S21.E10: Black And Blue

[WendyCR72]

Season Finale time! Airs May 19, 2022:

Quote

The murder of an off-duty NYPD detective threatens to tear the city apart. Cosgrove mourns the loss of a friend and asks Capt. Benson for help solving the case. McCoy and Price disagree on how to prosecute the culprit.

(As an aside, this title also sounded familiar, but it's a "close but no cigar" in terms of a repeat title. Season 10 had an episode, "Black, White And Blue".)

[Xeliou66]

This sounds like an interesting plot - but god I’m dreading the appearance of St Olivia. Why oh why are they bringing her on here? I really dread seeing her stink up the Mothership - if they were going to crossover why couldn’t we have a Mothership character on SVU, which would add to the quality of SVU, instead of St Olivia dragging down the Mothership. I guess they want to shove St Olivia down everyone’s throats, but I think if they think her appearance will make Mothership viewers tune into SVU I’m afraid they are badly mistaken - if anything it will make them turn off the show in disgust. 

[Prevailing Wind]

I think we get it - you hate Olivia Benson.  Personally, I have always thought (since she made her first appearance) that Hargitay couldn't act her way out of a paper bag. <big sigh> TPTB don't care what we think, as long as we buy the sponsors' products.

[WendyCR72]

Eriq LaSalle (ex-Dr. Peter Benton, ER) is the director of tonight's episode.

[scarynikki12]

Douchey Investment Guy did well by insisting on his lawyer right away but I still hated every inch of him. So well done to the actor.

"She's nineteen! If you don't like it, don't date teenagers" Well done Frank! 

The show has always gone way overboard when they do a cop as victim story and tonight was no exception. It may be entirely accurate as to how everyone reacts in real life but it makes for annoying melodramatic television.

I liked the acting in the confrontation between Frank and Nolan but it made me wish all over again that the actors were playing each others roles. Since I can't have that I'll take more one on one scenes between the two next season. And if Donovan and Hugh ever want to make a buddy road trip movie I'd go see it. 

Nolan was salty with the judge. It looks good on him.

[WendyCR72]

Yeah, this one hit all of the hot buttons. But I also liked Cosgrove with Nolan. Both points of view were shown and both sides had their time.

I still think the writing is not as sharp as the first 20 seasons, more "in your face". So I do hope the next season will relearn the art of subtlety.

And Nolan with a 'tude does look good on him, more of a person, less of a caricature.

And I'll say it: I am no fan of Olivia Benson, but the one scene (of which I am grateful for) was measured and not histrionic, so it was a lot better than I feared.

See ya next season, Show!

[peacheslatour]

30 minutes ago, WendyCR72 said:

Yeah, this one hit all of the hot buttons. But I also liked Cosgrove with Nolan. Both points of view were shown and both sides had their time.

I still think the writing is not as sharp as the first 20 seasons, more "in your face". So I do hope the next season will relearn the art of subtlety.

And Nolan with a 'tude does look good on him, more of a person, less of a caricature.

And I'll say it: I am no fan of Olivia Benson, but the one scene (of which I am grateful for) was measured and not histrionic, so it was a lot better than I feared.

See ya next season, Show!

So, would you say that the show has recovered a bit from it's rocky start?

[stonehaven]

This was a bit of a layered episode and I could see both sides of it.

The one thing I completely disagreed with was the showing of the video of the victim in court. It should have not been allowed as the victim was treated as evidence or even testimony and could not offer context to the remarks. The girlfriend should have been at least allowed  to add context for the remarks.

(I do have some family experience with this but for the sake of this forum, I'll refrain from personal context)..

[EtheltoTillie]

I don't think the prosecution should have been ambushed like that. They should have done more research up front on their victim.

[Xeliou66]

For the most part - this was really good IMO. I was nervous going in, given both the sensitive-hot button subject matter (which is sometimes written with a lot of clunky dialogue) and the appearance of Benson (who I make no secret about disliking) - but they handled everything pretty well. I liked that I could sympathize with all sides - I understood Cosgrove being upset about his friend’s death and the police wanting a harsh punishment, I could sympathize with Price as he was following the law and facts and doing the best he could with what he had, Bernard was caught in a tough situation as he could see both sides, and to an extent I could sympathize with the defendant who was confronting the scumbag who was abusing her sister when the detective intervened and we don’t know what happened from there. If the detective was a racist, then the jury probably got the right verdict, if he wasn’t and the defendant was lying, she should’ve been convicted on the top count. But I guess the jury couldn’t be sure so they split the difference. My own opinion was that they probably should’ve convicted on the top count, as they had no proof of the defendant’s story, and I think it was more likely the cop pursued her because she had a gun and not because of her skin color, and there was no solid proof the victim was racist, I thought the video he made to his girlfriend was in poor taste but not racist, and I agree with the above poster who said the girlfriend should’ve been allowed to elaborate more on the relationship with Doyle.

The one thing the episode could’ve used was more Jack, I get that Sam is 81 and probably isn’t up for a huge role but an extra scene of him consulting with Price/Maroun would’ve been nice. He was great as always when he was on, and his words to Nolan about following the facts and the law was wisdom as usual from him.

