Here is the discussion topic for Law & Order SVU “Carousel” which aired on Thursday, February 29, 2024. Please feel free to add any feedback you have about this episode in the comments!
No Ice-t in this episode. No Carisi (or did I miss them both?). The only people left in this episode were too many "newbies" and Velasco. Bruno I don't mind seeing more of but with Curry and Sykes I feel like they are throwing them both out there and seeing who the fans like more. I don't want to see so much of an episode where too many people in the main story haven't gained any "cred" with me - it's that "do they have chemistry or not" thing. Right now this show has nothing cohesive.
The case? Well, the only thing about the usual boring "college boys will be college boys" story was that this time they weren't at Hudson University.
Like what I said for my comment for the original's episode:
"I'm enjoying the Original and Organized Crime's seasons so far. I just believe this current season of SVU is a dud. I'm hoping they finally do what they promised soon, which is returning to previous cases from earlier in the series."
I try not to read comments abt the ep before posting my opinion for the obvious reason of not wanting to be influenced but moreso because it can take me to a place where I say what's the pt. I should add quickly that I don't mean this blog but other platforms that currently hv a lot more user involvement regarding svu.
I had a friend send me a link to one such post, read it and then continued reading more comments & it just leaves me wary and hesitant to post my own thoughts. It starts to feel like sport and not the best space for me to ventilate my genuine concern for the direction of this show.
I saw an entire thread discussing "baked goods" on the show and that in 24 seasons Olivia never cared for baked goods so why now. Another discussing the part in her hair that has moved to the middle (didn't even notice) and it should be moved off-side. I could go on but I read enough of these and I wonder if some of my own negativity is part of the same current and question why am I so bothered by this show at times.
Ex: The device of using jewelry to narrate L's trauma/recovery is tiresome now. She had the "fearless" necklace from Dr Lindstrom, prior to that was one that *i think* was their no more logo, now this compass from Stabler. All are available on her JHF website for purchase so for me I see it first as product placement than merely just a device to tell her story. I really don't care for all this 'significant jewelry' on the show (including Maddie's bracelet) but can't decide if its falling in the realm of being bothered that she's eating donuts and muffins. Idk I might just be hating
I see ppl discussing the shift away from the court rm scenes and I can see it from both sides (By the way OC has Ltd court rm scenes even tho it also has "law" in its moniker). This scaling back on court scenes could be for a number of reasons incl budget but I think it has more to do w them being called out (articles, talk shows etc) on the incongruence of all these cases going to trial on the show w what happens in real life. In a study mentioned in the Washington Post they confirmed that 97% of these cases do not make it to trial. 97! And there is some irony in the viewers, myself included, being a stickler for accuracy and what "wouldn't happen in real life" when one of the most inaccurate portrayals is all these cases that go to trial. And that doesn't even include even more absurd elements of the show like how quickly evidence is gathered and that a case goes to trial DAYS after a crime has been reported, with testimony and conviction all happening in quick succession when in reality this plays out over YEARS.
It's not called "Court Room and Order". It's Law and Order and the execution of that law aspect can happen in many diff ways. In real life it does. The good news here is that the show can give the viewers what they want in terms of the legal side of things- still include some trial cases yes but include the deals that happen outside of court. It can go even further with showing the ones that get dropped altogether- the survivor not a credible witness in the eyes of the law.This season I think has been quite generous in some of these out-of-court settlements when in reality there wouldn't even be a plea deal w the lack of evidence and constant recanting from an accuser. Irl the case would probably be tossed out and based on what I've seen in docs lately- the vic herself might be the one to land in jail for "false reporting" even tho she's telling the truth. This is the kind of thing that is way more prevalent (97% more) than cases making it to trial complete w fiery quips back and forth between defendant and prosecutor, and the cliché of tricking the defendant to confess on the stand. There is a way, with some writing effort, to maintain the law element of the show and still not betray the truth of how these cases really go in the Criminal Justice system but for a while they're going to hv to expect frustration from the viewers who hv "law" as a synonym for "court room scenes". (1/2)
Another key area that the show is being called out on is how victims are actually treated by police (I would add hospitals but that's off topic) "Victim/suspect" is a doc on Netflix that looks at what has happened to some victims when they report- that is, being interrogated like a suspect ending with the survivors getting jail time for "false reporting"; and all the mental anguish that ensues, one even completing suicide. For one of the victims showcased she talks abt years of watching svu and it inspiring her to pursue a career in law enforcement. Before she finishes her studies she is assaulted, reports it but isn't believed and ends up being the one prosecuted, her attacker still free.
