Christie Dunbar -- villain or goddess?

[maggiethecat]

Is it possible to like this woman all the time?

"Christie, you know I need you."
"You don't need me -- you need your dog."

What a character! Sweetly loving and understanding part of the time -- case in point the opening and closing scenes of "Marlon's Brando" -- and other times I just want to take her by the shoulders and shake her until her head snaps back and her earrings fly off!

Was she meant to be a goddess . . . or a villainess?

Was she intended to be as difficult and problematic as her husband? Let's face it, if the writers had devised her as a sweetly willing helpmate, where, then, would have been the drama?

But, really, what kind of woman thinks it's appropriate to drag her newly-blinded husband, an NYPD homicide detective, to a dinner party full of smarmy creeps and shallow fashionistas who offer to cut his steak for him? Or to a publishing conference in Boston where he'll be bored out of his mind?

What is up with this woman? Why, in the early episodes when it's clear he's hurting, does she insist on bringing up his past infidelities? What could she possibly hope to gain? He's a changed man . . . what about that does she not get?

Let's talk!

[anna]

maggiethecat said:

But, really, what kind of woman thinks it's appropriate to drag her newly-blinded husband, an NYPD homicide detective, to a dinner party full of smarmy creeps and shallow fashionistas who offer to cut his steak for him? Or to a publishing conference in Boston where he'll be bored out of his mind?

I think it's the kind of woman who brings up the party to her husband (who's been blind for a year at this point, not a month) and, when he is wavering, offers him an out - but he insists on going, even after she asks him if he is sure. (I know that she could have stayed home with him, but it sounds like she has been doing that for the past year - and, regardless of whether it's an official work thing - if your boss invites you, you usually need to show up.)

Regarding the Boston trip, she said that she just wanted a yes or no answer. Maybe she really meant that she wanted a yes answer - but would it have been better for her just to go to the conference and not even ask him, not even consider that it might be possible for them to enjoy a few days out of town together during the time that she wasn't in meetings?

I definitely do not think that Christie is a goddess. She can be tiresome. I just don't think that she is Christula, Countess of Darkness.

[shmeep]

anna said:

I think it's the kind of woman who brings up the party to her husband (who's been blind for a year at this point, not a month) and, when he is wavering, offers him an out - but he insists on going, even after she asks him if he is sure. (I know that she could have stayed home with him, but it sounds like she has been doing that for the past year - and, regardless of whether it's an official work thing - if your boss invites you, you usually need to show up.)

Regarding the Boston trip, she said that she just wanted a yes or no answer. Maybe she really meant that she wanted a yes answer - but would it have been better for her just to go to the conference and not even ask him, not even consider that it might be possible for them to enjoy a few days out of town together during the time that she wasn't in meetings?

I definitely do not think that Christie is a goddess. She can be tiresome. I just don't think that she is Christula, Countess of Darkness.

Anna, you are so on my wavelength!

I think that, as the wife of a man with a disability, I have always related to Christie. What may seem harsh or insensitive on the surface often has a lot of history involved.

It would be too stereotypical to have made Christie dote too much and do too much. She knew her husband was a toughie and she treated him like it, trusting him to tell her if she had gone too far. She wasn't always nice, but it wouldn't have been very interesting if she had been.

Villain or goddess? Somewhere in between or alternating from one extreme to the other, depending on her mood. And she did have a lot of moods.

[mlm828]

maggie, you must have been reading my mind -- I was thinking we needed a Christie thread.

My basic view of the Dunbar marriage is that they are two people doing the best they can in a very difficult situation, and not always succeeding.

Based on what we see throughout the series, I think Christie is committed to the marriage, and it is more of a priority for her than it is for Jim. On the other hand, Jim has -- understandably -- been focused on other things. I think Christie believed or hoped that Jim would be able to make their marriage more of a priority after he returned to work. Instead, as she tells him in "Doggone," she discovers the job demands so much of him that he has nothing left for their marriage. In the Pilot, when Jim refuses to talk to her about his first day back on the job, the look on her face shows how hurt and disappointed she is. And when Jim suggests therapy in "Doggone," her reaction shows how happy she is that Jim, too, might start focusing on their marriage.

