|
|
Post by snacky on Mar 23, 2015 15:28:08 GMT
Agreed. I really didn't care for this episode the first time I saw it, and I think it was because I was annoyed that Gillies was running the entire show and they were bumbling the whole affair. However, once I rewatched it knowing Gillies was going to get away, I appreciated all the little things, and everyone's reaction to Gillies and how beautiful everyone's acting was. It's definitely improved with subsequent viewings, and it is an angsty, beautiful episode that deserves more love. The moment I love best in this episode is when Julia tells Gillies she requested to get his brain for study after his death. The actor playing him does *such* a good job with it - you can see that Gillies is genuinely surprised, even taken aback, by this. It is, in fact, probably the most genuine moment we see from Gillies in any of his appearances. Brief, but powerful. Yes, caught off guard at last!  I think it's great to have an archnemesis on MM. I just don't like the hysterical crazy type like Gillies. And though I think people have been polite about not making a big deal out of this (or perhaps the audience wasn't of the political mix to care), it always weirded me out that Gillies was the evil gay villain. Brackenreid did quite a bit of speculating on Gillies' proclivities in Big Murder on Campus. Then in Night Train to Kingston he kisses William. You can say he's just distracting William by using William's own prejudices against him, but the innuendo from Big Murder on Campus makes you wonder whether Gillies really does have "feelings" for the man who truly challenges him. This also casts a shadow on his attack on Julia - was he checking out/getting rid of a rival...? Once these questions come to mind, we are thrown back on the stereotype that Brackenreid opined in Til Death Do Us Part - something about how "pansies" have all the petty vindictiveness of women with the male tendency to get the job done. Was Gillies just a flaming shrew with the brains to get the job done? What a horrible deployment of stereotype. |
|
|
|
Post by Hodge on Mar 23, 2015 16:51:28 GMT
The moment I love best in this episode is when Julia tells Gillies she requested to get his brain for study after his death. The actor playing him does *such* a good job with it - you can see that Gillies is genuinely surprised, even taken aback, by this. It is, in fact, probably the most genuine moment we see from Gillies in any of his appearances. Brief, but powerful. Yes, caught off guard at last! I think it's great to have an archnemesis on MM. I just don't like the hysterical crazy type like Gillies. And though I think people have been polite about not making a big deal out of this (or perhaps the audience wasn't of the political mix to care), it always weirded me out that Gillies was the evil gay villain. Brackenreid did quite a bit of speculating on Gillies' proclivities in Big Murder on Campus. Then in Night Train to Kingston he kisses William. You can say he's just distracting William by using William's own prejudices against him, but the innuendo from Big Murder on Campus makes you wonder whether Gillies really does have "feelings" for the man who truly challenges him. This also casts a shadow on his attack on Julia - was he checking out/getting rid of a rival...? Once these questions come to mind, we are thrown back on the stereotype that Brackenreid opined in Til Death Do Us Part - something about how "pansies" have all the petty vindictiveness of women with the male tendency to get the job done. Was Gillies just a flaming shrew with the brains to get the job done? What a horrible deployment of stereotype. I suspect this is a little too deep for a lot of MM watchers that only ever see what's on the surface. Many haven't clued in to all the innuendo yet. |
|
|
|
Post by carco on Mar 29, 2015 14:57:16 GMT
Yes, caught off guard at last! I think it's great to have an archnemesis on MM. I just don't like the hysterical crazy type like Gillies. And though I think people have been polite about not making a big deal out of this (or perhaps the audience wasn't of the political mix to care), it always weirded me out that Gillies was the evil gay villain. Brackenreid did quite a bit of speculating on Gillies' proclivities in Big Murder on Campus. Then in Night Train to Kingston he kisses William. You can say he's just distracting William by using William's own prejudices against him, but the innuendo from Big Murder on Campus makes you wonder whether Gillies really does have "feelings" for the man who truly challenges him. This also casts a shadow on his attack on Julia - was he checking out/getting rid of a rival...? Once these questions come to mind, we are thrown back on the stereotype that Brackenreid opined in Til Death Do Us Part - something about how "pansies" have all the petty vindictiveness of women with the male tendency to get the job done. Was