know exactly what happened. But this is Terry's pattern, isn't it? Just another example of Terry trying to convince himself his actions were somehow defensible. “I was pinned down, what was I supposed to do?” he says in The Pilot, still not facing it a year later. And even with Jim holding the handkerchief right there, he cannot step up and admit what he did.

Issues of bravery and cowardice aside, maybe the real dividing line between these two complex men is who takes responsibility for their actions. Jim Dunbar does. Terry Jansen doesn’t.



Which is why Jim can move on . . . and Terry can’t.

[maggiethecat]

housemouse said:

Now, to the exchange about Terry on the roof. I think Jim actually meant to say Terry blew it at the bank. The line goes "he already blew it at the bank." To quote Dr. Seuss - "I meant what I said and I said what I meant." Why Galloway corrected him, I do not know. Maybe he wanted to pull Jim back to the issue at hand, Terry shooting himself on the roof. As Shmeep said, Galloway doesn't miss anything so his response was most likely purposeful.

That is my final assessment and I'm sticking to it... until someone talks me out of it.

Oh, Jeez. Here we go again. You really had me convinced, Mouse and Shmeep, that Galloway was trying to pull back to the matter at hand and not simply correcting a classic Freudian slip, that he knew the difference between the bank/roof scenarios . . .

. . . until I watched that scene again. And now I'm back to square one. Jim says,"Terry, he, he, he already blew it at the bank." Then there's a quick cut to Galloway's face, and he looks genuinely surprised that Jim said bank, and so he jumps in with "You mean the roof." And Jim agrees, in essence redirecting the topic himself. So if you look at at the expression on his face and the way he reads the line, I'm back to believing that Galloway was reflexively correcting what he saw as Jim misspeaking.

By the way, how many people did know the truth about the bank? Jim, Terry, Christie, and I'm thinking the list stops right there. And who knew the truth of what happened on the roof? Even though Jim tells Terry he will "toss this handkerchief" and no one will ever know what happened, Karen knows. And Jim tells Christie. But again, is that the end of the list? I can't see Terry telling Annie, can you?! "Hi, honey, I'm home. You'll never guess what happened today . . . ." Naah.

[mlm828]

maggiethecat said:

Oh, Jeez. Here we go again. You really had me convinced, Mouse and Shmeep, that Galloway was trying to pull back to the matter at hand and not simply correcting a classic Freudian slip, that he knew the difference between the bank/roof scenarios . . .

. . . until I watched that scene again. And now I'm back to square one. Jim says,"Terry, he, he, he already blew it at the bank." Then there's a quick cut to Galloway's face, and he looks genuinely surprised that Jim said bank, and so he jumps in with "You mean the roof." And Jim agrees, in essence redirecting the topic himself. So if you look at at the expression on his face and the way he reads the line, I'm back to believing that Galloway was reflexively correcting what he saw as Jim misspeaking.

By the way, how many people did know the truth about the bank? Jim, Terry, Christie, and I'm thinking the list stops right there. And who knew the truth of what happened on the roof? Even though Jim tells Terry he will "toss this handkerchief" and no one will ever know what happened, Karen knows. And Jim tells Christie. But again, is that the end of the list? I can't see Terry telling Annie, can you?! "Hi, honey, I'm home. You'll never guess what happened today . . . ." Naah.

After mulling it over, I tend to agree with mouse that Jim meant to say Terry blew it at the bank, because that explains his insistence that Terry is not his partner. The whole exchange is precipitated by Galloway's suggestion that Jim is just protecting his partner, which sends Jim into a near-meltdown. However, I do not think Jim wanted or intended to talk about what happened at the bank, as shown by his immediate agreement with Galloway's prompting, "You mean the roof?"

I, too, saw the look of surprise on Galloway's face. However, my interpretation is that he was surprised that Jim had introduced the topic of the bank into their discussion. What happened at the bank is, of course, directly related to what happened on the roof, but I think Galloway felt this was not the time for that conversation. He doesn't follow up on why Jim is so insistent that Terry is not his partner, which I think he would have done had he wanted to get into what happened at the bank and Jim's unresolved issues with Terry. Based on Galloway's reference to "whatever happened with Terry," I think he knew, at the very least, that Jim had major unresolved issues relating to Terry and what happened at the bank.