I think that many of Christie's flare-ups stem from the fact that she has to fight for his attention. When she was angry with him about the Boston trip, it wasn't about the trip, it was about her inability to get his attention about something that was important to her. Sometimes she flares up because it's the only way she can get his attention. But at times she seems to have a passive-aggressive thing going on, which causes her to let things fester and build up until she lashes out.

I think it would have been entirely too saintly of her to refrain from mentioning Jim's infidelity after he accused her of having an affair and challenged her to "Say it, just say it!"

Yes, there are times when you wish she would back off or cut Jim some slack or do things differently. But more often, she knows when to back off (as in "Seoul Man," when Jim tells her the sessions with Galloway have ended). And she can be supportive and even wise, as in "Under the Gun," when Jim talks about his feelings of loss.

I really hadn't planned on making this the "defense of Christie" post, but overall, I think she copes about as well as one could expect of a real person, not a saint, under very difficult circumstances.

[housemouse]

I come down somewhere in the middle on this one. On the one hand Christie could cut Jim a little more slack, but on the other hand, theirs was a marriage in crisis rocked by one HUGE crisis.

When I think about Christie, I keep in mind that when Jim got shot, their marriage was on the brink. Christie knew about Jim's affair and they were trying to figure out where to go from there. Christie said it herself in Four Feet Under, she was devastated by the affair, and after he got shot she just stuffed all that pain. Add to that the pain of seeing the man she loves shot. Who wouldn't be reeling?

That said, I think Christie could stand to be a little more sensitive. Some things she says are mean like "you don't need me you need your dog." And "Close the door on your way out" from Seoul Man - translation, "sleep on the couch tonight buddy." Maybe she is thinking that if she pretends their lives are back to normal - the way they were before the shooting and before the affair - they will be back to normal. She has yet to comprehend that this is the new normal.

Also, I wasn't all that impressed with the advice she gave Jim about replacing the things he is losing. I mean come on, replace carrying his gun with dancing? I know it was a metaphor and I am being too literal, but I just don't see that being all that comforting to him. He can't be the cop he once was no matter what, he really shouldn't be carrying a gun, he can't drive or do so many of the things he used to do, Christie's response is "Dance!" Umm, right.

She's trying, you gotta give her that. The wrote a very human character, you gotta say that. She is human, she is flawed, and she is somewhat of an enigma.

[shmeep]

I hate to take issue with The Mouse, but...

housemouse said:

Some things she says are mean like "you don't need me you need your dog." And "Close the door on your way out" from Seoul Man - translation, "sleep on the couch tonight buddy."

I didn't find either of those Christie moments to be mean. Her Dog comment even showed, I thought, a kind of humor. She was making it known, in a funny way (I thought) that she was jealous of the way Jim wouldn't lean on her and that the only thing he would even admit to needing was a dog. That phrasing didn't bother me a bit. I even got the impression that Jim found it funny...although it did also end that conversation. Jim seemed to realize that there wasn't anything more to be said on the topic so he left the room.

And I've said it before, but I'll be annoying and redundant and say again that I really don't think Jim slept on the couch that night. I think if that had been the intention of that scene, not so much of it would have been left open to interpretation. She probably just wanted it quiet so she could go to sleep while Jim was still up. I will admit that she was dismissing him at that moment, but I'm sure he came to bed later. If he had been in his pajamas (oooh...the garment that shall not be named!) and seemed ready to turn in and she had said that, I would have had a whole different take, but he was still, sadly, fully clothed and seemed likely to be up a while.

housemouse said:

Also, I wasn't all that impressed with the advice she gave Jim about replacing the things he is losing. I mean come on, replace carrying his gun with dancing? I know it was a metaphor and I am being too literal, but I just don't see that being all that comforting to him. He can't be the cop he once was no matter what, he really shouldn't be carrying a gun, he can't drive or do so many of the things he used to do, Christie's response is "Dance!" Umm, right.

Now this...I agree that dancing, in and of itself, was not a very comforting solution here but her advice was sound and wise, in my opinion. "If you feel like you're losing things, find other things to take their place" --not an exact quote. She never said dancing. Jim said, "Like dancing?" and she said yes, but it really could have meant any number of things. I loved her wisdom in that scene and the way she wouldn't let him succumb to self pity and how she told him what he was feeling was really part of acceptance. That's my favorite Christie scene in the entire series...the part where she seems to fully get what he is feeling and where she is let in enough to be in a position to be a help mate at last. Dancing was just what happened to be on the schedule for that evening, but I think she was just encouraging him not to give up and to find things he could still do that could bring fulfillment. Since Dancing was what Jim had agreed to do for "fun" with his wife to save the marriage, he was really setting his marriage up as that thing that could take the place of much of what he had lost and I LOVE that.