Gillies just a flaming shrew with the brains to get the job done? What a horrible deployment of stereotype. I suspect this is a little too deep for a lot of MM watchers that only ever see what's on the surface. Many haven't clued in to all the innuendo yet. I've always thought that the Gillies' character was almost the antithesis of the William character. If William turned evil he could have given Gillies a run for his money. If Gillies had seriously harmed or killed Julia, that point might have been proven. As different as they are/were, I feel there's a very fine line that separates them. And I have also always thought there was this strange "respect" for one another. They each stood on opposite sides (good and evil) but knew the other was their equal. Gillies was an excellent villain! |
|
|
|
Post by lovemondays on Mar 29, 2015 17:55:23 GMT
I suspect this is a little too deep for a lot of MM watchers that only ever see what's on the surface. Many haven't clued in to all the innuendo yet. I've always thought that the Gillies' character was almost the antithesis of the William character. If William turned evil he could have given Gillies a run for his money. If Gillies had seriously harmed or killed Julia, that point might have been proven. As different as they are/were, I feel there's a very fine line that separates them. And I have also always thought there was this strange "respect" for one another. They each stood on opposite sides (good and evil) but knew the other was their equal. Gillies was an excellent villain! Well said Carco. A true hero deserves a worthy adversary and he did have one in Gillies. You make an excellent point about the very fine line that separates them. |
|
|
|
Post by snacky on Mar 29, 2015 18:01:33 GMT
I suspect this is a little too deep for a lot of MM watchers that only ever see what's on the surface. Many haven't clued in to all the innuendo yet. I've always thought that the Gillies' character was almost the antithesis of the William character. If William turned evil he could have given Gillies a run for his money. If Gillies had seriously harmed or killed Julia, that point might have been proven. As different as they are/were, I feel there's a very fine line that separates them. And I have also always thought there was this strange "respect" for one another. They each stood on opposite sides (good and evil) but knew the other was their equal. Gillies was an excellent villain! The most interesting thing about William, especially in early seasons, is he wasn't really "good" vs. "evil". There were points that could certainly be scored against him, especially when one moral order was set against another. The most notorious point was around abortion and, to a lesser extent, contraception. There was his "over-zealousness" for the truth. I noted recently that he wasn't against beating up suspects - he just let the Inspector handle that for him! He elected to not communicate with Julia so much that we constructed elaborate psychological reasons for that condition - none of which we see a hint of now, so a lot of that has to be chalked up to plain old stubbornness. Anyway, William has become more "good" in later seasons. Part of this is because part of his growth process has enabled William to confront his earlier conflicts (the things that might have turned him into a supervillain). Now he's running out of these things, which is probably part of the dilemma of the writers when then are complaining their idea well is running dry. They don't want to just write a mystery. They want to write a mystery that challenges William's character in some way. They can probably play with the Catholic bits some more, but the problem there is it's doubtful the writers would have a good grip of the internal history/tenets of historical Catholicism, much less the events that would impact William's belief system. It's a shame because the onset of modern science haunted the church at that time, and the resulting secularization of the world showed that the church sort of bungled it.  |
|
|
|
Post by lovemondays on Mar 29, 2015 18:17:06 GMT
I've always thought that the Gillies' character was almost the antithesis of the William character. If William turned evil he could have given Gillies a run for his money. If Gillies had seriously harmed or killed Julia, that point might have been proven. As different as they are/were, I feel there's a very fine line that separates them. And I have also always thought there was this strange "respect" for one another. They each stood on opposite sides (good and evil) but knew the other was their equal. Gillies was an excellent villain! The most interesting thing about William, especially in early seasons, is he wasn't really "good" vs. "evil". There were points that could certainly be scored against him, especially when one moral order was set against another. The most notorious point was around abortion and, to