Here is the discussion topic for Law & Order SVU “Undertow” which aired on Thursday, March 13, 2025. Please feel free to add any feedback you have about this episode in the comments!
Here is the discussion topic for Law & Order SVU “Undertow” which aired on Thursday, March 13, 2025. Please feel free to add any feedback you have about this episode in the comments!
7 comments:
Wow... just wow. SVU finally did a decent episode for a change!
Well I for one am shocked. This was a really good episode! Finally a story that was interesting and it was hard to figure out how it was going to end. Both people were at fault. How can either of them get justice if they both did wrong? I suppose the mistrial solves that - I doubt that they will retry this one. I bet the boy's mother wished she'd just kept her mouth shut - better yet that she didn't snoop to begin with. Now the lives to two people and their families are ruined.
I tend to either like or loathe eps that leave me turning it around long after the fact. I seem to be somewhere in the middle w this one. I only caught up w this ep on Sat but I needed time to digest especially because I felt I wasn't in the same direction the show wanted me to go in So cue the TLDR:
I felt that the show was trying to do the "what if the genders were reversed" thing. Then Carisi raised this pt in his closing arguments. To Mr. Carisi I would say that my feelings would be the same if all the details of the case were also the same. When the 16yo GIRL was passing as an adult, sitting at the bar having a drink like she had already been carded; a text was discovered of her saying she was going to tag an older man and she had left the sexual encounter w his boxers as a souvenir, without his knowledge- Yeah I still see there is a grown man sleeping w a 16yo. I still see areas where he could hv made different choices and I still see that this is NOT a winnable case. Certainly not a purely mathematical one as Carisi was trying to assert.
In his initial interview w Bruno, Ryan states that Stacy was buying him alcohol throughout their evening together. As viewers we see that he has a drink already when she approaches him at the bar and that the bottle, laced w Molly, that he brought to the pool was his. I was not sure if as viewers we were supposed to assume she bought him more drinks 'off camera' or if this was meant to be him bending the truth but it didn't make sense or add to a feeling of him being taken advantage of.
I strongly dislike the conflating of what happened to Bruno w this case. Not gonna knock what triggers Bruno. Maybe it was enough to see a boy of a similar age as he was. But so much of the circumstances differ after that. As Bruno's neighbor, Mrs. Olsen would hv KNOWN that he was only 15. She, perhaps, may hv even known him when he was a lot younger.
And as far as wanted and unwanted experiences go- Ryan wanted to hv sex w Stacy but he was not old enough to give that consent. This, experientially, may be different from someone who did *not* want a sexual event to occur and had no idea it was coming till he was already being molested. And this is not to discount rape on the basis of age difference thereby rendering the person unable to consent. Just that, in terms of what is 'gelling' together in a person's mind during an assault I think there is a difference between thinking you want this experience even if a bit nervous and being blindsided by an unwanted experience when you're supposed to be in the safety of your own bed. It sounds like Bruno had a freeze response, 'playing possum' if u will, and then disassociated from the memory. Even the rationalization of "I did not want to embarass *her*" sounds like a way to stave off any emotional connection. It doesn't reveal how he was being impacted in the moment and sounds even like guilt. (1/3)
I would even put what happened w Benson and Burton Lowe in a separate category to what happened in this case. Benson 'consented' to sex but really couldn't because she wasn't old enough to fully grasp the manipulation at hand. But again, Burton KNEW she was a teenaged girl and KNEW of her issues and how to manipulate these to his advantage. There are obvious things that merit predation on his part even if Olivia, giddy w teenage love, couldn't see it for what it was. There is a pattern of behavior that continues after his rel w Liv right down to the specific piece of music he uses to lure his victims in. None of this is true w Stacy. She did not know he was 16 till Olivia was in her living room. And he actively took measures to conceal his age from her. They tried to add nuance in the fact that she picked up the bottle herself to drink from but he also was deceitful, and arguably intentional, when he didn't reveal its true contents to her. Legally there are different degrees of sexual assault- Rape1 etc. I will never say that a 30 smthg year old sleeping w a 16 year old is ok. But as far as a case like this going to trial- I don't see it. It seems there were many factors that made it very difficult for Stacy to make informed consent herself. I think a hung jury was inevitable. I think especially w the text from him saying he was going to "tag" an older woman. Also, secretly taking her underwear as a souvenir. It makes it harder to see him as the one who was taken advantage of. I don't think you're going to convince 12 ppl to rule that way based on age alone
I would rank this ep higher if it had ended w a plea deal, leading me to think the convoluted nature of the case was meant to nudge some analytical thinking on the part of the viewer and nothing more. Where it goes to trial in a matter of days it starts to feel like absurd fiction. 97% of reported cases in NY don't make it to trial. I know this one would not hv. And I know enough of the process to know this would not be the quick turnaround from date of incident to date of verdict
This story felt like a reciprocal of "Tenfold" where Liv asserted that icky behavior doesn't mean a criminal act. This new case is icky because of an adult sleeping w a minor and I think it is clear that Stacy felt icky abt that too as she was unaware of his true age. But in the context of what she knew in the moment it was not "icky beh"- more so irresponsible. And it is interesting to watch the show attempt to shame her for one night stands and cheating history given its modern history to veer away from such shaming. But it is incredible that as the law works- an adult overtly hitting on 13 year olds and checking out a 9 year old (bleh- yucky even to type) is not a criminal act that can be brought to trial but sleeping w someone you didn't know was under 18 in a hook-up situation leads to the evisceration of a teaching career and a trial.