I liked the ending a lot where Maroun recalled Price’s words from episode 1 about if you try a good and fair case the jury’s verdict is usually right regardless of whether it feels good, it was a nice call back to how the season started and a good way to end it.

I was relieved that Benson’s role was minor and she wasn’t annoying, she was just assisting, that kind of cameo crossover I’m fine with. McGrath’s appearance didn’t add anything, but that character hasn’t had much of a purpose on SVU either, so that just felt like filler. I liked seeing Dixon take on a bigger role which made sense. 

Overall this was a success, especially considering the controversial subject matter - I appreciated that I understood everyone’s perspective and things weren’t black and white so to speak, there were many layers to this case and I understood each one and I thought the writing was good in that regard and in leaving the viewer contemplating about what justice would be in the case, it left the viewer thinking instead of telling them what to think, and I like those kinds of episodes. So I liked this episode.

Overall I’m thrilled to have L&O back - I’ll post more extensive thoughts on season 21 over on the general discussion thread, but I thought this was a solid note to end the season on and I’m looking forward to season 22!!

[shapeshifter]

8 minutes ago, Xeliou66 said:

I liked the ending a lot where Maroun recalled Price’s words from episode 1 about if you try a good and fair case the jury’s verdict is usually right regardless of whether it feels good, it was a nice call back to how the season started and a good way to end it.

You liked that? That was the most eyerolling moment for me (mileage varies). 
I thought their smiles were weirdly inappropriate at that moment, and the dramatic music made it worse. 
If they had shot it without those 2 annoyances, I might have liked it too.

[Diana Berry]

8 minutes ago, Diana Berry said:

Good episode

[gesundheit]

When I turned off my DVR's recording of this episode, my TV happened to be on Sundance which was airing a 1995 episode with... Michael Beach as the defense attorney! Who I was watching as the defense in this episode thinking, "This feels familiar, I wonder if he was on the original run." I was excited for a second that they brought back his attorney from 27 years ago, but sadly this year he played Brian Harris while in '95 he played Elliott. Still a fun little synergy moment with the rerun that aired tonight!

On the other hand, this episode really made me cringe. I don't want to see any more L&O franchise cases about this issue. They're so simplistic and clueless about it every single time. Nonetheless, I think it's gotten better over the course of the season (well, the investigation half of the episode has gotten better, I still find Price/Maroun clunky and artificial) and I'm glad it'll come back in the fall. 

[WendyCR72]

3 hours ago, peacheslatour said:

So, would you say that the show has recovered a bit from it's rocky start?

Sorta, kinda. But it still has a way to go.

[Door County Cherry]

4 hours ago, EtheltoTillie said:

I don't think the prosecution should have been ambushed like that. They should have done more research up front on their victim.

I liked the first half of the episode but this is where it started to unravel for me.  The IA cop would have been on the witness list so they should have known the angle the defense was going to take and argued all of this before the trial began.  I'm surprised it was allowed. 

And if the prosecution lost the argument, then they would have done all the research and called the girlfriend while they were presenting evidence.  Instead, it was a mish mash of mixing up witnesses and I hate when law shows do that.  It's prosecution and then defense.  The prosecution can't call a new witness again unless it's to directly impeach testimony.  

 

[shapeshifter]

3 hours ago, Door County Cherry said:

I liked the first half of the episode but this is where it started to unravel for me.  The IA cop would have been on the witness list so they should have known the angle the defense was going to take and argued all of this before the trial began.  I'm surprised it was allowed. 

And wouldn’t Detective Cosgrove have known about his cop friend’s IA investigations for racism and thought that relevant to the defense’s strategy?   
  🤔 
I guess Cosgrove not knowing Jimmy was divorced 3 years ago was supposed to cover Cosgrove not remembering anything else about the victim?  
Okay. 😑  
But then shouldn’t it have been made clear that Cosgrove (and through him the other angry cops in the courtroom) was not really wanting to see justice for his dear old cop friend who he only vaguely recalls, but rather Cosgrove was terrified that he’d be next? 
IDK. 🤷🏻‍♀️  
I guess that was supposed to be covered by the one line early in the episode from Police Chief (McGruff? McGraff?) who gave McCoy orders to get a life sentence to send a message about the consequences of shooting a cop.

I admit to often whining about how the writers just needed a throwaway line to make the plot points hang together.  
But to me, these 21st episodes are like throwaway line sandwiches with just tiny bits of the meat of the story.   
I’m not sure 🤔 whether I can stomach watching that kind of show.

Edited May 20, 2022 by shapeshifter

[TV Diva Queen]

at the end the female ADA said two things to Price (words of wisdom) the second was what McCoy said a couple weeks ago - and the first one sounded really familiar, was it Adam's quote from the days of yore?  Sorry I can be more specific - I'm a little under the weather.  Signed, the queen of vagueness.  

[watcher1006]

Mostly I liked this finale to the season.

Maybe it was okay that the rich investment/finance witness got immunity. I think his karma is coming to him. For one thing turning up like that in a high profile case where it comes out that he dated a teenager won't do much for his career.

