Episode #71 "Death And The Lady"

[ViceFanMan]

31 minutes ago, RedDragon86 said:

The "Shadow and the Dark" footage will always bug me and it could easily have been avoided, this is a video I edited today without seeing Sonny's season 3 look in his car. 

 

 

What “Shadow” footage bothers you?

[RedDragon86]

17 minutes ago, ViceFanMan said:

What “Shadow” footage bothers you?

1:18 minute in, especially. 

Basically the driving sequence in the video was more or less taken from Shadow in the Dark.

 

Edited July 12, 2021 by RedDragon86

[jpaul1]

Paul Guiffoyle is great

the snuff topic fits perfectly with the 80s. the 80s was a money deification decade. And selling once death to help your family avoid financial issues sums it perfectly

the last scene ruins a bit the realism. They could have passed the message differently. Still a very good episode

[Glades]

1 hour ago, RedDragon86 said:

The "Shadow and the Dark" footage will always bug me and it could easily have been avoided, this is a video I edited today without seeing Sonny's season 3 look in his car. 

That´s good!

I´m also always bothered by Sonny´s wrong haircuts when he is driving in his car. When I saw the episodes first I didn´t recognize it, but now I do, unfortunatly.

P.S.: It took me some time, but I think now I know the reason for your name "RedDragon"! I was looking for some scripts. You are a huge fan of Manhunter, isn´t it?

[wolfie1996]

16 minutes ago, Glades said:

P.S.: It took me some time, but I think now I know the reason for your name "RedDragon"! I was looking for some scripts. You are a huge fan of Manhunter, isn´t it?

Or is it because RedDragon is Welsh!   Or both!

[Tom]

vor einer Stunde schrieb jpaul1:

 

the last scene ruins a bit the realism. They could have passed the message differently. Still a very good episode

I don’t think the last scene is unrealistic . Just on the contrary. Very realistic from Crockett’s point of view. Think about it.

 Glantz bragged at his release that Crockett can’t prove anything. Then Crockett shows up at night at his place, slaps him and leaves. That was not right but Crockett did not risk anything. Glantz had no witness and proof for Crockett’s attack either. He could have filed a complaint but that would have been word against word (Crockett was smart enough to hit him with the flat hand not to leave any strong marks and DNA was not available back then!)

Crockett knew that and took advantage of it by beating Glantz at the end with his own weapons. And: Crockett did NOT do it just for violence or anger’s sake (low instinct) as this was not his personality. Im order to understand him just think about the story he told Tubbs on the boat about his looking the other way with abuse in high school and that he felt ashamed for it. Now he did not let it happen again. He found his peace of mind to have done all he could by giving Glantz his own taste of chique violence. Probably also thinking that this will scare Glantz off from trying that again to any other girl in the future with Crockett watching him.

For me that part of Crockett’s motivation is obvious and the reason why they had this boat confession scene in this episode at all (and why I like this script so much because it was very controversial to say the least and allows different interpretations!). Just to understand why Crockett did at the end what he did. Not just for cheap revenge but to prevent further victims by standing up for the poor girl where everyone knew that she was murdered but no evidence was available and everyone looked the other way. He learnt his high school lesson. In the Finale he even quit his job by not backing down against injustice and mighty enemies with bad politics. He was just a straight guy with a spine.

Edited July 12, 2021 by Tom

[Robbie C.]

34 minutes ago, Tom said:

I don’t think the last scene is unrealistic . Just on the contrary. Very realistic from Crockett’s point of view. Think about it.

 Glantz bragged at his release that Crockett can’t prove anything. Then Crockett shows up at night at his place, slaps him and leaves. That was not right but Crockett did not risk anything. Glantz had no witness and proof for Crockett’s attack either. He could have filed a complaint but that would have been word against word (Crockett was smart enough to hit him with the flat hand not to leave any strong marks and DNA was not available back then!)

Crockett knew that and took advantage of it by beating Glantz at the end with his own weapons. And: Crockett did NOT do it just for violence or anger’s sake (low instinct) as this was not his personality. Im order to understand him just think about the story he told Tubbs on the boat about his looking the other way with abuse in high school and that he felt ashamed for it. Now he did not let it happen again. He found his peace of mind to have done all he could by giving Glantz his own taste of chique violence. Probably also thinking that this will scare Glantz off from trying that again to any other girl in the future with Crockett watching him.

