S18.E18: Spellbound

[Gigglepuff]

There was one or two buried comments posted about a month ago about May 24th being Raul's last episode. I couldn't guess as to how accurate or inaccurate those comments were. 

 

I have always been under the impression that for hypnosis to work, the person being hypnotized must be willing to be hypnotized and that they don't do things they wouldn't do in their wakened state, and that the person is aware of everything around them. But this is SVU of course, so who knows?? I'd never before heard of involuntary hypnosis, but since the show has been renewed for season 19, maybe they should have a perp who uses involuntary hypnosis as his defense. You know, some high-camp episode with a quack shrink (with a German accent) hypnotizing a rich, white, good-looking guy(s) into committing various sexual offences or something. "Und now...you are getting sleeepy, verrry sleeepy." 

[millennium]

Hands down one of the worst episodes of this entire series.   The Law & Order franchise is barely recognizable anymore.

What next?  The rapist uses witchcraft to coerce his victims?  Olivia Benson brings down a UFO and arrests the alien for abducting a victim and inserting an anal probe?

[numskully]

16 hours ago, RafaelBarba35 said:

No I did not realize that.  By whom?

Maybe just google it?

[TV Anonymous]

What the fuck was that? Did I blink and miss it, but when did Barba prove that hypnosis was used in the crime? I mean, hypnosis was the central element in disproving that there was consent in the act, but Barba never explained how exactly hypnosis was used on the victim except for the general confession that defendant had been using hypnosis and Barba's theory about hidden words.

[shksabelle]

I thought they would investigate and discover the audio was doctored. The words were there, but the tone sounded neither like someone in the throes of passion nor someone  in a hypnotic trance. 

Mariska Hargitay, if you or any of your minions reads this, please fire the writer who thinks "...between he and Ms. Clark..." is proper grammar. 

Elizabeth Marvel should sue whoever gave her that hairdo.

[CleoCaesar]

8 minutes ago, shksabelle said:

Mariska Hargitay, if you or any of your minions reads this, please fire the writer who thinks "...between he and Ms. Clark..." is proper grammar.

I keep hearing incorrect grammar on TV shows lately. I honestly have no idea if the writers are doing it on purpose (it makes the characters seem more realistic, since a lot of people still don't know basic grammar, despite being native speakers) or if they themselves don't know correct grammar.

Either way, "...between he and Ms. Clark..." made me have a seizure.

[25thID]

I'm really, really thinking that NBC or whomever is looking for reasons to cancel this show. They're taking huge breaks, and the writing is tepid, at best. Not all episodes can be homeruns, but, come on. To me, if there's going to be long breaks, at least use that hiatus to improve writing/scripts/acting.

[angel1008]

I have Raul's FB page as well, and I saw nothing of him leaving.  If he is, they may not even mention it and he will just fade into oblivion like Stabler did.  Although Meloni's departure was well documented prior, nothing was mentioned the following season.

[Xeliou66]

Yeah Meloni's departure was mentioned, you must've missed the first episode where Cragen told Benson that Stabler had decided to retire in the aftermath of the shooting and its investigation. 

[sockii]

On 5/12/2017 at 1:22 PM, RafaelBarbas said:

I looked through his facebook page and haven't seen anything of the sort. In fact his official page hasn't even posted in a week or so.

This, I believe, is the comment in question.

I am not enough of an Esparza fan to know if this Reinaldo person is legit someone in the know, or the one who runs the FB page or not. It was actually a comment made on a post going all the way back in April. But this is the only comment I can find along these lines.

[Sake614]

On 5/10/2017 at 10:31 PM, Gigglepuff said:

constantly refers to the victims appearance as pretty or attractive, as if only rich, white, pretty women are raped in NYC. 

I see this in the newspaper all the time and wonder what the hell someone's looks have to do with the crime! 'Beauty murdered.' 'Attractive co-Ed raped/stabbed/beaten/shot/whatever. Really? Would it be any less tragic if the victim was ugly?  The only point I'll argue is race. Sure on this show it's mostly rich white women, but IRL race doesn't play much of a part. But looks certainly appear to be a factor. 

[JyDanzig]

On 5/13/2017 at 3:55 AM, millennium said:

Hands down one of the worst episodes of this entire series.   The Law & Order franchise is barely recognizable anymore.

What next?  The rapist uses witchcraft to coerce his victims?  Olivia Benson brings down a UFO and arrests the alien for abducting a victim and inserting an anal probe?