The jury delivered an ambiguous verdict but hard evidence of the situation was lacking and the defendant did present a sympathetic figure.   Trying to protect her sister when everything went south. Perhaps Price could have pressed her a little harder on her story. She claimed the gun was in her coat and that she pulled it out when the detective approached her with his gun drawn. If that is what happened then IMO a more logical course of action would have been to just throw her hands up and plead surrender.

[Trey]

1 hour ago, watcher1006 said:

If that is what happened then IMO a more logical course of action would have been to just throw her hands up and plead surrender.

But that's exactly what she didn't want to do since she has seen for herself that complying doesn't necessarily provide a safe encounter with the cops but is just as likely to result in the cops beating the person severely,

[blackwing]

I liked this episode, I think it is a tough issue but it was handled well here.  I liked that the girlfriend acknowledged that her friends find it interesting that she is a black woman dating a white cop.  I like that Maroun mentioned that people in certain communities don't always trust the police.  I liked Frank being impassioned about his friend to Nolan, and I liked that Kevin calmed him down.

So the defence's whole case was that he was racist, and that's why he assumed that Kendra was a criminal?  She was holding a gun on the weasel investment guy.  That's why he chased her and not weasel.  I was surprised that Price didn't talk more about that other than the one line.  The Internal Affairs lady, he could have done so much more with her.  "Over the course of your two investigations, did you do any research as to Detective Doyle's arrest history?  Would it surprise you to learn that over the course of his 20 year career with the New York City Police Department, that of the 15,000 arrests that he made, 5,000 of those arrested were black?  How many of those detainees filed a complaint against him that was investigated by Internal Affairs?"

Also, why didn't the girlfriend do more?  She could have talked about how they met, how he met her family, what he told her he thought about her parents and how much he liked them.  She could have talked about their conversations about the challenges they face as a couple from the outside world and each perspective.  Michael Beach would have objected that this is all hearsay but I think it would have met a hearsay exception, declaration of deceased who is unavailable, and statement is being made in good faith and with personal knowledge of the deceased.

17 hours ago, stonehaven said:

The one thing I completely disagreed with was the showing of the video of the victim in court. It should have not been allowed as the victim was treated as evidence or even testimony and could not offer context to the remarks. The girlfriend should have been at least allowed  to add context for the remarks.

Fully agree, Price should have prompted her to explain.  Instead, show acts like "aha, he IS racist".

I don't really understand why they made such a big deal of the special appearance by Olivia Benson.  She had one scene and added absolutely nothing to the investigation.  What was the whole point?  To show that they are in a connected universe?  We already knew that.  I think it would be nice to get a guest appearance by Alana de la Garza next season.  She's on another Dick Wolf show, I'm sure it could be arranged.

[watcher1006]

2 hours ago, Trey said:

But that's exactly what she didn't want to do since she has seen for herself that complying doesn't necessarily provide a safe encounter with the cops but is just as likely to result in the cops beating the person severely,

IMO the risk of getting shot is much higher if one reaches into one's coat for a gun while being confronted by a cop with a gun already drawn. But maybe he DIDN'T have his gun drawn. That's the point - Price needed to probe for inconsistencies in the defendant's story since there was no person and no visual evidence to give a separate account of what happened.

[Trey]

1 hour ago, watcher1006 said:

IMO the risk of getting shot is much higher if one reaches into one's coat for a gun while being confronted by a cop with a gun already drawn.

Very true.  Maybe her hand was already in her pocket, sort of holding the gun so it wouldn't bounce around.  Maybe she even shot through her pocket.  I guess we'll never know, which I find frustrating; I like things all wrapped up for me.

[howiveaddict]

My nit pick is that the sister still had stitches in her head when this case went to trial.  And what a sloppy stitching job the emergency room that took care of her did.  They could have closed that wound so that it didn't have such big scars. Or in reality they would close the wound with something like super glue or steri strips.  

But, it's nice that the New York court system is so non busy that they can arrest, arraign, prosecute and prevent a case before the original victim's wound has time to heal.  I live in a small city and it takes at least 6 months for cases to go to trial. Guess there isn't as much crime in NYC.

[preeya]

2 hours ago, howiveaddict said:

But, it's nice that the New York court system is so non busy that they can arrest, arraign, prosecute and prevent a case before the original victim's wound has time to heal.  I live in a small city and it takes at least 6 months for cases to go to trial. Guess there isn't as much crime in NYC.

Time, distance, and geography mean nothing to TV crime solvers. My biggest annoyance is when they track perps on surveillance cameras. 

[Prevailing Wind]

12 hours ago, blackwing said:

I don't really understand why they made such a big deal of the special appearance by Olivia Benson.  She had one scene and added absolutely nothing to the investigation.  What was the whole point?  To show that they are in a connected universe?  We already knew that.  I think it would be nice to get a guest appearance by Alana de la Garza next season.  She's on another Dick Wolf show, I'm sure it could be arranged.

To get the folks that love Benson to watch L&O.  Sheer ratings ploy.