[hoosier]

Poor Christie,she has so many moods and moments its almost like she has a Jekyll and Hyde thing going! One minute she is sweet,supportive and understanding(Up on the Roof,Marlons Brando) then she's childish,sulky and selfish(In Your Face,Doggone). I get the impression that she is rather high maintenance--clothes,apartment,car,parties etc. She seemed to enjoy Walter's party but I think she would fit in at Nick's club Vertigo and its hip crowd better.

We don't know how she and Jim met and what attracted them to each other (season 2 )They are both Type A personalities--driven,determined,committed. They are both physically attractive. But how much do they have in common? After 5 years,it seems they still don't know all that much about each other (Past Imperfect)--and Christie accuses Jim of not communicating!

His infidelity hangs over the marriage but was only talked about in 4 Feet Under. I do think that was one thing she wanted to talk to Galloway about,if he took them on. I did notice that she never suggested going to a marriage counselor or therapist. Did she realize that Jim would would fight it tooth and nail? Was she waiting for him to realize if their marriage was worth saving and he would take the first step??? Her trust in him was shaken by his affair and I think she can't quite believe him when she says he isn't the same man. When he asked her for the mulligan in Rub a Tub, that should have proven it. Would the old Jim have been forthcoming?

We assume she supported his decision to go back to work(season 2 ) but then she complains that his work takes all his attention and leaves her out in the cold. She wants a normal life, but their life is far from normal. I think Christie gets Jim's condition intellectually(he's blind,he has limits) but not emotionally. She wants him to act and do things like he always had. She knows what buttons to push--ie Clay's party where she said she understood if he wasn't ready and would go alone and he took it as a challenge and went and then was left on his own while she mingled with her friends. Then the Boston trip. I just about yelled--CALL HIM. If he has the habit of not getting back with you, take the initiative and call him. She was mad and rather than telling flat out she hinted around about Karen's situation until it dawned on him. She took tyhe initiative about the dance lessons, knowing he would keep putting it off. Sometimes you need to take the bull by the horns.

I don't think Christie is a goddess or a villian. She's a woman in a difficult situation, trying to salvage her marriage, trying to come to terms with her husband's condition and its impact on not only their life together but on her life. If she wants something, if she wants his attention, she needs to be more vocal about it and not hint around and get mad when he doesn't recognize or appreciate what she wants or what she needs. Most people aren't mindreaders. It would be easier if they were.

[Katryna]

hoosier said:

Poor Christie,she has so many moods and moments its almost like she has a Jekyll and Hyde thing going! One minute she is sweet,supportive and understanding(Up on the Roof,Marlons Brando) then she's childish,sulky and selfish(In Your Face,Doggone). I get the impression that she is rather high maintenance--clothes,apartment,car,parties etc. She seemed to enjoy Walter's party but I think she would fit in at Nick's club Vertigo and its hip crowd better.

We don't know how she and Jim met and what attracted them to each other (season 2 )They are both Type A personalities--driven,determined,committed. They are both physically attractive. But how much do they have in common? After 5 years,it seems they still don't know all that much about each other (Past Imperfect)--and Christie accuses Jim of not communicating!

His infidelity hangs over the marriage but was only talked about in 4 Feet Under. I do think that was one thing she wanted to talk to Galloway about,if he took them on. I did notice that she never suggested going to a marriage counselor or therapist. Did she realize that Jim would would fight it tooth and nail? Was she waiting for him to realize if their marriage was worth saving and he would take the first step??? Her trust in him was shaken by his affair and I think she can't quite believe him when she says he isn't the same man. When he asked her for the mulligan in Rub a Tub, that should have proven it. Would the old Jim have been forthcoming?