The question of who knew what really happened at the bank is a fascinating one. Based on the opening scene in the Pilot, I think there were survivors of the shoot-out, other than Jim and Terry, but I can't determine whether any of them was in a position to see Jim's and Terry's actions. However, there is one fact that would have been revealed in an investigation and would have raised questions about Terry's actions: Jim shot the bank robber with Terry's gun. Perhaps that was explained without disclosing the whole story, but I don't know what that explanation might have been. It seems likely that people involved in the investigation suspected Terry had not "stepped up," but since Terry stayed on the job, they may have concluded there was insufficient evidence of what Terry did or did not do.

As for who knew what happened on the roof: Jim, Karen, and Christie (and Terry, too, of course). And I don't see any of them talking. I also think Marty suspects there is something Jim and Karen aren't telling him about what happened on the roof.

[bump]

housemouse said:

Jim very slightly lifts each of his feet as he is getting riled up talking to Galloway - WOW!!!

Still trying to get caught up on all the threads. Sheesh. I really should've joined over the summer.

I think the feet thing is a bit of an Eldardism. I've noticed he does the same thing in interviews though not as pronounced as in this episode.

Becky

[housemouse]

rmiro13 said:

housemouse said:

Jim very slightly lifts each of his feet as he is getting riled up talking to Galloway - WOW!!!

Still trying to get caught up on all the threads. Sheesh. I really should've joined over the summer.

I think the feet thing is a bit of an Eldardism. I've noticed he does the same thing in interviews though not as pronounced as in this episode.

Becky

The FEET one of my favorite moments in any episode, or anything of RE's for that matter. Subtle, beautiful...

Sorry Maggie, I still think he said the bank and he meant to. He said it, Galloway heard it, and when Galloway steered him back to the roof Jim happily obliged because he did not want to go any deeper. He might have thrown it out there to see if Galloway wanted to hear more, and when Galloway took it back to the roof, Jim was fine. He tested the waters, they were cold and he climbed out!

[maggiethecat]

housemouse said:

Sorry Maggie, I still think he said the bank and he meant to. He said it, Galloway heard it, and when Galloway steered him back to the roof Jim happily obliged because he did not want to go any deeper. He might have thrown it out there to see if Galloway wanted to hear more, and when Galloway took it back to the roof, Jim was fine. He tested the waters, they were cold and he climbed out!

You know what . . . ? You're right, Mouse. Uncle. I was so focussed on Galloway's startled reaction that until recently I didn't start paying the right kind of attention to the way Jim set up the line and then pulled back.

Jim is the one who can connect Terry's actions at the bank with his actions on the roof -- on Law & Order, they'd cover this with the phrase "goes to pattern." So, in terms of getting advice from Galloway about how to proceed with Terry's staged shooting, the bank is not germane. Galloway doesn't need to know what Terry did (or didn't do) at the bank to address the problem on the table. So, although I still think Galloway thought he was correcting a Freudian slip, Jim used that error to pull the discussion back to what was most important on that day . . . Terry's actions on the roof, and whether to let it slide or not.

Phew!

[hoosier]

Why did Jim have Terry talk to Fisk about the events on the roof and not his own lt.? Fisk had Semple packing back to his own boss after the shooting and was pretty blunt about it. Was it because it happened in their precinct? Or was it more because Jim felt that Fisk would hear Terry out?

[mlm828]

hoosier said:

Why did Jim have Terry talk to Fisk about the events on the roof and not his own lt.? Fisk had Semple packing back to his own boss after the shooting and was pretty blunt about it. Was it because it happened in their precinct? Or was it more because Jim felt that Fisk would hear Terry out?

I always assumed Jim had Terry speak to Fisk because the case of Titus allegedly shooting Terry was an 8th Precinct case, so Fisk would be the lieutenant in charge of the case.