For me that part of Crockett’s motivation is obvious and the reason why they had this boat confession scene in this episode at all (and why I like this script so much because it was very controversial to say the least and allows different interpretations!). Just to understand why Crockett did at the end what he did. Not just for cheap revenge but to prevent further victims by standing up for the poor girl where everyone knew that she was murdered but no evidence was available and everyone looked the other way. He learnt his high school lesson. In the Finale he even quit his job by not backing down against injustice and mighty enemies with bad politics. He was just a straight guy with a spine.

I agree, Tom. As do others on this thread (Crockett slapping Glantz sends a clear message). It makes total sense if you look at the entirety of the episode. 

[jpaul1]

in nowadays context it was dumb. for the following reasons. As i already pointed it out, a simple slap can start an  haemorragia and kill. So Crockett basically bets his whole carreer in the move. If Castillo had known this he would have strongly refrain Crockett from continuing. Crockett goes out of its range which is law enforcement, and not judging, and sentencing.

This being said, in the 80s sometimes the use of violence by law enforcement was more tolerated than today. Still Crockett is not trying to get a critical info, but giving a judgement. which for me is totally wrong, and unreallistic from a good cop like Crockett

[Eillio Martin Imbasciati]

17 hours ago, ViceFanMan said:

Where do I even begin with this episode? This is definitely one of the most “dark”, tragic, bizarre...but captivating, fascinating, amazing episodes of the season (as starting with Season 4 there weren’t as many anymore) as well as the series! This is definitely another 80s neo-noir episode & one of my favorites! Here’s some of my original thoughts & some additions:

Love this episode! It's wild, bizarre, tragic, eye-opening, captivating, and mesmerizing!  Ahh...the old urban legend of a "snuff" film turning out to be a real snuff flick! I’ve read before that supposedly the FBI claims there’s is no such thing as a real snuff film where someone is actually killed (although supposedly “fake” snuff films do exist for the sick & disturbed). I don’t believe them, and sadly would not be surprised if real snuff films have been made before.

But, several shows have done an episode regarding the idea of a snuff film turning out to be real--Silk Stalkings and CSI to name a couple. But, it always makes for an interesting episode and MV does not disappoint!

This episode really delved into the seedy, destructive, realistic, and I'll even venture to say evil aspects of porn, and the disgusting lengths some will go to to make a buck. The acting, especially by Don Johnson, was superb! I love the scene where Crockett really looks at the video of the porn movie, and realizes by the girl's eyes that...she's dead! I thought guest-star Penelope Ann Miller also did an outstanding, heart-wrenching job!

I loved the wild plot twists, and trying to figure out which girl was the dead one (Laurie Swan, Amy Rider, or Margo), or if there really was a dead girl? The bizarre and whacked out announcer at the beginning, with the gold hands sewn on his suit coat, was an eye-popping, majorly perverted, but an interesting touch to really draw you in from the start!

Guest-star Paul Guilfoyle is a superb actor...and I've seen him in several other things, but he'll always be Capt. Jim Brass on CSI to me.  But, he is outstanding in this episode as porn producer/artist Milton Glantz! He's perfectly bizarre, sleezy, majorly creepy...even possibly mentally disturbed! But, anyone who agrees to actually have a girl killed (dying of cancer or not) in a sick porn movie is not exactly running on all cylinders.

The other guest-stars in this were also awesome...from Miguel Ferrer, Kelly Lynch, Penelope Ann Miller (as I stated earlier above), Michael David Morrison, etc... The colors of the sets, inside rooms, buildings, lighting, neon lights, etc...were all superb!! I love the colors of Glanz's (Guilfoyle) photography studio...where he took that bum from the outside alley and wrapped him up in plastic, splattering him with red paint to simulate blood. Besides that "twisted" scene, the teal walls/ceiling and pink chair & love seat totally made that room! I really liked most of the colors and lighting used for this episode--very captivating, wild, and eye-catching.

Also, I laughed my butt off at the bag lady in the alley...as Crockett was showing up at Glantz's and his camera people were taking the bum inside. What the heck was up with her walk?  She just kind of had this bizarre, spastic-like waddle from side-to-side as she drug this garbage bag behind her.  