The other series had similarly deranged escapes from reality.  There was an ep of the mothership that was all about the psychic powers of the killer.  Criminal Intent had a show where we saw actual ghosts haunting Logan.

And both those shows recovered and finished strong somehow!  That's my hope for SVU.  The mothership hit bottom in season 17, after growing progressively worse each year for nearly a decade, but then their final three seasons were excellent (not that I think SVU is following this exact progression -- though not without flaws [so many hostage crisises!], I thought the WL years were largely good and a nice upswing from the end of NB's tenure).

Anyway, now that Rick Eid is Chicago PD's problem, I'm praying they get a strong new showrunner and we similarly get three impressive final seasons here.  They can take the record from Gunsmoke/Mothership and then sign off victorious.

[millennium]

1 hour ago, JyDanzig said:

The other series had similarly deranged escapes from reality.  There was an ep of the mothership that was all about the psychic powers of the killer.  Criminal Intent had a show where we saw actual ghosts haunting Logan.

And both those shows recovered and finished strong somehow!  That's my hope for SVU.  The mothership hit bottom in season 17, after growing progressively worse each year for nearly a decade, but then their final three seasons were excellent (not that I think SVU is following this exact progression -- though not without flaws [so many hostage crisises!], I thought the WL years were largely good and a nice upswing from the end of NB's tenure).

Anyway, now that Rick Eid is Chicago PD's problem, I'm praying they get a strong new showrunner and we similarly get three impressive final seasons here.  They can take the record from Gunsmoke/Mothership and then sign off victorious.

 

The show is way too much work with very little return.  The long hiatuses between episodes (major mistake, IMO).  The reduction of every plot to a Benson/Barba resolution.  The absurd focus on Olivia's ultimately meaningless love life (ruining previously good characters in the process -- Mayhem, and the hardass from IA).  The boring feminist mother slant.  Rollins and her stupid sister.   Finn apparently content to chill until he can retire.   Carisi's one-note angry young Italian guy routine.

It's all about as exciting as a McDonald's cheeseburger served cold.

[skittl3862]

3 hours ago, sockii said:

I am not enough of an Esparza fan to know if this Reinaldo person is legit someone in the know, or the one who runs the FB page or not. It was actually a comment made on a post going all the way back in April. But this is the only comment I can find along these lines.

The person who runs his social media is a woman.

1 hour ago, millennium said:

The show is way too much work with very little return.  The long hiatuses between episodes (major mistake, IMO).

NBC just released their fall schedule and Robert Greenblatt commented on this: "Greenblatt emphasized that NBC was focused on further lowering the volume of in-season repeats and “spreading the wealth” of scripted programming into the summer."

https://variety.com/2017/tv/news/nbc-2017-18-schedule-1202426365/

We'll see how that works out.

[millennium]

9 minutes ago, skittl3862 said:

 

NBC just released their fall schedule and Robert Greenblatt commented on this: "Greenblatt emphasized that NBC was focused on further lowering the volume of in-season repeats and “spreading the wealth” of scripted programming into the summer."

https://variety.com/2017/tv/news/nbc-2017-18-schedule-1202426365/

We'll see how that works out.

NBC is putting all its chips on reviving "Must See TV."  Do they know what year it is?   The whole concept of Must See TV is laughably outdated.   People watch shows at THEIR convenience now, not according to network schedules.  Do they really think Americans will put down their accursed phones and gather round the TV like it was 1989?   LOL.

Edited May 15, 2017 by millennium

[Xeliou66]

I don't believe that Reinaldo Nieves guy knows anything about Raul leaving, if he was word would've leaked by now. 

3 hours ago, Sake614 said:

I see this in the newspaper all the time and wonder what the hell someone's looks have to do with the crime! 'Beauty murdered.' 'Attractive co-Ed raped/stabbed/beaten/shot/whatever. Really? Would it be any less tragic if the victim was ugly?  The only point I'll argue is race. Sure on this show it's mostly rich white women, but IRL race doesn't play much of a part. But looks certainly appear to be a factor. 

It's well known that the media will focus much more attention on cases involving an attractive female than on others, attractive, wealthy white women get much more attention than other victims-perps. 

I am glad Eid has gone to CPD, he will fit much better on a soapier, more character driven mass market type show. Hopefully SVU will get a good showrunner and have a much stronger season 19. 

[Sake614]

11 hours ago, Xeliou66 said:

attractive, wealthy white women get much more attention than other victims-perps. 

