|
|
Post by maggiethecat on Aug 6, 2005 10:14:42 GMT -5
I suppose it just comes down to one's individual moral judgment on each man's conduct. Terry's inaction was blameworthy, while Jim's actions were not. I think Jim blamed Terry and was angry at him, because he considered Terry's inaction blameworthy. In my mind, this issue is separate from the question of causation. The fact that Jim's actions contributed to the outcome doesn't mean (to me, at least) that he can be blamed for it. Thanks for clarifying that you think Terry can take the blame and Dunbar can't. Beyond that, I give up and throw in the towel. I simply don't get how a moral judgment - or directing blame - can be made without including consideration of the surrounding circumstances and events. But as always, to each her own. Kyt Hey, Kyt! I need to take some of these latest posts and think about them long and hard, and maybe respond over in the Pilot thread or "Up on the Roof." But off the top of my head, I do remember that we discussed this at one point -- the notion of responsibility, which may be a better word than blame, although it's a slippery slope once you get into individual word choices! So. Terry put Jim in an untenable position at the bank that day by wimping out . . . but Jim took responsibility for his actions once he grabbed that gun out of Terry's hands and walked into the street. A hundred different little factors contributed to the overall situation: the gunman's Kevlar armor, the number of cops on the street, the amount of ammo in everyone's guns, you name it. Terry cowering behind that building is, of course, the major factor. But nowhere was it written that Jim Dunbar *had" to be the one -- his actions were his choice, prompted by circumstance and defined by his character. So maybe it does come down to word choice after all! Does Jim *blame* himself for being blinded? We never have even a hint of that -- rather, he is proud that he "took a bullet for four cops." And every cop (and cop's wife) knows that when he walks out the door in the morning, it may be to injury or death. The risk is part of The Job. I believe Jim accepts responsibility for his actions -- but *blames* Terry for putting him in a position where to *not* act would have been a betrayal of all he was. And all Jim ever really wants Terry to do is be honest and admit his culpability. Not grovel or even apologize. Step up, be a man, and get lost. Which is why Jim treats Greg Hermanson so differently. The reason is twofold. First, Greg is honest -- he admits to his moment of weakness. (Even at their final meeting by the river, Terry is still trying to weasel out.) Second, by now Jim has seen, in Terry, how a moment of cowardice can chew a man up, and lead to stupid, rash, desperate acts. But basically, it's because Greg is honest. That's all Jim ever really wanted from Terry . . . and he never got it. We really need to roll this over to "The Pilot" or "Up on the Roof!" |
|
|
|
Post by mlm828 on Aug 6, 2005 15:29:28 GMT -5
Great discussion, kyt, maggie, hoosier, and lmoney. I have nothing to add, except, "thanks"!
|
|
|
|
Post by mlm828 on Aug 6, 2005 19:56:38 GMT -5
A couple other notes: Dunbar talking to Nick made perfect sense in that the relationship could have - presumably - been salvaged if Nick had come clean with Bettancourt. Regardless of whether Jim should have spoken to Karen instead of Nick, I think he really messed up when he went along with Nick's plan to break up with Karen without telling her about his criminal history. One of Karen's complaints was that she should have been given that information so that she could decide what to do about it. If Jim had stuck to his original plan and insisted that either he or Nick had to tell Karen, this, at least, would not have been a problem. Great question -- and one for which I have no answer. We know Dunbar is perfectly capable of getting a beer out of the fridge; he's been shown doing it a couple of times, at least (in the Pilot and in "Under the Gun"). And he's the host in this situation. So I have no clue. Any ideas, anyone? |
|
|
|
Post by kytdunne on Aug 7, 2005 14:54:32 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by kytdunne on Aug 7, 2005 15:31:58 GMT -5