The music in this one was outstanding! As always Jan Hammer's themes and songs were awesome and truly MV! But the Depeche Mode songs in this were absolutely superb--Never Let Me Down Again and Pleasure, Little Treasure! But, I love Depeche Mode period...so of course I'm going to enjoy those. But, other awesome songs included the "haunting" The Edge of Town by The Truth, Vet For the Insane by Fields of the Nephilim, and The Story Never Ends by Naked Prey.

However, one aspect that didn't set quite right for me was the pastels missing from the fashion or wardrobe. Everyone seems to be dressed in darker tones. But, I think this was around the time that other producers were changing things--including the colors of the clothes. But, I do like Crockett's hairstyle better than season 3, and I also like the black Wayfarers he wearing...instead of those other strange black Pearsol sunglasses from season 3. These shades aren't tortoise shell like seasons 1&2...but at least they're Wayfarers. 

I know this has been brought up & discussed multiple times before...but, I also thought the end was a little over-the-top and strange. I mean, of course we all understand why Crockett would want to just show up and beat the "crap" out of Glantz...but really?? Glantz was not some scuzzy, low-life drug dealer that would never press charges because he didn't want to have police attention. He was unfortunately high-society and had tons of high-up connections--from politicians, lawyers, judges, probably the mayor, etc... Crockett would have been arrested, fired from the OCB, and probably sent to prison for assault & battery and intent to do bodily harm.

The last scene of him handing the bum (same homeless drunk Glantz used earlier for his plastic wrap project) Glantz's leg porn award was kind of "appropriate" and even humorous.  In my opinion, that kind of award belonged in the “gutter”! 

Also...was it ever explained why Gina and Trudy were at the erotic film festival to begin with at the beginning? I understood the introduction of Milton Glantz and his snuff film Death and the Lady...but then all of a sudden Gina and Trudy are there. Were they into violent, erotic porn (after all later Gina says she's seen Glantz's film and he as a nice touch ) ...or were maybe they there to look for drugs or illegal-age porn stuff? Just never quite figured that one out... 

But, overall this episode was superb and one of my favorites of season 4 & the series! I originally gave it a 9...but if I could bump it up to a 10, I would!

A cool montage of the episode I found online!

I think Gina & Trudy were there for intel. I like how open-minded Gina was about the whole thing though, and glad that bit of dialogue was thrown in. Tough episode for Crockett, but good one for Gina: she enjoyed the film festival, and also gets a cat (unless Castillo wants shared custody of it; oh well, maybe they can hash it out over a Bushido Burger or something)!

[Eillio Martin Imbasciati]

30 minutes ago, jpaul1 said:

in nowadays context it was dumb. for the following reasons. As i already pointed it out, a simple slap can start an  haemorragia and kill. So Crockett basically bets his whole carreer in the move. If Castillo had known this he would have strongly refrain Crockett from continuing. Crockett goes out of its range which is law enforcement, and not judging, and sentencing.

This being said, in the 80s sometimes the use of violence by law enforcement was more tolerated than today. Still Crockett is not trying to get a critical info, but giving a judgement. which for me is totally wrong, and unreallistic from a good cop like Crockett

It was a little out of character, I agree, which is why the ending resonates with me; Crockett completely lost any sense of professionalism and acted all too human. Heck, to me Crockett's behavior was just as disturbing as Glantz's smug approach to life & death (maybe that was the point? To me, this show always had a ton of subtext contained in episodes, enhanced by the show's tendency to express thoughts and emotions visually).

[ViceFanMan]

48 minutes ago, jpaul1 said:

in nowadays context it was dumb. for the following reasons. As i already pointed it out, a simple slap can start an  haemorragia and kill. So Crockett basically bets his whole carreer in the move. If Castillo had known this he would have strongly refrain Crockett from continuing. Crockett goes out of its range which is law enforcement, and not judging, and sentencing.

This being said, in the 80s sometimes the use of violence by law enforcement was more tolerated than today. Still Crockett is not trying to get a critical info, but giving a judgement. which for me is totally wrong, and unreallistic from a good cop like Crockett

I agree, and it was dumb back then, too! Glantz was way too well connected, and if it came down to Crockett’s word over Glantz’s, Glantz would win. Glantz could have made up lies about something Crockett supposedly did & he’d be believed. The whole ending doesn’t really make sense...yes, we know why he’d want to hit Glantz but the way it was done was weird, would have probably ruined his career, and it could have been done differently. 