[WendyCR72]

8 hours ago, preeya said:

Time, distance, and geography mean nothing to TV crime solvers. My biggest annoyance is when they track perps on surveillance cameras. 

Well, the franchise tried early on. One example, Criminal Intent, had an episode, "The Good Doctor" in S1, where the murder took place in January. The trial - per the location notes as the franchise loves - was said to have taken place in late April.

Except there was a goof, because even though it was said to be April, it showed Goren, Eames, and Carver all exiting the courthouse in winter gear. If they wanted the illusion of time passing, have end scenes inside the courthouse!

Now, so late in the franchise, time seems so arbitrary... Dead one week, the trial the next. It takes MONTHS, if not a year, for the process in reality. Dick Wolf used to care about the details. I guess that's no longer the case.

[Totale]

They should have had the victim's video thrown out because Mick Jagger never sang that brown sugar was the best sugar of all.  If they wanted to invoke Rolling Stones lyrics they should have used "Some Girls".

They didn't hit hard enough that she had the gun out to threaten the stockbroker, so the victim saw it when he intervened.  He chased the Black woman rather than the White man because she was the one he'd seen commit a criminal act.

[shapeshifter]

38 minutes ago, Totale said:

They didn't hit hard enough that she had the gun out to threaten the stockbroker, so the victim saw it when he intervened.  He chased the Black woman rather than the White man because she was the one he'd seen commit a criminal act.

I took away from Nolan's choice to not press further that he knew the jury was sympathetic towards the defendant, and if he, a privileged, white lawyer, got verbally aggressive with the defendant, a young, female, POC trying to protect her abused sister, the jury would likely acquit her on all counts. So Nolan stopped with this, which let the jury question her truthfulness rather than him, and did at least get a conviction on the lesser charge.

• [NOLAN PRICE] The gun was in your hand, not your jacket, correct? 
  [DEFENDANT] No. It was my in my jacket. 
  [NOLAN PRICE] So with Detective Doyle's gun trained on you, you were still somehow able to retrieve the gun from your jacket and shoot him twice? 
  [DEFENDANT] That's what happened.

[dttruman]

20 hours ago, howiveaddict said:

My nit pick is that the sister still had stitches in her head when this case went to trial.  And what a sloppy stitching job the emergency room that took care of her did.  They could have closed that wound so that it didn't have such big scars. Or in reality they would close the wound with something like super glue or steri strips.  

But, it's nice that the New York court system is so non busy that they can arrest, arraign, prosecute and prevent a case before the original victim's wound has time to heal.  I live in a small city and it takes at least 6 months for cases to go to trial. Guess there isn't as much crime in NYC.

 

On 5/19/2022 at 9:51 PM, stonehaven said:

The one thing I completely disagreed with was the showing of the video of the victim in court. It should have not been allowed as the victim was treated as evidence or even testimony and could not offer context to the remarks. The girlfriend should have been at least allowed  to add context for the remarks.

IMO, the writers and producers were trying to address a couple of hot button topics with this episode, but I thought they kind of manipulated the plot,  so the viewers and the jury would come up with a bias conclusion that "throws some shade" on the police dept and plays the race card.

They conveniently allowed the video of the victim, but STONEHAVEN makes a very good point that the context of it was being left out besides his girlfriend's testimony.

The other manipulation that was pointed out by HOWIVEADDICT, where Regina who had stitches on her head was done very poorly by the hospital and were very noticeable at the trial. I thought it was presented this way to show the severity of the attack on Regina and maybe show more sympathy towards Kendra.

When the verdict came out,I thought placing just a few cops and just a few members of family and friends for Kendra in the courtroom was kind of cheesy when the verdict came out. There should have more of each faction outside on the steps of the building like they have done in other episodes.

It seems like the writers and producers are still trying to push the narrative that the police are still systemically racist, even though new police procedures have been invoked. I wonder if they plan on coming up with an episode that deals with the rampant increase in violent crimes, especially random attacks on people by gangs of kids. They might also address the lack of prosecution and low bail for said crimes.

[Route66]

On 5/20/2022 at 3:36 PM, watcher1006 said:

IMO the risk of getting shot is much higher if one reaches into one's coat for a gun while being confronted by a cop with a gun already drawn. But maybe he DIDN'T have his gun drawn. That's the point - Price needed to probe for inconsistencies in the defendant's story since there was no person and no visual evidence to give a separate account of what happened.

Trained firearms handler, here.

If someone has a gun pointed at you, the last thing you should do is attempt to draw your own weapon. You can't draw a gun and get it on target faster than he can pull the trigger. 

[vb68]

On 5/19/2022 at 9:35 PM, peacheslatour said:

So, would you say that the show has recovered a bit from it's rocky start?

I would. It definitely got better as it went along. At least Bernard and Cosgrove found a certain rhythm. I can do without Frank's annoying whistle and his very forced agitator role when they want him to push a point of view on Bernard. But when they relax that, it worked somewhat better.

Speaking of Kevin and Frank, it was interesting to see Bernard call Frank "a good guy" to Price. I wasn't entirely sure he felt that way. Even if he doesn't completely, he still said it.