Regardless of whether Jim should have spoken to Karen instead of Nick, I think he really messed up when he went along with Nick's plan to break up with Karen without telling her about his criminal history. One of Karen's complaints was that she should have been given that information so that she could decide what to do about it. If Jim had stuck to his original plan and insisted that either he or Nick had to tell Karen, this, at least, would not have been a problem. I don't think it'd have made a difference, overall. Dunbar's base interest was in giving Bettancourt's relationship a chance. When the relationship continuing was out of the question, it removed any need for conveying any additional information. He *would* have told her if Nick had continued the relationship without enlightening Bettancourt. And since Bettancourt said later that her poor choice in men was part of the reason she was so angry, and that wouldn't have changed... well, Dunbar would've in the doghouse either way. We know Dunbar is perfectly capable of getting a beer out of the fridge; he's been shown doing it a couple of times, at least (in the Pilot and in "Under the Gun"). And he's the host in this situation. So I have no clue. Any ideas, anyone? I haven't been convinced that Christie gives Dunbar the credit he's earned. This is one of those instances that supports that, unless someone can throw a new slant on it. Kyt |
|
|
|
Post by mlm828 on Aug 7, 2005 16:40:13 GMT -5
Dunbar's base interest was in giving Bettancourt's relationship a chance. When the relationship continuing was out of the question, it removed any need for conveying any additional information. He *would* have told her if Nick had continued the relationship without enlightening Bettancourt. And since Bettancourt said later that her poor choice in men was part of the reason she was so angry, and that wouldn't have changed... well, Dunbar would've in the doghouse either way. I tend to take Jim at his word: he was looking out for Karen's best interests (or thought he was). I'm not sure that included the continuation of her relationship with Nick, in view of the fact that he was under investigation by the FBI. It would not have been in Karen's interests if she were still Nick's girlfriend when the FBI moved in. We can ask, however: if Jim were looking out for Karen's interests, why didn't he just tell her himself -- especially since he, not Nick, had the information about the current investigation? I don't really have an answer for that -- perhaps Jim just didn't think things through sufficiently. I agree that, however the situation played out, it probably would have involved problems and complications, and Karen would probably have been mad at Jim about something. However, if Jim or Nick had told her about Nick's past at the outset, at least she would not have been angry at Jim for withholding that information. As for Karen's history of poor choices in men, I had the impression she was more embarrassed than angry that Jim knew about Nick's history. On the question of whether Karen's relationship with Nick would have continued if Nick had told her about his past, my answer is: maybe, but not for long. In view of Karen's sensitivity about her history of picking losers, she might have broken up with Nick immediately. Even if she did not break up with him immediately, she would have broken up with him when she learned of the current investigation -- especially if Nick tried to use her to get inside information, as he did in "In Your Face." I think you're on to something here. In the same scene, Christie fixes Jim's coffee for him, something else he's certainly capable of doing for himself. Another possible interpretation is that she wants to be needed by him (remember their argument in the Pilot?), and he doesn't often let her do things for him. |
|
|
|
Post by lmoney on Aug 7, 2005 22:46:45 GMT -5
Just a new spin on this one.....
I find it interesting that in "social" situations- Christie tends to like the attention of helping Jim more. This scene is a good example- Her fixing the coffee and touching his head with her hand. It is almost as though she wants to show off in front of Greg.
Christie seems to show off again at Clay's party in "Four Feet Under"- the way she excuses herself from the other guests to go 'help' Jim, and then lead him to the dinner table.
During all the dance lesson scenes I get the impression she is leading and proud of it.