[jpaul1]

6 minutes ago, ViceFanMan said:

I agree, and it was dumb back then, too! Glantz was way too well connected, and if it came down to Crockett’s word over Glantz’s, Glantz would win. Glantz could have made up lies about something Crockett supposedly did & he’d be believed. The whole ending doesn’t really make sense...yes, we know why he’d want to hit Glantz but the way it was done was weird, would have probably ruined his career, and it could have been done differently. 

yes, Crockett was lucky that in his moment of madness to hit Glantz conscience. And let that last mentally shocked, like if he realised something was deeply disturbing in that artistic movie. Still this wasn't Crockett role to initiate that awareness

[Tom]

vor einer Stunde schrieb jpaul1:

in nowadays context it was dumb. for the following reasons. As i already pointed it out, a simple slap can start an  haemorragia and kill. So Crockett basically bets his whole carreer in the move. If Castillo had known this he would have strongly refrain Crockett from continuing. Crockett goes out of its range which is law enforcement, and not judging, and sentencing.

Now you are overdoing it. A slap with the flat hand will not kill. It’s not correct but it was not a fist punch. So let’s stay realistic. Nobody was there except Crockett and Glantz and nobody could have reported Crockett realistically. And Castillo was similar to Crockett and even did an intentional kill later in Borrasca. He would not have done anything unless Crockett did something in public (like in some episodes when Crockett crossed the line in OCB). The whole episode was about a controversial and outraging topic and Crockett’s behaviour made sense in that context. Vice endings were not always nice, by the book or comfortable but realistic for the character or the situation as opposed to other series.

 

[ViceFanMan]

A slap won’t necessarily kill, true...but it’s still considered assault. Glantz knew & was way too connected with judges & politicians...it wouldn’t matter if Crockett hadn’t actually hit him, if Glantz had made a phone call or two & said he had, Crockett would be gone (from the force). 

The way they had Crockett carry out his outrage was weird and didn’t really make sense. Overall the episode is superb, but the ending could have been done differently or better.

[Tom]

vor 16 Minuten schrieb ViceFanMan:

I agree, and it was dumb back then, too! Glantz was way too well connected, and if it came down to Crockett’s word over Glantz’s, Glantz would win. Glantz could have made up lies about something Crockett supposedly did & he’d be believed. The whole ending doesn’t really make sense...yes, we know why he’d want to hit Glantz but the way it was done was weird, would have probably ruined his career, and it could have been done differently. 

Unrealistic. Please get real! Glantz could not have done anything without proof. Just say he slapped me would have been not enough. No politician would have wanted to get associated with that smelly snuff case anyway. And Crockett was a well reputable 15 year police veteran with a clean file and great arrest record and Glantz needed to stay below the radar after the dead girl case and Crockett obviously after him. 
 

in the context of the episode the ending Made full sense for Crockett’s character and would have been bad/out of character/ cheesy otherwise. Could not imagine a different ending ….

[Eillio Martin Imbasciati]

26 minutes ago, ViceFanMan said:

I agree, and it was dumb back then, too! Glantz was way too well connected, and if it came down to Crockett’s word over Glantz’s, Glantz would win. Glantz could have made up lies about something Crockett supposedly did & he’d be believed. The whole ending doesn’t really make sense...yes, we know why he’d want to hit Glantz but the way it was done was weird, would have probably ruined his career, and it could have been done differently. 

For sure, Glantz could've sent Crockett's career in freefall, and turned his badge to dust, especially since there was an established beef between the two which many had witnessed. Crockett would have less of a chance with those allegations than he would if he tried to single-handedly overthrow Costa Morada.

[Tom]

vor 5 Minuten schrieb ViceFanMan:

A slap won’t necessarily kill, true...but it’s still considered assault. Glantz knew & was way too connected with judges & politicians...it wouldn’t matter if Crockett hadn’t actually hit him, if Glantz had made a phone call or two & said he had, Crockett would be gone (from the force). 

You’re kidding right? Completely unrealistic to get a veteran cop with good reputation off the force for an alleged assault without evidence.

did he get sacked in Prodigal son for confronting the banker? The banker had more juice than the arthouse director.