The Order section still needs  a lot of improvements for me. Something is missing. Maybe the casting/chemistry or the writing, or probably both. Sadly I think it's time for Jack to retire. He hasn't really been in it enough to add much. Adam and even Foghorn ,er... Arthur were used way better as foils.

I thought it was ironic they tried to use Maroon as the voice of reason at the end with her line if that both sides were mad, it must be a good result. She should had been fired for picking up the drugs for the witness last week. 

Edited May 22, 2022 by vb68

[dttruman]

3 hours ago, vb68 said:

Speaking of Kevin and Frank, it was interesting to see Bernard call Frank "a good guy" to Price. I wasn't entirely sure he felt that way. Even if he doesn't completely, he still said it.

Did this kind of remind you (or anybody) of Briscoe and Green when they first started to work together? They seem like they are still trying to figure each other out. Briscoe and Green took just a 2 or 3 episodes to figure each other out, if I remember right.

Did anyone think that Dixon's rant about the cop getting shot and killed was too forced. I don't ever remember Cragen or Van Buren going off like that. Granted it affected them in a sad way but there was no real anger. What Dixon did was reminded me more of Briscoe when a cop got shot and killed. He always called for some serious justice, almost revenge.

[The Wild Sow]

On 5/20/2022 at 11:11 PM, howiveaddict said:

My nit pick is that the sister still had stitches in her head when this case went to trial.  And what a sloppy stitching job the emergency room that took care of her did.  They could have closed that wound so that it didn't have such big scars. Or in reality they would close the wound with something like super glue or steri strips.  

But, it's nice that the New York court system is so non busy that they can arrest, arraign, prosecute and prevent a case before the original victim's wound has time to heal.  I live in a small city and it takes at least 6 months for cases to go to trial. Guess there isn't as much crime in NYC.

Oh yeah, I noticed that too!  The Law & Order-verse with their Instant Trials!

 

On 5/20/2022 at 12:12 PM, watcher1006 said:

Maybe it was okay that the rich investment/finance witness got immunity. I think his karma is coming to him. For one thing turning up like that in a high profile case where it comes out that he dated a teenager won't do much for his career.

Huh, now that her big sister is in jail, she won't have anyone looking out for her.  She'll probably marry him!

(As a 19-year-old, she could do that regardless....)

[dttruman]

2 hours ago, The Wild Sow said:

On 5/20/2022 at 12:12 PM, watcher1006 said:

Maybe it was okay that the rich investment/finance witness got immunity. I think his karma is coming to him. For one thing turning up like that in a high profile case where it comes out that he dated a teenager won't do much for his career.

Huh, now that her big sister is in jail, she won't have anyone looking out for her.  She'll probably marry him!

(As a 19-year-old, she could do that regardless....)

If there is Karma out there for this guy, they should have showed him getting served up and that he is getting sued by Regina for assault, pain and suffering and anything else her lawyer can think of

[Joimiaroxeu]

And then Olivia Benson showed up. Ugh. Why was she even needed?

Dang, Dixon climbed right up Maroun's ass and turned on a flamethrower.

Don't "all due respect" me! 🙄

Aw geez. "He can't be racist because his girlfriend is Black!" Seriously, Law & Order? At least that nonsense got shot down as an excuse but Price should've never tried it. Racial fetishes are a thing.

Lol, Michelle Pierce from IA looked to me like she was being force-fed a diet of raw meat, fresh from slaughter. Anyhoo, again Price was caught not having fully done his homework. It's gotten tiresome to me. Is he incompetent or just over-confident?

That was a no-win verdict. Bleh. This episode was in the realm of fantasy and science fiction AFAIC.

Hopefully the people producing this show will take the summer to fix the writing and characterization problems. They can only coast on fan goodwill for so long.

[Chyromaniac]

Here’s what’s missing for me (specifically in this episode, but I feel like it’s been an issue all season) - closing arguments.  I remember reading an article where, iirc, Dick Wolf said that L&O was one half murder mystery, and one half morality play.  The mystery is the cops’ investigation- coming to a theory about how the crime was committed.  The moral question is the trial, which decides who - if anyone - is responsible, and what that verdict says about the issues surrounding the crime.  And, typically in L&O storytelling, the closing argument is the part of the trial which frames that question.

Here they just jumped straight from testimony/cross examination to the verdict, which I think confused some of the issues.  Like the deal with her gun - it doesn’t seem like it was clear enough that that was in debate.  She says she didn’t have it out, but the man she confronted says she did.  That’s a question that a closing can put to both the jury, and the audience.  When you look at the evidence from the investigation and the testimony from the trial, what/who do you actually believe?  

[Prevailing Wind]

11 hours ago, Joimiaroxeu said:

And then Olivia Benson showed up. Ugh. Why was she even needed?

Ratings.

[dttruman]

2 hours ago, Chyromaniac said:

Here they just jumped straight from testimony/cross examination to the verdict, which I think confused some of the issues.  Like the deal with her gun - it doesn’t seem like it was clear enough that that was in debate.  She says she didn’t have it out, but the man she confronted says she did.  That’s a question that a closing can put to both the jury, and the audience.  When you look at the evidence from the investigation and the testimony from the trial, what/who do you actually believe?  

