Fancy Footwork

[kytdunne]

maggiethecat said:

So, what is the question on the table, Miz Dunne? I seem to have lost the thread! Was it deciding if Dunbar's disastrous experieces every time he pulled his gun had an impact on his decision to give up that gun? I'm not convinced that he ever demonstrated an ability to fight down the instincts formed over ten years on the job. Case in point the way he blurted out to Karen, "I've got this," and then burst -- every inch the old first-through-the-door Dunbar -- into Marlon Condell's apartment. And not to the best result.

Why get picky? Go for both questions.

First off, how long do you think he'd been on the job by the end of the series? And is that enough time to realign reactions without some missteps?

For whatever reason, I figured about six months.

You may be right, given the evidence at hand. But considering the speed with which Dunbar returned to the job, and proved that he can do it, tells me that he can accomplish what he sets his mind to. I'd guess that once he had the greater concerns out of the way and could concentrate on fine-tuning other aspects, he could re-train his reactions.

maggiethecat said:

Or was it whether or not Our Jim could do his job effectively without a gun?

Personally, I think the answer is yes. If his primary intent is to use the weapon only in close-up encounters, then his life is, essentially, the one he risks by not carrying. He's not reliable as a backup or distance shooter, so....

Kyt

[kytdunne]

housemouse said:

Are you saying that police officers in general, and detectives specifically are routinely involved in shoot-outs that never get any media attention? Since I can remember I have heard that most police officers (even in the LA area) go through their entire careers without ever firing their gun. Are you saying this is actually not the case? If not, why the cover up? Why are the papers so one sided in their reporting? Honestly I am curious and am interested to find out, if I am being duped, how and why.

Firstly, the distinction between officers and detectives is really misleading and very hard to pinpoint specifics since locally, the titles are often used interchangeably when officers become detectives. (NYPD may make a much stronger distinction, I don't know.) There are details that are more likely to be involved in volatile situations and others that are less likely. A motor officer is more likely to be killed in an accident than being shot, but that doesn't mean they aren't shot.

Secondly, I'd never call shootouts routine. And by shootout, I'm presuming the definition here is an 'exchange of gunfire' since there are certainly those instances in which an officer is ambushed and has no opportunity for returning fire. Shootouts that bypass strong media attention typically seem to be those in which no one was seriously injured, no innocents were involved, no officers were killed and - perhaps more notably - there are no pictures or video to document it.

Reporting is all up to the newspaper and the specific slant that newspaper has. They are not, in my experience, non-biased regardless of what claims they make. The stories are chosen for sales and whatever will draw in the viewers.

Did you notice the heavy concentration this year on the freeway shootings? I have no idea what caught the media's attention this year, but it's just not that different from other years. Most likely, there was a slow news day, a freeway shooting, and the media concentration was on.

As for officers drawing their weapons, it may make a difference of where you're talking about. But around here, officers pretty much draw their weapons sooner or later.

As for firing their weapons, given the numbers of officer involved shootings around LA County - and I don't keep up with them all - it's a given that it's not unheard of. But whether you consider it rare or not, would depend on the percentages and where you stand on your definition of rare. One might also want to consider how 'rare' something would appear in the eyes of the officers who are facing these potential situations every time they encounter a stranger.

Kyt

[hoosier]

In Doggone, Sonny made the comment that the "old Dunbar would have come out shooting like the OK corral" or words to that effect. Was he just exaggerating or is there some truth to that statement? It could have been connected to his time in anticrime--more dangerous situations etc. As the chief told him, his skills and instincts were honed when he could see. Now is a different time and different circumstances. It seems that if he could have learned more self-control, the gun wouldn't be an issue with the chief but if he continued he would relieve him of it , waiver or no waiver. Even though I thought the chief was rather crass reminding Jim that there were things he could no longer do--like that was a major surprise to Jim!!!--he did only have the safety of the public and fellow cops in mind.

[bjobsessed]

Does anybody know who played Anthony Knowles? Was it Paul Perri or Rick Pasqualone? I'm trying to figure out who played who in this episode. I can't find it on the net anywhere. One of these two guys played Anthony and the other played the guy who lived next to Les as far as I can tell.

[shmeep]

bjobsessed said:

Does anybody know who played Anthony Knowles? Was it Paul Perri or Rick Pasqualone? I'm trying to figure out who played who in this episode.

Although this isn't listed on IMDB for some reason, I believe I can help you.

Anthony Knowles was played by Rick Pasqualone.



