Echoes of My Father - Law & Order S1 E3
Episode Details
Season 1 Episode 3 Subterranean Homeboy Blues
Released September 20th, 1990
Main Cast: Sgt. Max Greevey, Det. Mike Logan, Cpt. Don Cragen, ADA Ben Stone, ADA Paul Robinette
Supporting Cast: Shambala Green (Public Defender), Laura Di Biasi, Darnell Chenault, Michael Jones
Notes
-The opening is so long in this episode. I wonder if this is a tool used to establish how it would feel to be a subway passenger or the show needed to fill the time? The scene is well shot as it feels claustrophobic.
-For Sex in the City fans, Cynthia Nixon is the main support character in this episode. I guess I could note Big is in all these episodes.
- “One less jerk with a screwdriver” casual racism: The character makes a comment about a “jerk” but it’s clear there is a racial undertone to what the character is thinking. I understand for the show, it’s realistic storytelling and the nature of human beings this is something that needs to be featured in the way stories are told. I find myself disappointed every time casual racism makes an appearance. It’s worth repeating, the act of casual racism in any setting leaves open the license for someone to be casually racist later in their day-to-day interactions. This might be a more nuanced scenario for a kid, like me at the time, to pick up on what the character means. I’d want the writer to find another way is all I’m saying.
-The theme in this episode is the presumed guilt of two young black men when one was shot and killed while the other had a bullet pulled out of his back. They may have instigated, and this may have been self-defense, but it is clear the witnesses, and the newspapers, have made up their minds as it pertains to the guilty parties in this crime.
-PAYPHONE!!! The change in technology across the life of the show is so fun to witness. I remember using these tools of the past and seeing the novelty to the characters of things like cell phones and forensic tools is a fun nostalgia trip. I remember hearing about the viability of DNA testing when trials made the public sphere. This show acts as a fun reminder of my own journey through technology as it got better.
-Great Scene: the presumption of who is guilty and innocent comes to a head when Det. Logan expresses concern for the woman shooter. “She defended herself” and he calls one of the shooting victims, with plenty of snark, “such an innocent-looking guy”. Max, Det. Greevey, scolds Mike, Det. Logan, and says that under the law everyone is the same. Being “under arrest for looking guilty” is not how the system should work. What’s great is that Logan shows the expression of reflection. Maybe he is wrong for thinking the way he is. Max says he (Logan) can’t do the job if he is thinking this way, and Logan seems to take this to heart. At least it appears that way at this moment. Max Greevey is a great character because he has some demonstrated biases but is rooted in the “fairness of the law”. Logan, as noted in the pilot episode, is the vehicle the show uses to make viewers question their own biases and gives the audience a chance to learn along the way.
-Ms. Di Biasi is arrested and the trial section starts when we get a restatement of what’s really on trial, class & prejudice. The defense attorney Shambala Green, who is a great character in season one, goes into ADA Stone’s office and tells him he has no case because her case is built on public sentiment, witnesses and “self-defense”. She’s gloating a bit, as she points out herself. Stone replies that he has the law on his side but the way he does it is gross. He stands and moves into her space, pushing her back with that invisible masculine armor that gets societally mislabeled as strength and confidence. It’s just rude and uncalled for. The conversation turns into a discussion about the shortcomings of written laws vs the shared spectrum of experience of the human species. Stone gets into the fine line of what is perceived as the threat of rape and while his hands are tied by the laws he is charged with upholding in court. Green counters with the fact that countless women have had to consider that threat after the rape has started or already ended. It’s the kind of writing that will make you sit and think about how society has codified the back end of crime and punishment while giving little notice to the front end of what makes people get to the act in the first place. Even Stone says “The law is our only defense against the rapists” and therein lies the problem. The law isn’t a solution at all, the law is a tool to tell as much of the truth as possible and allow a jury or judge to decide guilt and apply appropriate recompense in an organized manner. The solution is derived from asking why the two shooting victims were going to Grand Central station to break into lockers and following the trail that comes from the perception of rape from Ms. Di Biasi. The law should not be looked at as a simplification of the human experience. The law is a fair presentation of the facts. Thinking that the law is what provides a level playing field for how people act is ridiculous. The wheels of justice start after the unlevel playing field has created an unjust event. It’s lazy to look at the law and think “well, we have umpteen thousand pages written about how people should act, now people need to act accordingly.” People and society are too broad a spectrum to look at the book of rules with pride. It’s the reduced need for written laws that should be looked at with pride. When society doesn’t need a punishment for theft, we can say that society is taking care of itself.