Do you think the writers and producers kind of rigged it when the judge allowed the video, but not let the girlfriend testify as to it's context. I also thought they rigged it when they showed the reaction of the jury, because IMO, I didn't think that was a racist statement because on many sitcoms and dramas I have heard similar terms used by other blacks. I.E. "Get your black ass up to your room" and the one in the video I have heard referenced many times, yet the jury's reaction seemed very offended here. I thought they fixed this trial in favor of the cop being racist and having the jury believe he was racist. In the past they would lay out the actions and circumstances equally on both sides, then come up a jury verdict.

As for the closing arguments, IMO they drop them because they have only had time for one summation and they have shown a couple of Price's. They aren't going to show the defense's unless they can also show Price's too, so I figured they would drop both.

[shapeshifter]

8 hours ago, Chyromaniac said:

Here’s what’s missing for me (specifically in this episode, but I feel like it’s been an issue all season) - closing arguments.  I remember reading an article where, iirc, Dick Wolf said that L&O was one half murder mystery, and one half morality play.  The mystery is the cops’ investigation- coming to a theory about how the crime was committed.  The moral question is the trial, which decides who - if anyone - is responsible, and what that verdict says about the issues surrounding the crime.  And, typically in L&O storytelling, the closing argument is the part of the trial which frames that question.

Here they just jumped straight from testimony/cross examination to the verdict, which I think confused some of the issues.  Like the deal with her gun - it doesn’t seem like it was clear enough that that was in debate.  She says she didn’t have it out, but the man she confronted says she did.  That’s a question that a closing can put to both the jury, and the audience.  When you look at the evidence from the investigation and the testimony from the trial, what/who do you actually believe?  

Excellently stated point. 
FWIW, according to this website, apparently commercials in 1990 used 22% of the hour (13 minutes), and in 2018 used 32% (19 minutes) of the hour:  waynesthisandthat.com/commerciallength.htm
Does anyone watching a lot of reruns want to note how long a few of the summations ran and which episodes/years?
Also, did they start cutting summations around 2001 (or later) when commercial time increased to about what it was in 2018?
Sorry I didn't find length of commercials for more recent years. Maybe later.

[dttruman]

2 hours ago, shapeshifter said:

Excellently stated point. 
FWIW, according to this website, apparently commercials in 1990 used 22% of the hour (13 minutes), and in 2018 used 32% (19 minutes) of the hour:  waynesthisandthat.com/commerciallength.htm
Does anyone watching a lot of reruns want to note how long a few of the summations ran and which episodes/years?
Also, did they start cutting summations around 2001 (or later) when commercial time increased to about what it was in 2018?
Sorry I didn't find length of commercials for more recent years. Maybe later.

When SVU is streamed, do they show the extra features that those elongated commercials take out of that hour? I don't get that streaming service, I just watch the show during prime time. I will set my VCR the next season (if I can remember) and see how long the commercials are for an episode. If a show goes into syndication, can they literally turn an hour long show into a half hour show but with tons of commercials?

[Prairie Rose]

22 hours ago, Joimiaroxeu said:

Anyhoo, again Price was caught not having fully done his homework. It's gotten tiresome to me. Is he incompetent or just over-confident?

Both? The show hasn't really fleshed out Price - or Maroun. The cop side seems to have found its rhythm - now they really need to work on the prosecutors.

[Chyromaniac]

17 hours ago, dttruman said:

Do you think the writers and producers kind of rigged it when the judge allowed the video, but not let the girlfriend testify as to it's context. I also thought they rigged it when they showed the reaction of the jury, because IMO, I didn't think that was a racist statement because on many sitcoms and dramas I have heard similar terms used by other blacks. I.E. "Get your black ass up to your room" and the one in the video I have heard referenced many times, yet the jury's reaction seemed very offended here. I thought they fixed this trial in favor of the cop being racist and having the jury believe he was racist. In the past they would lay out the actions and circumstances equally on both sides, then come up a jury verdict.

As for the closing arguments, IMO they drop them because they have only had time for one summation and they have shown a couple of Price's. They aren't going to show the defense's unless they can also show Price's too, so I figured they would drop both.

The big questions I have with the video are, where did it come from, and how exactly did it wind up as evidence for the defense?  Like, it's a video from his phone, that he sent to her phone - so how does the defense have it?  If it was posted to some social media platform in the L&O universe, they should have told us.  Otherwise, the only way the defense should even know about it is if prosecution had entered it into evidence as part of the girlfriend's original testimony, which it doesn't look like they did.  Hypothetically, maybe Price only shows the first part to the jury, but then the defense lawyer says, hold up - let's see the whole thing, and that's when we hear the Brown Sugar reference.  Of course, that would make Price look like an even worse lawyer than he usually does, so I get why that didn't happen - but they still needed to explain how that video wound up on the defense lawyer's laptop.