But I prefer to think of him as Toral:



And that's not to be confused with Toral:



...who was recently booted off of The Apprentice for citing religious reasons for why she wouldn't wear this:



Her team lost.

[maggiethecat]

What is that creature, and what in the world was it meant to be promoting?

[shmeep]

maggiethecat said:

What is that creature, and what in the world was it meant to be promoting?

If I could answer either of those questions, I'm pretty sure they wouldn't have lost. I know it had something to do with Dairy Queen.

[bjobsessed]

admin said:

bjobsessed said:

Does anybody know who played Anthony Knowles? Was it Paul Perri or Rick Pasqualone? I'm trying to figure out who played who in this episode.

Although this isn't listed on IMDB for some reason, I believe I can help you.

Anthony Knowles was played by Rick Pasqualone.



But I prefer to think of him as Toral:



And that's not to be confused with Toral:



...who was recently booted off of The Apprentice for citing religious reasons for why she wouldn't wear this:



Her team lost.

Thanks Shmeep! Those pictures are great. Almost spit my hot chocolate all over the computer!

[hoosier]

Did anyone else notice how Jim seemed to go around almost this entire episode with a crease on his forehead?

[housemouse]

hoosier said:

Did anyone else notice how Jim seemed to go around almost this entire episode with a crease on his forehead?

I didn't notice, but you would expect him to be pretty tense about to give up or not to give up his gun.

[hoosier]

housemouse said:

hoosier said:

Did anyone else notice how Jim seemed to go around almost this entire episode with a crease on his forehead?

I didn't notice, but you would expect him to be pretty tense about to give up or not to give up his gun.

Was it me or was there like a whole other kind of vibe with this episode? I know it was tense with the gun/no gun issue but it just "felt" different. Did to me at least.

[inuvik]

hoosier said:

housemouse said:

I didn't notice, but you would expect him to be pretty tense about to give up or not to give up his gun.

Was it me or was there like a whole other kind of vibe with this episode? I know it was tense with the gun/no gun issue but it just "felt" different. Did to me at least.

Not with this episode, but that is how I felt about Under the Gun. UTG was probably the episode I liked the least. I can't put my finger on it but it felt way different from the others. I didn't like it at all, didn't seem to have the same homey, chummy feeling. If that makes any sense at all!

[Eyphur]

hoosier said:

Was it me or was there like a whole other kind of vibe with this episode? I know it was tense with the gun/no gun issue but it just "felt" different. Did to me at least.

I agree. Fancy Footwork feels different to me too. I don't know if it's the actual storyline of the episode or more of the physical things about it (it's the last episode, it's the only episode I have on a DVD, it's not fuzzy like all the other episodes I recorded off the crappy reception on the antenna).
Perhaps it is a conflict of emotion the sadness that it is the last episode but the joy that Kyt was nice enough to send me a copy.

[hoosier]

Its interesting that in FF we finally see a dream from Christie's POV. We've had 2 very different looks at how Jim sees his wife: either as the loving supporting wife in the opening dream sequence from UOTR or as the vunerable exposed victim in need of protection in Marlon's Brando (the scenes were effective but rather disturbing and what was with that ahhhh sound effect?)
I notice how his idea of Christie changed --in the UOTR dream he could see, they having fun then in MB, he was blind and Christie was in danger because he couldn't see to protect her.

In FF, Christie dances with a romanticized version of her husband. He cuts a mighty fine figure in his white tie and tails, cocky, debonair, a bit of a rake with the devil in his eye, who gives her hand a lingering kiss. Is this how she really sees him or is this just as idealized as how he sees her? Is this the man he once was who swept her off her feet , instead of the prickly, emotionally withdrawn, defensive man he became after he was blinded or the cad who had an affair?

Face it, girls like a little romance. He did bring her flowers for the first time in over a year but only because he felt guilty after his session with Galloway . She didn't know that. She made a romantic dinner but only to soften the blow of signing up for dance classes without telling him. Idealized? Yep. Romanticized? Ditto. But when the dream ended ,she was in Jim's arms. He was there with her at the dance class and he was as committed as she was to try and make it work. They were both making the effort.

If someone would like to put appropriate caps in here feel free. I am apparently doing something wrong. A admit that I am somewhat computer handicapped.

[greenbeing]

How interesting! I honestly never thought of the ending of FF as being from Christie's POV. Everything else has been from Jim's view. Which made the ending very, uh, odd. That he would put his wife in that feathery dress and himself in a tuxedo. Hmm, must rewatch with the other viewpoint in mind.

And I totally agree with the freaky ahhing sounds in MB--egad. Does he honestly think she'd moan like that?

--GB