 

And I truly have not found that to be the case. As I said, looks definitely get attention in the press, but I see just as much ink devoted to Black and Hispanic women/girls. It just annoys me how they're always described as beautiful, attractive, stunning etc. as if that has anything to do with the fact that they're dead or were attacked.

[numskully]

On 5/13/2017 at 5:19 PM, TV Anonymous said:

What the fuck was that? Did I blink and miss it, but when did Barba prove that hypnosis was used in the crime? I mean, hypnosis was the central element in disproving that there was consent in the act, but Barba never explained how exactly hypnosis was used on the victim except for the general confession that defendant had been using hypnosis and Barba's theory about hidden words.

Yep, just horrible writing.

[skittl3862]

6 hours ago, Sake614 said:

It just annoys me how they're always described as beautiful, attractive, stunning etc. as if that has anything to do with the fact that they're dead or were attacked.

I think it's a major fault of the show. The producers and writers try to present themselves as being champions of sexual assault survivors, and yet the show presents a very, very narrow view of what a "rape victim" looks like. It actually perpetuates the myth that rape is committed out of sexual desire and not power. SVU shows only pretty white middle class 20-something women are raped. Not older women, not women of color, not men, not queer people, not overweight or mentally challenged or homeless- even though all of these sub-groups are not only as likely, but even more likely to be raped than the characters portrayed every week on the show. Maybe once or twice as season, we'll get something outside their norm like the hockey kid or the trans woman. Other than that, if you took a picture of the actress playing the main victim every week on SVU and posted them all side by side, it would start to look like a serial killer with a specific type. Having the show that champions rape victims portray rape victims this way only reinforces the real life response to anyone who doesn't fit this image of a pretty young thing: "Who would want to rape you?"

[Xeliou66]

7 hours ago, skittl3862 said:

I think it's a major fault of the show. The producers and writers try to present themselves as being champions of sexual assault survivors, and yet the show presents a very, very narrow view of what a "rape victim" looks like. It actually perpetuates the myth that rape is committed out of sexual desire and not power. SVU shows only pretty white middle class 20-something women are raped. Not older women, not women of color, not men, not queer people, not overweight or mentally challenged or homeless- even though all of these sub-groups are not only as likely, but even more likely to be raped than the characters portrayed every week on the show. Maybe once or twice as season, we'll get something outside their norm like the hockey kid or the trans woman. Other than that, if you took a picture of the actress playing the main victim every week on SVU and posted them all side by side, it would start to look like a serial killer with a specific type. Having the show that champions rape victims portray rape victims this way only reinforces the real life response to anyone who doesn't fit this image of a pretty young thing: "Who would want to rape you?"

Right on. There is so little diversity in the cases and the people involved, used to we would see people from all walks of life, all races, poor, rich and middle class people, LGBT people, men, physically/mentally handicapped people as well as child abuse cases and some rape/murders. Now, with only a few exceptions, it is always a he said/she said rape case with the victim being an attractive, upper class, white woman in her 20's and the rapist is always a famous/rich white guy. The show has neglected all others for the most part in order to appeal to a certain type of viewers, upper middle class urban white woman in their 20's with hispter type leanings that are very similar to the victims on the show. This is weird, do these viewers like seeing people who are similar to them get raped on TV and then with the help of St Olivia stand up to the rapist? Do they agree with the agenda that MH wants to push? Or is it that because these type of people are usually the most active on social media, that SVU panders to them and creates a ton of these same cases thinking they will be more intrigued because they can relate more to the people involved. Either way, it is the main problem with SVU now. I'm sick of every week knowing who the perp is right off the bat, and having the exact same type of people involved, privileged white people in fancy places. I want to see more diversity with everyone, I want to see non white people more, middle class and poor people more, and a bigger variety of rape victims and perps and a bigger variety of cases in general. 

[Tara Ariano]

In case you missed it, here's the Previously.TV post on the episode!

 

Law & Order: SVU Spills The Special Tea

A TED-talk shaman is accused of rape by hypnosis; did the episode make Sarah D. Bunting verrrrry sleeeeepy?

[HunterHunted]

On 5/15/2017 at 8:22 AM, Sake614 said:

 

And I truly have not found that to be the case. As I said, looks definitely get attention in the press, but I see just as much ink devoted to Black and Hispanic women/girls. It just annoys me how they're always described as beautiful, attractive, stunning etc. as if that has anything to do with the fact that they're dead or were attacked.