Otherwise, I'm not entirely sure what you're getting at with calling it "rigged" - are the producers trying to solicit an emotional response from the audience?  Sure - that's the whole point of dramatic writing.  In real life, would Price have redirected the girlfriend's testimony to provide context to the video and reframe what Doyle said?  Probably - but then again realistically he should have known about the video, and been prepared to diffuse the impact before the defense even showed it.  However, the producers ended her testimony with the video because there is a question of whether or not Doyle was racist*, and they wanted the audience to be left thinking about what it says about him.  Similarly, they ended Kendra's testimony with Price asking how she could have drawn her gun and fired, because that's the question they wanted left about her.  Again, this is where I feel closing arguments are basically necessary on this show.  At the very least, we need the ADA to lay out what one side says happened versus the other - at the same time, it's the point in the story where they get to say what's at stake with the verdict.  In retrospect, they probably thought they had that handled with the conversation between Price and Maroun afterwards.  But they always have a wrap up too, and I personally feel it's too late if it's only coming after the verdict - as always, ymmv.

*For me, the remark comes off as kind of gross and tone deaf.  At the very least, it's a bad joke that plays into stereotypes about the sexuality of black women.  At worst, it's an indication that he does see people - even his girlfriend - as members of a race first, and individuals second.  As for the reference itself, last year The Rolling Stones decided to drop Brown Sugar from their setlist due to the ongoing controversy over its subject matter - that would probably have been around the same time that this script was in development.

Beyond that, I'll just point out for society as a whole, it has been a widely accepted and well established fact of life that there are things that members of a group - particularly a minority group - can say about and to other members of that group, that should not be said by outsiders.  This is particularly true with the always contentious subject of race.  Even a well intentioned comment, as seems to be the case with Doyle's video, can still come off as inappropriate and off-putting - this applies to fiction as well as real life.  So no - just because black people in other shows use that sort of language to talk about each other, does not mitigate the fact that the jurors in this show (or members of the TV audience) could find Doyle's comments anything from stupid, to offensive, and potentially racist.

[dttruman]

On 5/24/2022 at 9:29 AM, Chyromaniac said:

The big questions I have with the video are, where did it come from, and how exactly did it wind up as evidence for the defense?  Like, it's a video from his phone, that he sent to her phone - so how does the defense have it?  If it was posted to some social media platform in the L&O universe, they should have told us.  Otherwise, the only way the defense should even know about it is if prosecution had entered it into evidence as part of the girlfriend's original testimony, which it doesn't look like they did.  Hypothetically, maybe Price only shows the first part to the jury, but then the defense lawyer says, hold up - let's see the whole thing, and that's when we hear the Brown Sugar reference.  Of course, that would make Price look like an even worse lawyer than he usually does, so I get why that didn't happen - but they still needed to explain how that video wound up on the defense lawyer's laptop.

Otherwise, I'm not entirely sure what you're getting at with calling it "rigged" - are the producers trying to solicit an emotional response from the audience?  Sure - that's the whole point of dramatic writing.  In real life, would Price have redirected the girlfriend's testimony to provide context to the video and reframe what Doyle said?  Probably - but then again realistically he should have known about the video, and been prepared to diffuse the impact before the defense even showed it.  However, the producers ended her testimony with the video because there is a question of whether or not Doyle was racist*, and they wanted the audience to be left thinking about what it says about him.  Similarly, they ended Kendra's testimony with Price asking how she could have drawn her gun and fired, because that's the question they wanted left about her.  Again, this is where I feel closing arguments are basically necessary on this show.  At the very least, we need the ADA to lay out what one side says happened versus the other - at the same time, it's the point in the story where they get to say what's at stake with the verdict.  In retrospect, they probably thought they had that handled with the conversation between Price and Maroun afterwards.  But they always have a wrap up too, and I personally feel it's too late if it's only coming after the verdict - as always, ymmv.

*For me, the remark comes off as kind of gross and tone deaf.  At the very least, it's a bad joke that plays into stereotypes about the sexuality of black women.  At worst, it's an indication that he does see people - even his girlfriend - as members of a race first, and individuals second.  As for the reference itself, last year The Rolling Stones decided to drop Brown Sugar from their setlist due to the ongoing controversy over its subject matter - that would probably have been around the same time that this script was in development.

Beyond that, I'll just point out for society as a whole, it has been a widely accepted and well established fact of life that there are things that members of a group - particularly a minority group - can say about and to other members of that group, that should not be said by outsiders.  This is particularly true with the always contentious subject of race.  Even a well intentioned comment, as seems to be the case with Doyle's video, can still come off as inappropriate and off-putting - this applies to fiction as well as real life.  So no - just because black people in other shows use that sort of language to talk about each other, does not mitigate the fact that the jurors in this show (or members of the TV audience) could find Doyle's comments anything from stupid, to offensive, and potentially racist.

Do you think this episode should have been shown a year or two ago to get the better effect and show that Doyle did have some racial tendencies? Considering what is going on now, it seems like people are conscious or more sensitive to racial spouting today, then we were  10,20, or even 30 years ago. Would it be too racially sensitive to show the movie "Soul Man" with C. Thomas Howell? If so would it also be considered racially sensitive to show "White Chicks" with the Wayans brothers?