I think the show is having to grapple w the balance of giving survivors the 'fantasy' of attentive, patient officers and not doing so to the extent that they feel somewhat betrayed when they actually hv to face the justice system and realize the advocacy is not as it appears on the show. That is a huge betrayal from a show that touts itself as helping survivors "to know what to do" when they are violated only for the experience to be cold and punitive. That's why scenes like Liv letting a vic smash the coffee table in her office, followed by a fiercely loving embrace, raise my negativity. No cop is going to let you break their furniture to get a cathartic release. Nor is that approach necessarily productive.
It's hard to believe, for ex, that a squad would go to these lengths to get a vic back from another country when an American woman can't even get the cops to check the surveillance cameras in the area where her assault occurred (as seen in recent docs), deciding instead that the assault didn't occur. I let some of this slide bc if we're going to give survivors smthg to root for then some of it is going to end up more on the fantasy side of things but when it gets to bringing non-nationals back to solve their case it starts to feel out of depth.
I don't think ppl realize how many ppl are hanging on by a thread called L&OSVU, unaffected by how Olivia has decided to part her hair or if she now eats on-screen. They are just raw w the emotion of seeing somebody care abt an unexciting, everyday story of rape and wishing they could hv had that compassion and justice too. Their exp of coming fwd ruined *their* life, not their perpetrator. It can be escapism to watch, yes, and the show definitely leans into that narrative. But for many it is infuriating and damaging to their own mental health to hv the show completely misrepresent the truth that survivors face. And if the show is going to market itself as a pinnacle for advocacy, taking a victory lap any time a survivor says the show helped them, then it must also grapple w how out of touch it can often be and how that negatively impacts the same ppl they say they do this show for. (2/2)
5 comments:
No Ice-t in this episode. No Carisi (or did I miss them both?). The only people left in this episode were too many "newbies" and Velasco. Bruno I don't mind seeing more of but with Curry and Sykes I feel like they are throwing them both out there and seeing who the fans like more. I don't want to see so much of an episode where too many people in the main story haven't gained any "cred" with me - it's that "do they have chemistry or not" thing. Right now this show has nothing cohesive.
The case? Well, the only thing about the usual boring "college boys will be college boys" story was that this time they weren't at Hudson University.
Like what I said for my comment for the original's episode:
"I'm enjoying the Original and Organized Crime's seasons so far. I just believe this current season of SVU is a dud. I'm hoping they finally do what they promised soon, which is returning to previous cases from earlier in the series."
Also, honestly, I miss Warren Leight's episodes. They made more sense and felt more fitting for the series than David Graziano's episodes.
I try not to read comments abt the ep before posting my opinion for the obvious reason of not wanting to be influenced but moreso because it can take me to a place where I say what's the pt. I should add quickly that I don't mean this blog but other platforms that currently hv a lot more user involvement regarding svu.
I had a friend send me a link to one such post, read it and then continued reading more comments & it just leaves me wary and hesitant to post my own thoughts. It starts to feel like sport and not the best space for me to ventilate my genuine concern for the direction of this show.
I saw an entire thread discussing "baked goods" on the show and that in 24 seasons Olivia never cared for baked goods so why now. Another discussing the part in her hair that has moved to the middle (didn't even notice) and it should be moved off-side. I could go on but I read enough of these and I wonder if some of my own negativity is part of the same current and question why am I so bothered by this show at times.