a lesser extent, contraception. There was his "over-zealousness" for the truth. I noted recently that he wasn't against beating up suspects - he just let the Inspector handle that for him! He elected to not communicate with Julia so much that we constructed elaborate psychological reasons for that condition - none of which we see a hint of now, so a lot of that has to be chalked up to plain old stubbornness. Anyway, William has become more "good" in later seasons. Part of this is because part of his growth process has enabled William to confront his earlier conflicts (the things that might have turned him into a supervillain). Now he's running out of these things, which is probably part of the dilemma of the writers when then are complaining their idea well is running dry. They don't want to just write a mystery. They want to write a mystery that challenges William's character in some way. They can probably play with the Catholic bits some more, but the problem there is it's doubtful the writers would have a good grip of the internal history/tenets of historical Catholicism, much less the events that would impact William's belief system. It's a shame because the onset of modern science haunted the church at that time, and the resulting secularization of the world showed that the church sort of bungled it. This is why Gillies was such a good antihero. He put William's 'goodness' into specific relief against Gillies' 'evilness'. I agree that William has come a very long way in the development of his moral compass. As he has matured it has become less rigid (pure Catholic doctrine and the letter of the law) and more humanitarian (Catholic but more sympathetic to motivation and awareness of some failings within the legal system). If Fr. Keegan becomes a recurring character, it might be a sign that the writers are going to explore some of this conflict between Church and science. |
|
|
|
Post by snacky on Mar 29, 2015 18:28:14 GMT
This is why Gillies was such a good antihero. He put William's 'goodness' into specific relief against Gillies' 'evilness'. I agree that William has come a very long way in the development of his moral compass. As he has matured it has become less rigid (pure Catholic doctrine and the letter of the law) and more humanitarian (Catholic but more sympathetic to motivation and awareness of some failings within the legal system). If Fr. Keegan becomes a recurring character, it might be a sign that the writers are going to explore some of this conflict between Church and science. Ooh, good point about Father Keegan! William might find himself defending his marriage to him more and more, too. I miss William having a nemesis. He needs another one to throw the ways he is "good" into relief, while at the station he can continue to be a whole person and not some Disneyfied character the way he was in danger of becoming this season. This is where Eva is one of the good ones: she realizes BOTH William and Julia are still insecure about each other...William's jealous streak has been canon from Season 2. |
|
|
|
Post by snacky on Mar 29, 2015 18:39:02 GMT
I've always thought that the Gillies' character was almost the antithesis of the William character. If William turned evil he could have given Gillies a run for his money. If Gillies had seriously harmed or killed Julia, that point might have been proven. As different as they are/were, I feel there's a very fine line that separates them. And I have also always thought there was this strange "respect" for one another. They each stood on opposite sides (good and evil) but knew the other was their equal. Gillies was an excellent villain! Well said Carco. A true hero deserves a worthy adversary and he did have one in Gillies. You make an excellent point about the very fine line that separates them. I did despise Gillies, though. Just too nutty. William deserves a more sophisticated antihero. |
|
|
|
Post by lovemondays on Mar 29, 2015 20:12:23 GMT
This is why Gillies was such a good antihero. He put William's 'goodness' into specific relief against Gillies' 'evilness'. I agree that William has come a very long way in the development of his moral compass. As he has matured it has become less rigid (pure Catholic doctrine and the letter of the law) and more humanitarian (Catholic but more sympathetic to motivation and awareness of some failings within the legal system). If Fr. Keegan becomes a recurring character, it might be a sign that the writers are going to explore some of this conflict between Church and science. Ooh, good point about Father Keegan! William might find himself defending his marriage to him more and more, too. I miss William having a nemesis. He needs another one to throw the ways he is "good" into relief, while at the station he can continue to be a whole person and not some Disneyfied character the way he was in danger of becoming this season. This is where Eva is one of the good ones: she realizes BOTH William and Julia are still insecure about each other...William's jealous streak has been canon from Season 2. We are definitely going to see Eva Pierce again. |