As for why Fisk sent Semple back to his own squad, I think it was primarily for the stated reason: so Semple could inform his boss about what had happened. Of course, Fisk could have picked up the phone and called the other lieutenant himself, which leads us to the second reason: Fisk had seen enough of Semple and wanted him back in his own squad.

[housemouse]

mlm828 said:

hoosier said:

Why did Jim have Terry talk to Fisk about the events on the roof and not his own lt.? Fisk had Semple packing back to his own boss after the shooting and was pretty blunt about it. Was it because it happened in their precinct? Or was it more because Jim felt that Fisk would hear Terry out?

I always assumed Jim had Terry speak to Fisk because the case of Titus allegedly shooting Terry was an 8th Precinct case, so Fisk would be the lieutenant in charge of the case.

As for why Fisk sent Semple back to his own squad, I think it was primarily for the stated reason: so Semple could inform his boss about what had happened. Of course, Fisk could have picked up the phone and called the other lieutenant himself, which leads us to the second reason: Fisk had seen enough of Semple and wanted him back in his own squad.

I figured Terry and Glen relayed the events because they were actually on the roof and Jim was in the street. I agree with mlm, Fisk had seen enough of Semple that he knew he would be useless going forward.

[bjobsessed]

housemouse said:

mlm828 said:

I always assumed Jim had Terry speak to Fisk because the case of Titus allegedly shooting Terry was an 8th Precinct case, so Fisk would be the lieutenant in charge of the case.

As for why Fisk sent Semple back to his own squad, I think it was primarily for the stated reason: so Semple could inform his boss about what had happened. Of course, Fisk could have picked up the phone and called the other lieutenant himself, which leads us to the second reason: Fisk had seen enough of Semple and wanted him back in his own squad.

I figured Terry and Glen relayed the events because they were actually on the roof and Jim was in the street. I agree with mlm, Fisk had seen enough of Semple that he knew he would be useless going forward.

I'd seen enough of him too. What an obnoxious annoying little weasel.

[hoosier]

That's what I assumed but it was nice to think that maybe Jim took enough pity on Terry to send him to Fisk who would at least hear him out. I think that Jim had found Fisk to be an honest and straightforward man.

Did you notice the look on Christie's face when he said "I'd rather lose my sight than my courage"? She knew he meant it and that nothing she said or did could make him change his mind. He was going to be the kind of cop he had always been --no holding back.

[inuvik]

I just posted this in the episode survival game but it should go here too.

I find it hard to believe that Terry discarded the handkerchief on the roof. Being a cop, you'd think he would take it with him so no one would find it. Granted, he probably thought that no one would be looking for it as they would all believe his story. But he also knew Jim is an excellent and ethical cop.

Maybe it's just the writers, to make the story work. Thoughts anyone?

[bjobsessed]

hoosier said:

Did you notice the look on Christie's face when he said "I'd rather lose my sight than my courage"? She knew he meant it and that nothing she said or did could make him change his mind. He was going to be the kind of cop he had always been --no holding back.

Maybe that's one reason we are all so fascinated with him. (ok I know we all love Ron and he's a great actor, but I'm talking specifically about Jim Dunbar). He'd screwed up in his personal life and I'm sure in his professional life too. But, he really was a "people cop." He paid attention to every little detail--sometimes thinking too much. He couldn't let an innocent man take the fall for a crime he didn't commit, and he's not willing to let a known child molestor go free to name a few. If it seems to open and shut, there is probably more to it. His need to be thorough--maybe too much so to some--is what made him such a good cop. He cared about people and the fact that justice needed to be done even if the perps didn't deserve it.

Tom did admit once that he wasn't too proud to learn from the guy so he was affecting those around him in a positive way some of the time.

Am I saying he was perfect? No way. I think he should have gone to Karen about Nick and he shouldn't have tried so hard to prove he could do his job to name two. Personally, he'd made a lot of mistakes too, but he was dealing with them and learning to think about someone besides himself. To me, that is a big part of acceptance. That is a process that takes time and anyone going through that is bound to make a few mistakes along the way.