Amy (![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
brightknightie) wrote2008-02-02 10:33 pm
brightknightie) wrote2008-02-02 10:33 pm
Even "Capitol Offense" Has Good Points
[Crossposted from forkni-l. In reply to remarks on the second-season episode "Capitol Offense."]
Nick getting away with breaking lots of procedures and perhaps contributing negligently to homicide is just a "little bit"?
Well, yes, in "Capitol Offense," it is, because, as we know, the even bigger reality-defying problem in this episode is that Canada would never extradite someone who faces the death penalty. It's against the law. If "Capitol Offense" had happened in the real Toronto, the Laura Garfield character would probably be behind bars in a Canadian prison to this day, as I understand it. They wouldn't ship her home until Texas gave up the death penalty -- which is to say, never.
But despite that infamous blunder nomination for the wall of shame, I really do love two things about "Capitol Offense." One is Nick and Natalie's chat in the morgue as she retrieves the scrunchie. In that scene, we learn that 1) Natalie and Nick canonically have all-night conversations, and 2) Nick opposes the death penalty, which is not only the "vampire against death" irony that Natalie points out, but also a dynamic setting him in opposition to Janette's favoring of eye-for-an-eye revenge, and also supporting his faith in the possibility of redemption through repentance for anyone -- even himself. This scene is a favorite.
The other thing I've come to love about "Capitol Offense" over the years is Lacroix's almost schizophrenic contradiction over Marise. Lacroix tells Nick that Nick must trust Lacroix, that only Lacroix can be trusted, and then Lacroix immediately, blatantly, brutally breaks a promise and shows that he is not to be trusted, that nothing he says can be trusted in the least, by murdering Marise. It's horrid, and I cringe away or argue back at the screen knowing it's coming, but it's also part of an important pattern. The "Capitol Offense" flashback fits smoothly with the flashback of "Father Figure," for example, where Lacroix's friend Thomas tricks Nick and murders his friend Helen Ruskin-Slater in a bet with Lacroix, or "Father's Day," where Lacroix slams Nick around, bullies Janette, and follows Nick to the ends of the earth. Flashbacks in this strain exhibit why Nick feels the way he does about Lacroix. Nick is not misguided to feel so; Lacroix has diligently taught Nick to feel that way.
(I say "come to love about" CO, because I used to dismiss it, even dislike it. I used to find the contradictions too hard to reconcile, and the errors too hard to overlook. I've mellowed, maybe? I know I appreciate the cop plots of many episodes much more than I used to, even those more at odds with reality than the series norm.)
Just some thoughts. :-) I admit I haven't rewatched the episode yet for this discussion. Have I misremembered? Should I be looking from a different angle?
Nick getting away with breaking lots of procedures and perhaps contributing negligently to homicide is just a "little bit"?
Well, yes, in "Capitol Offense," it is, because, as we know, the even bigger reality-defying problem in this episode is that Canada would never extradite someone who faces the death penalty. It's against the law. If "Capitol Offense" had happened in the real Toronto, the Laura Garfield character would probably be behind bars in a Canadian prison to this day, as I understand it. They wouldn't ship her home until Texas gave up the death penalty -- which is to say, never.
But despite that infamous blunder nomination for the wall of shame, I really do love two things about "Capitol Offense." One is Nick and Natalie's chat in the morgue as she retrieves the scrunchie. In that scene, we learn that 1) Natalie and Nick canonically have all-night conversations, and 2) Nick opposes the death penalty, which is not only the "vampire against death" irony that Natalie points out, but also a dynamic setting him in opposition to Janette's favoring of eye-for-an-eye revenge, and also supporting his faith in the possibility of redemption through repentance for anyone -- even himself. This scene is a favorite.
The other thing I've come to love about "Capitol Offense" over the years is Lacroix's almost schizophrenic contradiction over Marise. Lacroix tells Nick that Nick must trust Lacroix, that only Lacroix can be trusted, and then Lacroix immediately, blatantly, brutally breaks a promise and shows that he is not to be trusted, that nothing he says can be trusted in the least, by murdering Marise. It's horrid, and I cringe away or argue back at the screen knowing it's coming, but it's also part of an important pattern. The "Capitol Offense" flashback fits smoothly with the flashback of "Father Figure," for example, where Lacroix's friend Thomas tricks Nick and murders his friend Helen Ruskin-Slater in a bet with Lacroix, or "Father's Day," where Lacroix slams Nick around, bullies Janette, and follows Nick to the ends of the earth. Flashbacks in this strain exhibit why Nick feels the way he does about Lacroix. Nick is not misguided to feel so; Lacroix has diligently taught Nick to feel that way.
(I say "come to love about" CO, because I used to dismiss it, even dislike it. I used to find the contradictions too hard to reconcile, and the errors too hard to overlook. I've mellowed, maybe? I know I appreciate the cop plots of many episodes much more than I used to, even those more at odds with reality than the series norm.)
Just some thoughts. :-) I admit I haven't rewatched the episode yet for this discussion. Have I misremembered? Should I be looking from a different angle?