|
|
|
Post by Hodge on Mar 29, 2015 20:23:05 GMT
Ooh, good point about Father Keegan! William might find himself defending his marriage to him more and more, too. I miss William having a nemesis. He needs another one to throw the ways he is "good" into relief, while at the station he can continue to be a whole person and not some Disneyfied character the way he was in danger of becoming this season. This is where Eva is one of the good ones: she realizes BOTH William and Julia are still insecure about each other...William's jealous streak has been canon from Season 2. We are definitely going to see Eva Pierce again. Yes and I look forward to that but she's going to have a harder time manipulating William now. I'm not so sure about Julia though. Although she understands Eva she still lets her get under her skin. |
|
|
|
Post by lizmc on Mar 29, 2015 20:28:43 GMT
I've always thought that the Gillies' character was almost the antithesis of the William character. If William turned evil he could have given Gillies a run for his money. If Gillies had seriously harmed or killed Julia, that point might have been proven. As different as they are/were, I feel there's a very fine line that separates them. And I have also always thought there was this strange "respect" for one another. They each stood on opposite sides (good and evil) but knew the other was their equal. Gillies was an excellent villain! They can probably play with the Catholic bits some more, but the problem there is it's doubtful the writers would have a good grip of the internal history/tenets of historical Catholicism, much less the events that would impact William's belief system. It's a shame because the onset of modern science haunted the church at that time, and the resulting secularization of the world showed that the church sort of bungled it. I'm curious, Snacky, why you think the writers wouldn't have a good grip on the history of Catholicism.....one thing that I think has been consistent about this series has been the historical accuracy and feeling. There is no reason do think that they can't continue to do so, including the religious aspect of the characters....... |
|
|
|
Post by Hodge on Mar 29, 2015 20:34:55 GMT
They can probably play with the Catholic bits some more, but the problem there is it's doubtful the writers would have a good grip of the internal history/tenets of historical Catholicism, much less the events that would impact William's belief system. It's a shame because the onset of modern science haunted the church at that time, and the resulting secularization of the world showed that the church sort of bungled it. I'm curious, Snacky, why you think the writers wouldn't have a good grip on the history of Catholicism.....one thing that I think has been consistent about this series has been the historical accuracy and feeling. There is no reason do think that they can't continue to do so, including the religious aspect of the characters....... Not to mention they can do the research if necessary. I think it they were to approach the church about certain aspects they'd be more than willing to help. |
|
|
|
Post by snacky on Mar 29, 2015 20:45:52 GMT
We are definitely going to see Eva Pierce again. Yes and I look forward to that but she's going to have a harder time manipulating William now. I'm not so sure about Julia though. Although she understands Eva she still lets her get under her skin. Julia is surprisingly skittish for a psychiatrist. I don't think she has the professional temperament for that field. Maybe a growth moment for her would be learning that.  |
|
|
|
Post by snacky on Mar 29, 2015 20:48:31 GMT
I'm curious, Snacky, why you think the writers wouldn't have a good grip on the history of Catholicism.....one thing that I think has been consistent about this series has been the historical accuracy and feeling. There is no reason do think that they can't continue to do so, including the religious aspect of the characters....... Because they punted on the priest talk before the marriage. The priest asked questions, but we never heard Julia's answers. |
|
|
|
Post by lovemondays on Mar 29, 2015 20:53:23 GMT
Yes and I look forward to that but she's going to have a harder time manipulating William now. I'm not so sure about Julia though. Although she understands Eva she still lets her get under her skin. Julia is surprisingly skittish for a psychiatrist. I don't think she has the professional temperament for that field. Maybe a growth moment for her would be learning that. That's why her 'niche' is as a profiler. It would logically put her in the middle of William's cases as his sounding board rather than just having a conversation over tea and crumpets in the hotel. |
|