I think she definately wants the attention from others that she is needed by Jim
|
|
|
|
Post by kytdunne on Aug 8, 2005 0:46:50 GMT -5
Dunbar's base interest was in giving Bettancourt's relationship a chance. When the relationship continuing was out of the question, it removed any need for conveying any additional information. He *would* have told her if Nick had continued the relationship without enlightening Bettancourt. I tend to take Jim at his word: he was looking out for Karen's best interests (or thought he was). I'm not sure that included the continuation of her relationship with Nick, in view of the fact that he was under investigation by the FBI. It would not have been in Karen's interests if she were still Nick's girlfriend when the FBI moved in. We can ask, however: if Jim were looking out for Karen's interests, why didn't he just tell her himself -- especially since he, not Nick, had the information about the current investigation? I don't really have an answer for that -- perhaps Jim just didn't think things through sufficiently. Are you suggesting that Dunbar thought the Karen/Nick relationship was doomed to failure, and/or should fail? That theory would work if Dunbar had taken any action to support it, but he didn't. You-think-too-much Dunbar *not* thinking things through? Naaaaah. Kyt |
|
|
|
Post by kytdunne on Aug 8, 2005 0:55:54 GMT -5
Just a new spin on this one..... I find it interesting that in "social" situations- Christie tends to like the attention of helping Jim more. This scene is a good example- Her fixing the coffee and touching his head with her hand. It is almost as though she wants to show off in front of Greg. Christie seems to show off again at Clay's party in "Four Feet Under"- the way she excuses herself from the other guests to go 'help' Jim, and then lead him to the dinner table. During all the dance lesson scenes I get the impression she is leading and proud of it. I think she definately wants the attention from others that she is needed by Jim Hm... gotta give this one some consideration, but it may be part of why she reads false to me so often; as if she's only going through the motions, or saying the right words. Which is in direct contrast to the fact that she *has* stuck around. Kyt |
|
|
|
Post by mlm828 on Aug 8, 2005 0:59:33 GMT -5
Are you suggesting that Dunbar thought the Karen/Nick relationship was doomed to failure, and/or should fail? That theory would work if Dunbar had taken any action to support it, but he didn't. You-think-too-much Dunbar *not* thinking things through? Naaaaah. Kyt I think Jim did not expect the Karen-Nick relationship to survive the disclosure of Nick's criminal history, based on his statement to Nick that Karen would not have gone out with him in the first place, if she had known about it. |
|
|
|
Post by kytdunne on Aug 8, 2005 1:12:59 GMT -5
I think Jim did not expect the Karen-Nick relationship to survive the disclosure of Nick's criminal history, based on his statement to Nick that Karen would not have gone out with him in the first place, if she had known about it. Reasonable assumption of a cop and "ex"-crook meeting. Of course, the dynamics had changed as Nick & Bettancourt were beyond the initial meeting. Kyt |
|
|
|
Post by doobrah on Aug 8, 2005 14:05:08 GMT -5
Just a new spin on this one..... I find it interesting that in "social" situations- Christie tends to like the attention of helping Jim more. This scene is a good example- Her fixing the coffee and touching his head with her hand. It is almost as though she wants to show off in front of Greg. Christie seems to show off again at Clay's party in "Four Feet Under"- the way she excuses herself from the other guests to go 'help' Jim, and then lead him to the dinner table. During all the dance lesson scenes I get the impression she is leading and proud of it. I think she definately wants the attention from others that she is needed by Jim Some people just like being needed (my aunt, for example). I don't think of Christie as showing off in public, but when they're out, she can fulfill her need to be needed, which she verbalized in the Pilot, "You don't need me, you need your dog." As for the scene with Greg at dinner, I just thought she was trying to be the perfect little hostess. Didn't read anything deeper than that. As far as leading the dancing, well she is a bit of a controlling .... you know what I mean. Heck, she signed them up for the classes, drug him to the studio three weeks in a row (that we know of), so it's not surprising that she wants to lead.  |
|
|
|
Post by mlm828 on Aug 8, 2005 16:25:54 GMT -5
I think Jim did not expect the Karen-Nick relationship to survive the disclosure of Nick's criminal history, based on his statement to Nick that Karen would not have gone out with him in the first place, if she had known about it. Reasonable assumption of a cop and "ex"-crook meeting. Of course, the dynamics had changed as Nick & Bettancourt were beyond the initial meeting. Kyt Yes, but. . . in my opinion, that would not make a difference. I mentioned Jim's statement about Karen not going out with Nick in the first place, because that is the evidence we have of his thinking. However, I think Jim did not expect Karen to continue to date Nick after learning of his criminal history, for the same reasons she would not have gone out with Nick in the first place, had she known of it. |
|
|
|
Post by kytdunne on Aug 8, 2005 16:54:41 GMT -5
Yes, but. . . in my opinion, that would not make a difference. I mentioned Jim's statement about Karen not going out with Nick in the first place, because that is the evidence we have of his thinking. However, I think Jim did not expect Karen to continue to date Nick after learning of his criminal history, for the same reasons she would not have gone out with Nick in the first place, had she known of it. Okay, thanks for clarifying. Kyt |
|
|
|
Post by kytdunne on Aug 8, 2005 17:01:25 GMT -5
As for the scene with Greg at dinner, I just thought she was trying to be the perfect little hostess. Didn't read anything deeper than that. So, having the guest serve himself and one of the hosts, is being a good hostess? Kyt |
|