We assume she supported his decision to go back to work(season 2 ) but then she complains that his work takes all his attention and leaves her out in the cold. She wants a normal life, but their life is far from normal. I think Christie gets Jim's condition intellectually(he's blind,he has limits) but not emotionally. She wants him to act and do things like he always had. She knows what buttons to push--ie Clay's party where she said she understood if he wasn't ready and would go alone and he took it as a challenge and went and then was left on his own while she mingled with her friends. Then the Boston trip. I just about yelled--CALL HIM. If he has the habit of not getting back with you, take the initiative and call him. She was mad and rather than telling flat out she hinted around about Karen's situation until it dawned on him. She took tyhe initiative about the dance lessons, knowing he would keep putting it off. Sometimes you need to take the bull by the horns.

I don't think Christie is a goddess or a villian. She's a woman in a difficult situation, trying to salvage her marriage, trying to come to terms with her husband's condition and its impact on not only their life together but on her life. If she wants something, if she wants his attention, she needs to be more vocal about it and not hint around and get mad when he doesn't recognize or appreciate what she wants or what she needs. Most people aren't mindreaders. It would be easier if they were.

I am not fond of Christie as a character. I would rather have seen Jim married to someone like the soldier's wife in Past Imperfect that he visited with Hermanson (forgive me - I've forgotten her name!) But that would have made the show much less interesting! That being said, I don't think Christie is a villain OR a goddess, either - she is just human.

When someone you love suddenly has an illness, or in this case a disability, that changes your life as well as theirs in a significant way - you get angry. You have to learn to separate the illness (or disability) from the person. This ties in with what you said about Christie getting his condition intellectually, but not emotionally.

I think that in scenes like the ones you mention in "In your face" and "Doggone", Christie is having trouble with directing that anger. She may be seeing the blindness rather than Jim. In the scene from Doggone she looks ready to explode!

[kytdunne]

(I'm retyping quotes since it's faster at the moment, so I apologize if I make any mistakes that cause misrepresentation):

Anna said: (re: Christie inviting Dunbar to the dinner party)

...when he is wavering, offers him an out - but he insists on going, even after she asks him if he is sure.

I thought this was simple blackmail. She not only baited the hook by suggesting he wasn't up to it, but double-baited with that offer to let him back out. Christie reeled Dunbar in, hook line and sinker.

mlm828 said:

I think it would have been entirely too saintly of her to refrain from mentioning Jim's infidelity after he accused her of having an affair...

That never even occurred to me - that she would *not* throw it at him. You know what they say about the guilty always suspecting the innocent of the same crimes. She *should* have thrown it at him, he damnwell deserved it and more. Of course, if she didn't stand up for herself, I think she'd have been too mousy for Dunbar in the first place.

housemouse said:

"Close the door on your way out" from Seoul Man - translation, "sleep on the couch tonight buddy."

(Either you mean "In Your Face" or I'm responding to the wrong scene): Since he opened it on his way in, it's only courteous that he close it on his way out. She was just putting the end to the conversation.

Add in the fact that Dunbar probably subscribes to the keep-the-door-open-or-closed, not-halfway routine, and it makes even more sense. Especially if one partner's awake and the other is going to bed.

and

Maybe she is thinking that if she pretends their lives are back to normal - the way they were before the shooting and before the affair - they will be back to normal.

If anything, I figured Christie thought their marriage would stand a better chance with a new normal, since she had long-term complaints with their marriage before the shooting.

shmeep said: (in reference to "You don't need me, you need your dog.")

I even got the impression that Jim found it funny...

I was thinking more in terms of 'so lame it wasn't worth responding to'.

And I agree that he didn't sleep on the couch.

and: (re: if you feel like you're losing things, find other things to take their place)

...her advice was sound and wise.... ...he was really setting his marriage up as that thing that could take the place of much of what he had lost....

I really liked that tidbit of advice and how it plays into their relationship improving.

and:

I loved her wisdom in that scene and the way she wouldn't let him succumb to self pity and how she told him what he was feeling was really part of acceptance.

You've lost me on this one. If what he's feeling is self-pity, how can she turn it into acceptance?

Regardless, I thought she dropped the ball entirely on the 'acceptance' bit. He's feeling loss and frustration, and justifiably so. I don't consider that self-pity at this stage of the decision and change. He still hasn't faced a day at work without his weapon. A lot of emotions are wrapped up in all that, and she just brushes it off with 'acceptance.' Probably the better course with Dunbar, but the wrong choice of words.

hoosier said:

I get the impression she is rather high maintenance...