Edited May 25, 2022 by dttruman

[illdoc]

18 hours ago, dttruman said:

Would it be too racially sensitive to show the movie "Soul Man" with C. Thomas Howell? If so would it also be considered racially sensitive to show "White Chicks" withe the Wayans brothers?

Is "Play that Funky Music" racist???? Chorus: 

"Play that funky music, white boy
Play that funky music right
Play that funky music, white boy"

[Raja]

On 5/22/2022 at 9:40 AM, The Wild Sow said:

Oh yeah, I noticed that too!  The Law & Order-verse with their Instant Trials!

The worst case being Detective Briscoe's I am going to retire and then he goes out with a win after the trial. As if he sat idle for the months it would take in other jusrisdictions

[TakomaSnark]

Oof, this episode was bad. Astonishingly awful. When it was over, as a palate cleanser, I put on S17. 

[ML89]

On 5/21/2022 at 10:06 AM, WendyCR72 said:

, so late in the franchise, time seems so arbitrary... Dead one week, the trial the next. It takes MONTHS, if not a year, for the process in reality. Dick Wolf used to care about the details. I guess that's no longer the case.

The time stamps have always been messy - a fan writer friend using “Aftermath” as a jumping off point found that Claire is actually alive for a trial in another episode after she dies in that one, due to the stamps. 

Price is really coming off as, well, stupid. That’s at least the second time they’ve had a surprise sprung on them.

On 5/19/2022 at 8:35 PM, WendyCR72 said:

Eriq LaSalle (ex-Dr. Peter Benton, ER) is the director of tonight's episode.

No surprise to see Michael Beach there - he was on during the LaSalle years of ER. 

I was surprised at Dixon calling McCoy “Jack” - am I losing my mind or did Van Buren ever address him as Jack? I don’t remember it.

[Xeliou66]

37 minutes ago, ML89 said:

The time stamps have always been messy - a fan writer friend using “Aftermath” as a jumping off point found that Claire is actually alive for a trial in another episode after she dies in that one, due to the stamps. 

Price is really coming off as, well, stupid. That’s at least the second time they’ve had a surprise sprung on them.

No surprise to see Michael Beach there - he was on during the LaSalle years of ER. 

I was surprised at Dixon calling McCoy “Jack” - am I losing my mind or did Van Buren ever address him as Jack? I don’t remember it.

Yes Van Buren called McCoy “Jack” a few times and he called her “Anita” a few times as well - I found it interesting that Dixon called him “Jack” as well, given that he’s the DA and this was the first time they’ve shared a scene together. These characters usually use first names I’ve noticed, Dixon has called Price and Maroun by their first names as well, and it’s interesting how both Dixon and Cosgrove called Bernard “Kevin” when interestingly enough Van Buren and Lupo never did that. Bernard even called Dixon “Kate” one time, the detectives never called Van Buren by her first name. I find it interesting how the characters address each other and I kind of like how all of these characters usually use first names.

[shapeshifter]

12 hours ago, ML89 said:

Price is really coming off as, well, stupid. That’s at least the second time they’ve had a surprise sprung on them.

Only the second time, heh?
The ADA repeatedly being kind of an idiot caught with his pants down surprised and annoyed me.
But now that you mention it, I think I can enjoy having the curtain pulled back to reveal that the Great and Powerful Oz ADA is just a very fallible man.

Edited June 2, 2022 by shapeshifter

[dttruman]

12 hours ago, Xeliou66 said:

12 hours ago, ML89 said:

The time stamps have always been messy - a fan writer friend using “Aftermath” as a jumping off point found that Claire is actually alive for a trial in another episode after she dies in that one, due to the stamps. 

Price is really coming off as, well, stupid. That’s at least the second time they’ve had a surprise sprung on them.

No surprise to see Michael Beach there - he was on during the LaSalle years of ER. 

I was surprised at Dixon calling McCoy “Jack” - am I losing my mind or did Van Buren ever address him as Jack? I don’t remember it.

Yes Van Buren called McCoy “Jack” a few times and he called her “Anita” a few times as well - I found it interesting that Dixon called him “Jack” as well, given that he’s the DA and this was the first time they’ve shared a scene together. These characters usually use first names I’ve noticed, Dixon has called Price and Maroun by their first names as well, and it’s interesting how both Dixon and Cosgrove called Bernard “Kevin” when interestingly enough Van Buren and Lupo never did that. Bernard even called Dixon “Kate” one time, the detectives never called Van Buren by her first name. I find it interesting how the characters address each other and I kind of like how all of these characters usually use first names.

Yeah, I don't ever remember Cragen addressing Schiff or Van Buren ever addressing Schiff or Branch. They always communicated with the EADAs. I even remember when McCoy was ticked off at Van Buren for not bringing in reliable witnesses when McCoy wanted to put a rapist (and /or  murderer) back in prison. McCoy was almost sanctioned for using the police to harass the guy. Van Buren and McCoy had a good argument there, and she didn't back off at all

When it comes to the trials and how they may appear to start a week later. Didn't they use to put up a caption showing that things may appear weeks or months later by putting up a specific trial number with parts10, 20, or 30? They may even have been in Roman Numerals, if I remember right?