Ex: The device of using jewelry to narrate L's trauma/recovery is tiresome now. She had the "fearless" necklace from Dr Lindstrom, prior to that was one that *i think* was their no more logo, now this compass from Stabler. All are available on her JHF website for purchase so for me I see it first as product placement than merely just a device to tell her story. I really don't care for all this 'significant jewelry' on the show (including Maddie's bracelet) but can't decide if its falling in the realm of being bothered that she's eating donuts and muffins. Idk I might just be hating
I see ppl discussing the shift away from the court rm scenes and I can see it from both sides (By the way OC has Ltd court rm scenes even tho it also has "law" in its moniker). This scaling back on court scenes could be for a number of reasons incl budget but I think it has more to do w them being called out (articles, talk shows etc) on the incongruence of all these cases going to trial on the show w what happens in real life. In a study mentioned in the Washington Post they confirmed that 97% of these cases do not make it to trial. 97! And there is some irony in the viewers, myself included, being a stickler for accuracy and what "wouldn't happen in real life" when one of the most inaccurate portrayals is all these cases that go to trial. And that doesn't even include even more absurd elements of the show like how quickly evidence is gathered and that a case goes to trial DAYS after a crime has been reported, with testimony and conviction all happening in quick succession when in reality this plays out over YEARS.
It's not called "Court Room and Order". It's Law and Order and the execution of that law aspect can happen in many diff ways. In real life it does. The good news here is that the show can give the viewers what they want in terms of the legal side of things- still include some trial cases yes but include the deals that happen outside of court. It can go even further with showing the ones that get dropped altogether- the survivor not a credible witness in the eyes of the law.This season I think has been quite generous in some of these out-of-court settlements when in reality there wouldn't even be a plea deal w the lack of evidence and constant recanting from an accuser. Irl the case would probably be tossed out and based on what I've seen in docs lately- the vic herself might be the one to land in jail for "false reporting" even tho she's telling the truth. This is the kind of thing that is way more prevalent (97% more) than cases making it to trial complete w fiery quips back and forth between defendant and prosecutor, and the cliché of tricking the defendant to confess on the stand. There is a way, with some writing effort, to maintain the law element of the show and still not betray the truth of how these cases really go in the Criminal Justice system but for a while they're going to hv to expect frustration from the viewers who hv "law" as a synonym for "court room scenes". (1/2)
Another key area that the show is being called out on is how victims are actually treated by police (I would add hospitals but that's off topic) "Victim/suspect" is a doc on Netflix that looks at what has happened to some victims when they report- that is, being interrogated like a suspect ending with the survivors getting jail time for "false reporting"; and all the mental anguish that ensues, one even completing suicide. For one of the victims showcased she talks abt years of watching svu and it inspiring her to pursue a career in law enforcement. Before she finishes her studies she is assaulted, reports it but isn't believed and ends up being the one prosecuted, her attacker still free.
I think the show is having to grapple w the balance of giving survivors the 'fantasy' of attentive, patient officers and not doing so to the extent that they feel somewhat betrayed when they actually hv to face the justice system and realize the advocacy is not as it appears on the show. That is a huge betrayal from a show that touts itself as helping survivors "to know what to do" when they are violated only for the experience to be cold and punitive.
That's why scenes like Liv letting a vic smash the coffee table in her office, followed by a fiercely loving embrace, raise my negativity. No cop is going to let you break their furniture to get a cathartic release. Nor is that approach necessarily productive.
It's hard to believe, for ex, that a squad would go to these lengths to get a vic back from another country when an American woman can't even get the cops to check the surveillance cameras in the area where her assault occurred (as seen in recent docs), deciding instead that the assault didn't occur. I let some of this slide bc if we're going to give survivors smthg to root for then some of it is going to end up more on the fantasy side of things but when it gets to bringing non-nationals back to solve their case it starts to feel out of depth.
I don't think ppl realize how many ppl are hanging on by a thread called L&OSVU, unaffected by how Olivia has decided to part her hair or if she now eats on-screen. They are just raw w the emotion of seeing somebody care abt an unexciting, everyday story of rape and wishing they could hv had that compassion and justice too. Their exp of coming fwd ruined *their* life, not their perpetrator. It can be escapism to watch, yes, and the show definitely leans into that narrative. But for many it is infuriating and damaging to their own mental health to hv the show completely misrepresent the truth that survivors face. And if the show is going to market itself as a pinnacle for advocacy, taking a victory lap any time a survivor says the show helped them, then it must also grapple w how out of touch it can often be and how that negatively impacts the same ppl they say they do this show for. (2/2)
Post a Comment