This ep had me siding w the defense attorney more than the ADA. The defense felt sound while a lot of Carisi's positions felt perplexing if not outright aggravating (only to be outdone by the ep where he insisted an intellectually impaired person was also a child predator who needed to be convicted). I was not a fan of Carisi in this ep (2/3)
Timeline of the case: Liv and Curry visit Stacy at her home in NJ on Mon 10 March 2025 to ask abt the incident on Saturday. Therefore: incident occurs on March 08. Arraignment for Stacy is March 11 and a verdict (hung jury) is handed down on March 13. FIVE DAYS!!! 5 days from the moment of the incident at the hotel to a JURY returning a verdict in a court trial. In what world?! Discovery alone could take a year! Just putting together the jury and alternatives is a time-consuming matter. I know ppl like these cards in between the story but I wish they would leave out the date. The timeline thing is really a distraction for me and, for whatever reason, bothers me some weeks more than others.
I know they want to create a fantasy world that survivors can hope for but when they take it this far and make coming forward appear to be so seamless and expedient I think it does more harm than good. For one thing, irl, I think "who did you tell" is beginning to be the "what were you wearing". "Who did you tell" is a a very important and relevant question don't get me wrong but I do think at times it is asked in an accusatory way. And there's a sentiment of "if this 'really happened' why didn't you tell the police and put this person in jail" as if this all gets resolved in a matter of days, not even weeks. And it negates that ppl do tell and spend *years* telling and pursuing all sorts of lawsuits and other avenues trying to resolve what happened to them and losing so much in the meantime. It will remain one of my peeves of this show- like getting justice is effortless and only requires the survivor to say smthg. The rest will be handled lovingly and expediently. Faster, even, than it sometimes takes ppl to get a hair appt at the salon (3/3)
Timelines have always been a problem. It's never been realistic. I think over time, many have just looked past it as it's understood that time is compressed for the benefit of moving the story along. My pet peeve is when timelines cross from episode to episode and there have been times when multiple cases just could not - or would not - be handled concurrently. I can't think of any specifics off the top of my head but I know in the past there have been some.
Yes valid point. I saw smthg like that last summer while watching some past eps and was surprised by this very thing.
And yes, i know the thing is to ignore the literal timeline. And like i said in my original post- I do so more successfully in some eps than others. I think the timeframe is easier to overlook when the rest of the ep seems to hv been done well.
I do maintain tho, that while, literally, many viewers can say, "of course not" to the speed at which things reach trial, I do think there is a subliminal msg that justice is easy, quick and fair. The only ordeal seems to really be in the crime itself. You dont get the sense that a victim will end up in cuffs because they werent believed or that their case went to trial on the 12th of Never. I think despite the willingness to not parse out the dates shown in the eps and be so literal about it that there is still an overall sense of swift justice that is severely misleading. And, from what Ive seen in documentaries and live speeches, I do think there are many who are taken by surprise on how frustrating the process actually is because they hv spent so many years watching the show. And holding the show's "feet to the fire" isnt just because they're a show on SA and the justice system but because they are also a show that has spent years boasting that survivors know what to "expect" once they've been assaulted, having watched the show.
And i still do think all this adds to the impatience we hv as to how survivors behave in the aftermath of an assault. For one thing- expecting that they will walk into a scenario like the show, even its interview environment and style, and as a result not understanding the survivor's hesitation to make a report or see it thru to the end.
I know a reply wasnt expected so i hope it is ok that I did. And we both know I cant be brief abt anything :) but i liked the opportunity to reflect on this some more. I will try harder to be patient abt these timeline of events :)
Post a Comment