That's mostly not true. There is a fair amount of research demonstrating that the race and gender of the victim has a significant impact on the news coverage and even punishment of the defendant (people on death row have disproportionately white victims). It's messed up, but there is data on it.

[Sake614]

I can only speak to what I see in the newspaper on a daily basis. And I've found that regardless of race, the victim's appearance always comes into play.

[ForeverAlone]

Total waste of Barba in my opinion, with a somewhat embarrassing legal strategy. I can deal with an interesting gray case, but then the writing has to reflect that. It was a weak ass case as it was written, and I can't see any jury finding him guilty, because the FACTS of the actual case (and not some long ago arrest) don't support a conviction. I agree with those that stated that Barba never actually proved Declan hypnotized anyone, so he couldn't prove Abby DIDN'T consent to sex. Declan may have been a shithead in his youth, but that doesn't make him a rapist (even though I think he was) and I disagree with Barba that the case was about Declan's integrity. No, it was about whether or not the state could prove that Declan raped Abby, and Barba didn't prove that. And yes, for that I blame the writers, because if they wanted a cleaner conviction, they could have written better legal strategy. Or they could have gone for the plea deal that Barba was right to consider before Olivia talked him out of it (and the fact that she has so much sway over his legal strategy over the years has continued to piss me off). I am okay with a "not guilty" verdict in these gray cases, because it doesn't mean that the defendant didn't commit the crime in question, only that the prosecution failed to prove it beyond a reasonable doubt. And that result is something rather realistic. I don't watch this show for the fantasy idea that all rapists will be convicted, because the real world is much grayer than that. I watch for (hopefully, but this season really tested this for me) relatively intelligent, interesting stories with interesting characters. 

[25thID]

2 hours ago, ForeverAlone said:

 Or they could have gone for the plea deal that Barba was right to consider before Olivia talked him out of it (and the fact that she has so much sway over his legal strategy over the years has continued to piss me off). I am okay with a "not guilty" verdict in these gray cases, because it doesn't mean that the defendant didn't commit the crime in question, only that the prosecution failed to prove it beyond a reasonable doubt. And that result is something rather realistic. I don't watch this show for the fantasy idea that all rapists will be convicted, because the real world is much grayer than that. I watch for (hopefully, but this season really tested this for me) relatively intelligent, interesting stories with interesting characters. 

I totally agree, especially with the St Benson sticking her nose in on plea deals, should a perp be tried, etc. It's hit an all time high this season, and it makes Barba look he can't/doesn't know how to do his job. I think next year, St Benson is going to try all cases, and I mean ALL. 1 minute over 1 hour parking? 25-life, sucka.

Also, the cases that are grey ALWAYS go the way of SVU, especially with weak to no evidence. Like you said, I'd rather the defendant walk, if that's the case. Maybe that could set up a future case, where the defendant gets off, feels empowered/emboldened, and escalates his crime and goes on a spree. It'll take a bit for the team to catch the defendant, and there could be a huge shit storm from the media and 1PP for not being able to convict the first time....all because St Benson told Barba to try a weak case.

Anyways, I agree with the gray area isn't always a charcoal gray or a light grey, and I do hope next season is better. I would say it can't get worse, but, I really, really don't want to tempt fate. As with you, this season really tried my patience, and it was found guilty....on ALL charges of almost losing interest.

Edited May 31, 2017 by 25thID

[skittl3862]

23 hours ago, ForeverAlone said:

I am okay with a "not guilty" verdict in these gray cases, because it doesn't mean that the defendant didn't commit the crime in question, only that the prosecution failed to prove it beyond a reasonable doubt. And that result is something rather realistic. I don't watch this show for the fantasy idea that all rapists will be convicted, because the real world is much grayer than that.

Agreed. I'm so over the 100% conviction rates, especially with the incredibly weak prosecutions they throw together for Barba.

[Kel Varnsen]

I don't really have much to add, other than when the victim was testifying about how the the defendant said "you may find yourself floating in the air" or some other such bullshit to hypnotize her I was really hoping the next thing he said to her was "and you may find yourself living in a shotgun shack".

[WendyCR72]

1 hour ago, Kel Varnsen said:

I don't really have much to add, other than when the victim was testifying about how the the defendant said "you may find yourself floating in the air" or some other such bullshit to hypnotize her I was really hoping the next thing he said to her was "and you may find yourself living in a shotgun shack".

"With a beautiful house, and a beautiful wife..."