-The courtroom trial begins, and the prosecution builds its case around the idea that the defendant was looking to shoot the victims. ADA Stones’ questioning of Ms. Di Biasi is hard to watch. As stated earlier, this is a case of class and prejudice but also a reflection on the failure of the system. If I was in the jury box, I would believe what the defendant had to say. I would also be looking at the victims, one dead and one in a wheelchair. We find out later in the episode that one of the victims did have sexually violent tendencies towards women. Stone goes to the judge and has the charges dropped for murder and a plea deal is reached where Ms. Di Biasi serves no jail time. What is the jury supposed to do during the trial? What if the other victim doesn’t come to the District Attorney’s office to share her story about being raped by one of the shooting victims? What if Darnell Chenault doesn’t reveal that Michael Jones perform prior sexually violent acts? Everything must line up just so for justice to occur. This is a TV show, we all know life is messier than a TV show. This is why the law can’t be used as a pillar of the solutions to society. The law looks like a veneer of order that covers a pitted slab of rotted plywood waiting to be replaced. Why can’t we build the walls with solid supports and the law only needs to be a baseboard?
Final Review
I was cold on this episode in the first half. The trial portion brought me around and this might be my favorite of the first three. The previous two episodes were a fun exploration of how the show is formatted and a nice introduction to how characters are used to tell the story. This episode gets into what the law means to different people at different times. This episode makes the audience think about what justice looks like from all angles. This episode shows off a case that exemplifies the shortcomings of the legal system and the construction of a society that leads to this case being a necessity.
Remembering Dad
My Dad and a Little Me
My Dad played tennis every weekend almost without fail. We lived in Ojai and there was a built-in community of tennis players who would meet at Libby Park every Sunday in the morning and play doubles. If he had not become part of the tennis community there is a good chance I would not have taken my first tennis lesson. Tennis was my first sport, it was my best overall sport and it is something that I am trying to get back into today. Albeit with an impinged shoulder and tendonitis that lurks like a shark in deep water. But we’re not here for me, we’re here for Dad.
Tennis was one of my dad’s happy places. It was played in the middle of Ojai, and he loved that town. I don’t know how stressful his job was, but he liked his time on the courts. I wish I had played more when he was there. I remember going with him on a few occasions, but I always felt like “I was a singles player” and my interest in playing doubles was low on the interest scale. I thought highly of myself as a tennis player, hahaha. Dad had a noticeably smooth service motion. He wore the white short shorts of the 80s and early 90s. Look up any Stephan Edberg or Boris Becker match from the early 90s and you will see what my dad was wearing on the courts.
I remember the concentration on his face when he would serve. His tongue would stick out a little and there was some strain pre-loaded in his eyes. You may ask how I saw this from the other side of the court or how I saw it playing doubles with him. I don’t have an answer for you. I just know. I have a strong visual of seeing him serve. I can see him split-stepping and shuffle-stepping around the court. I don’t see him running around the court. He played a lot of doubles and running was not high on the list of requirements.
I have several tennis memories of my dad over the course of my youth. I’m not going to lay them all out in this post. For now, I will leave this post with the visual of sitting in the stands, watching Dad play on the upper courts in Ojai. He is on the deuce side, serving with the ball moving from right to left. The freshly painted green bleachers are ready for “The Ojai” which will be starting in a couple of weeks. No one else is on the court. They are there playing, but I can only see my dad. He is in his happy place.
CHR;)