Absolutely!

After 5 years, it seems they still don't know all that much about each other.

Exactly. They seem to have gotten along fine leading their own lives, together. Meeting up for evenings, nights out, whatever. I still find it interesting that Dunbar asked her out to dinner so they could talk. Almost suggesting that if they didn't go somewhere specific, together, they'd be engaged in their own pursuits.

I did, however, think she's suggested they could see someone, long before Dunbar brought it up. Is my memory playing tricks on me (again)?

and:

Her trust in him was shaken by his affair and I think she can't quite believe him when he says he isn't the same man. When he asked her for the mulligan in Rub a Tub, that should have proven it. Would the old Jim have been as forthcoming?

I think she has every reason to be dubious. And yeah, Dunbar would've been pulling any string there was to get back in her good graces, if he'd intended to try working on the marriage. Given that she hasn't forgiven him - or forgotten - in a year, I doubt Christie can believe he's really changed without a few years and some hard times behind them. He's going to have to prove himself, and so far, he's been too preoccupied getting himself back on track, and then getting his job back.

But hey, I think you're dead-on right about Christie knowing which buttons to push when she challenged Dunbar to attend the party. Heh.

Kyt

[greenbeing]

I have found something to like or respect about every character on this show so far--except for Christie Dunbar! Not that I dislike her, I don't think she's a villain in any sense of the word, but...

I guess I have a bone to pick with the writers. They totally slacked on this character. They didn't give her hardly any backstory, the character was shoddily written. I realize women can suffer from moodswings, but this bordered the ridiculous.

What do we know about Christie? Apparently, she works at a magazine or something because she has an editor, and she has to do something for fashion week. She likes to dress up, she likes to go to dinner parties with other over-dressed people who don't look overly friendly.

My biggest beef--Galloway says, Remember the fun things you used to do together, and do them again. What a great opening to learn something about the Dunbars! And the writers totally blew it. Jim and Christie didn't even discuss, well, this is what we used to do. No, they just went ahead and started brainstorming new things to do together. Giving us no impression of who they used to be together.

In Jim's dream of them in the diner, how shallow is that? All they say is, I love you, how'd I get so lucky? Pshaw!

Yes, they like each other. They both have to have redeeming qualities. I don't think Christie is a horrible evil person, just like Jim has problems, but he has strengths, too.

Sure, she was understanding about what happened to Terry and about Greg. She helped him talk through a couple hard things when he opened up. But she has no real substance. They never talk about her, other than her saying she's the same person from before the shooting. Well, who was that? She can be sweet to him, hold his hand as they walk along the river, fine. And I totally understand her going off about Boston and other things. She deserves it. But she's so one-dimensional!

Maybe they had planned for Christie to leave after the first episode, or a few episodes in. Maybe that's why she's so--schizophrenic? No, not even, not even shallow like a regular person is, with her own likes and dislikes, forget everyone else. Enigma? Yes. And I do blame that on the writers. They copped out.

So I entreat you all, please help me find something to like about Christie! Something to respect.

She's such a difficult character because of the Lack of Christie in the show. It almost seemed like they put her there so we'd feel bad for Jim being married to her. But there has to be Something... Anything. Or why would he have married her? I get the stress of conflicts in their life, before and since the shooting. I just wish we'd have been privy to any info besides the affair and his workaholism.

Help?

--GB

[maggiethecat]

greenbeing said:

My biggest beef--Galloway says, Remember the fun things you used to do together, and do them again. What a great opening to learn something about the Dunbars! And the writers totally blew it. Jim and Christie didn't even discuss, well, this is what we used to do. No, they just went ahead and started brainstorming new things to do together. Giving us no impression of who they used to be together.

And I thought I was hard on the woman. Jeez, you could give lessons!

What did they do in the "old days," what brought them together? Well, considering the fact that there are hardly two more divergent and diverse worlds than the NYPD and the New York fashion industry, I always assumed the Dunbar's initial attraction was physical. Oh, yeah. And, in the early days, they probably did what any courting couple does -- went out to dinner, to movies, or, as we saw in one of Jim's poignant reveries, gazed adoringly into each other's eyes in a jazz club.