[ViceFanMan]

1 minute ago, Tom said:

Unrealistic. Please get real! Glantz could not have done anything without proof. Just say he slapped me would have been not enough. No politician would have wanted to get associated with that smelly snuff case anyway. And Crockett was a well reputable 15 year police veteran with a clean file and great arrest record and Glantz needed to stay below the radar after the dead girl case and Crockett obviously after him. 
 

in the context of the episode the ending Made full sense for Crockett’s character and would have been bad/out of character/ cheesy otherwise. Could not imagine a different ending ….

I am being realistic...the politicians were involved with Glantz (as he said). Since Crockett did assault him, technically Glantz could press charges, and in reality would have! He’d already been released from any charges, so Crockett’s attack would be enough for the judges & politicians to take action if Glantz demanded it. But, Glantz would also want Sonny to go away (or be removed) and not further investigate the murder of Amy. The ending is just too goofy and made no sense.

[Glades]

35 minutes ago, Eillio Martin Imbasciati said:

To me, this show always had a ton of subtext contained in episodes, enhanced by the show's tendency to express thoughts and emotions visually.

That´s what I especially love about Vice.

The scene where Crockett hits Glanz appears to me from its mood as if a father (in earlier times) punishes his spoiled child. Crockett explains to the "child" what he did wrong and punishes him relatively emotionlessly. Not out of rage or in the heat of the moment.

[Tom]

Gerade eben schrieb ViceFanMan:

I am being realistic...the politicians were involved with Glantz (as he said). Since Crockett did assault him, technically Glantz could press charges, and in reality would have! He’d already been released from any charges, so Crockett’s attack would be enough for the judges & politicians to take action if Glantz demanded it. But, Glantz would also want Sonny to go away (or be removed) and not further investigate the murder of Amy. The ending is just too goofy and made no sense.

Unrealistic without physical evidence. Try to accuse a cop and see what happens. Politicians liked Glantz paintings but would not have risked their career for him.

[Eillio Martin Imbasciati]

2 minutes ago, Glades said:

That´s what I especially love about Vice.

The scene where Crockett hits Glanz appears to me from its mood as if a father (in earlier times) punishes his spoiled child. Crockett explains to the "child" what he did wrong and punishes him relatively emotionlessly. Not out of rage or in the heat of the moment.

It does come off like that, he gave Glantz an adult spanking; I never thought of it that way, but I see it now. Good call on the perspective!

[ViceFanMan]

Just now, Tom said:

Unrealistic without physical evidence. Try to accuse a cop and see what happens. Politicians liked Glantz paintings but would not have risked their career for him.

According to “theory” physical evidence would be needed. In “reality” politicians and high society sadly operate differently. Glantz had them in his pocket, and they would have enough power to have Crockett removed from the force, or demoted. 

[Eillio Martin Imbasciati]

1 minute ago, ViceFanMan said:

According to “theory” physical evidence would be needed. In “reality” politicians and high society sadly operate differently. Glantz had them in his pocket, and they would have enough power to have Crockett removed from the force, or demoted. 

Yeah, politicians have done worse with less on this show; I could really see dark possibilities concerning Crockett. That's why I'm a little dubious on the ending here and in 'Yankee Dollar' (Crockett's cover seriously blown there and things left open-ended).

[Tom]

vor 1 Minute schrieb ViceFanMan:

According to “theory” physical evidence would be needed. In “reality” politicians and high society sadly operate differently. Glantz had them in his pocket, and they would have enough power to have Crockett removed from the force, or demoted. 

Unrealistic. Crockett was a Vice cop and had to deal with people with much more juice than Glantz. Naive to believe that it just takes a call from a pissed off celebrity suspect to get a Vice cop booted from the force. Sorry but this is science fiction. Think about what you’re saying. Everyone in Castillo’s Unit would have been terminated long before season 2 going by your logic.

[ViceFanMan]

1 minute ago, Eillio Martin Imbasciati said:

Yeah, politicians have done worse with less on this show; I could really see dark possibilities concerning Crockett. That's why I'm a little dubious on the ending here and in 'Yankee Dollar' (Crockett's cover seriously blown there and things left open-ended).

Judges, senators, and politicians in real life don’t always need physical evidence to get something done they want. They have enough power & clout to get people below them to carry out their demands & they can fabricate evidence if needed. In reality Crockett would have been in serious trouble.