But we do get a clue, when Jim asks Tom what he does with his girlfriend on the weekends -- catch the look on his face when Tom answers movies and board games? So those are out. They have to find something new. Okay, the pottery class riposte was very funny, and you know I'm one of those who is forever sorry that all the writers could come up with was ballroom dancing . . .

. . . but, to a certain extent, Christie was a dramatic device in much the same way that Russo's antagonism was. The creative team wanted to pile as much angst on Jim Dunbar's plate as they could. And Christie was part of that: her iciness, her unwillingness to forgive Jim for his past infidelities, the clumsy way in which she tried to include him in her life with imappropriate dinner parties and publishing conventuions in Boston.

I agree that Christie was not as skillfully written as other characters were. By contrast, how much of a sense did we get of Lt. Fisk's character and personality? MIchael Gaston was given perhaps even less screen time than Rena Sofer was.

So, to a certain extent, Christie was simply written the way she was for a reason. And, although I also thought at times the writers could have done better, I understood what they were going for. The part of Jim Dunbar was beautifully written and perfectly acted, however, and I guess, in the end, that was enough for me.

More than enough.

[greenbeing]

I totally agree with the physical aspect of their relationship. I just can't imagine you'd marry someone when that's all there is to it. But I guess "opposites attract" right?

I also thought Jim looked v. uncomfortable in the jazz club. He was with his wife, yes, and she was looking at him adoringly, but I thought the look on his face said, geez, how much longer do I have to keep smiling and pretending I like this?

Oh, yeah, poor Fisk was totally overlooked. He was just "the boss." But Christie was "the wife" (trophy wife, yes), I wish they'd done more with her besides just given angst.

I'm just trying to figure Christie out because I've gotten to the point in MJ where they need to spend some time together and Not Fight. (I actually have a deleted scene right now--I let the characters take over, Jim and Christie, and just let them go to see where they went. Yup, that's not where I'd planned to go in this story. I think it'll eventually happen, but...) So I'm trying to find something about Christie that's redeeming. They were much too good at living their own lives. Perhaps, if Christie could have just let the infidelity thing go, they could have learned to cohabitate beautifully... Though, if she had let it go, that would have made her a very weak character, and she's not a wet blanket.

Hmph! What a tough relationship! I really wanted to stick close to the show, but maybe I'll just have to go out on a limb and make it all up.

--GB

[maggiethecat]

greenbeing said:

In Jim's dream of them in the diner, how shallow is that? All they say is, I love you, how'd I get so lucky? Pshaw!

Them's fightin' words, since you're talking to someone who thinks "Up on the Roof" was just about bloody perfect. Here's the thing about Jim's dreams. Whether they are fantasy or nightmare, in every one of them -- at least at the onset -- two things are ironclad: Jim is sighted and Christie is perfect. That's what makes them not real.

And maybe, just maybe, the women viewers of the show were never expected to "like and respect" Christie. Maybe we were were supposed to think that she just was not "getting" this complex and wonderful man, and, given the circumstances, we, of course, would be so much more empathetic and loving. Again, one of the basics of successful drama is that we identify with the characters and project ourselves into the situation, right?

How many times have we all watched (or read) Gone With the Wind and thought, "What is wriong with you, Scarlett, you ninny? Ashley's a wimp and Rhett's wonderful."

Like I said, a dramatic device, and one that's worked since the Ancient Greeks!

[greenbeing]

Yup, that's my problem I hated Gone with the Wind. It was so hyped up, like It's a Wonderful Life, so one of my friends made me watch both of them one day. I loved IaWL, hated GwtW. It just didn't click, on any level.

"Jim's always sighted, and Christie's always perfect." True. Also, Christie's always hopelessly. in. love. with him, making eyes at him.

Which is funny, as we're not sure this ever actually happened, them getting along. I guess the daydreams are the ideal, right? If they are, though, that proves they really had nothing in common except the physical attraction...

And in the future, I'll try to avoid examples from Up on the Roof

--GB

[maggiethecat]

greenbeing said:

Yup, that's my problem I hated Gone with the Wind. It just didn't click, on any level.--GB

Jesus wept. Vivien Leigh didn't get to you? Only one of the great screen performance of the 20th Century. But then again, the movie is only the Cliff Notes compared to the book.

Read the book. Forget the movie.

There is a reason Margaret Mitchell won the 1936 Pulitzer Prize.