Episode #89 "Deliver Us From Evil"

[Robbie C.]

6 hours ago, Glades said:

I know from a interview (with someone of the producers/writers/...?) that is was planned that Caitlin would leave Crockett in some way, but it wasn´t planned in advance why/how exactly. I remember that  e.g. divorce was mentioned as a possibility.

And I agree, I´m pretty sure that "Deliver Us from Evil" wasn´t planned already in S3.

Also, if you look at the writing history of Forgive Us Our Debts the original title was The Gang's All Here and it was in essence written by committee (Dick Wolf even shows up in there). When it morphed into FUOD it trimmed back to one. Doubtful any major "looking forward" happened then. And given Vice's lack of that sort of planning I really have a hard time seeing this as the one exception.

[ViceFanMan]

21 hours ago, fakespyder said:

Yeah, season 4 was all over the place in story quality. Episodes like this gave me faith the show still had decent writers.

With the first Hackman episode being 'Forgive us our debts' I'm wondering if they knew back then where this 'deliver us from evil' story arch was heading? I doubt they'd considered the amnesia aspect that followed, but did they know way back in season 3 that Sonny would begin unraveling by the end of s4?

Anyway, the final scene with Sonny dangling and dropping the necklace was satisfying and disturbing. Hackman had relied on Sonny's morality to get off of death row. but now you could see it dawn on Hackman that Crockett wasn't "just doing his job" anymore.

For that reason I could kind of buy the idea of Hackman reaching for a gun while pretending to just lay there. I know it was an addition made to calm censors back then, but that is how I narratively rationalise it.

It didn't detract from the power of the scene.

I agree with some of the other recent posts, that with the lack of continuity with characters & past storylines...I don’t feel or believe this was pre-planned earlier by writers. By this time I think they were desperate to try and get ratings back, so they were just “madly” popping out the most bizarre or over-the-top plots/episodes they could to try and get people to start watching again. It failed.

Although this is supposedly Pt. 1 of a 4-part Crockett/Burnett-Saga story arch, in my opinion it’s not. Crockett was going through a lot, yes, but he hadn’t lost his mind yet...that didn’t happen until the next episode with the boat explosion. To me the Burnett-Saga is just 3 parts. 

As for Crockett shooting Hackman in cold blood, or planting a gun...neither is true, nor what is shown. Yes, originally I think they were going to have Crockett shoot him in cold blood...but (perhaps the right decision) the network had them change it to Hackman already being armed & tried to shoot Sonny first. Like it or not that’s what we have to go with. What was originally going to be, ended up not “being”.  Sonny went there to shoot him, at the last second realized he couldn’t just pull the trigger, but then he could once Hackman tried to pull the gun out. It was self-defense, whether some like that or not. 

 As far as I know there has never been any indication (script, writers, network, etc..) that Sonny planted a gun on anyone. That’s a total fabricated “what-if”.  The fact remains that in the episode Hackman already had a gun and tried to shoot Crockett first. 

Edited February 15, 2021 by ViceFanMan

[Bren10]

I still say gun or no gun, Hackman is dead. No way Sonny leaves that island with him still alive. He gives Hackman a chance to defend himself by telling him to "get up". When he demurs, Sonny pull his gun anyway as if to say "Fine, have it your way. But this is going to happen." I don't see a realization that he couldn't do it but then suddenly had to defend himself against a hidden gun. Maybe seeing Hackman's hidden gun sealed the deal or maybe Hackman putting his hands behind his head relaxing was a giveaway, but either way the outcome was going to be the same. Sonny didn't need a hidden weapon to justify the shooting. The justification for him came with Frankel, Caitlyn and his now dead, unborn child.

[Glades]

It was often discussed here whether Sonny shooted in self defense or not. And there is no agreement.

What I really ask myself is: How can Sonnys shoot ever be self defense? Is my concept of self defense totally wrong? Or is it different in the US?

When I´m correct, Hackmann is in the garden of his house (maybe rented, but his). Sonny enters Hackmann's private property without authorization and as a private person. And for sure without permission of Hackmann.
So Hackmann would have any right to shoot Sonny to defend himself. And Sonny has no right to shoot Hackmann at all. Or can an trespassing intruder actually claim self-defense when he is threatened?

I´m curious about your arguments!

 

[ViceFanMan]

9 minutes ago, Glades said:

It was often discussed here whether Sonny shooted in self defense or not. And there is no agreement.

What I really ask myself is: How can Sonnys shoot ever be self defense? Is my concept of self defense totally wrong? Or is it different in the US?

When I´m correct, Hackmann is in the garden of his house (maybe rented, but his). Sonny enters Hackmann's private property without authorization and as a private person. And for sure without permission of Hackmann.
So Hackmann would have any right to shoot Sonny to defend himself. And Sonny has no right to shoot Hackmann at all. Or can an trespassing intruder actually claim self-defense when he is threatened?

I´m curious about your arguments!

 

Self defense (legal or otherwise) is having someone try to kill or harm you first...giving you the right to defend yourself. Sonny originally went there to kill Hackman in revenge...but when he pulled his gun, he hesitates. He could have just blown Hackman away immediately, without even the "banter" back and forth. He doesn't. But, when he sees Hackman has pulled a gun to try & kill Sonny first, then he has no problem or hesitation shooting him. I know that probably originally the script did have him shoot Hackman in cold blood...but that ultimately was changed, and that is not what happened in the episode. Therefore, we cannot go with that scenario...even if some would like it to have been. But, the fact remains...it wasn't. It ultimately was self defense (even if some government, ours or foreign, "legally" would have questions about that). I think that it was to make the shooting more justified in viewer's minds, and to show that Crockett hadn't completely lost his mind...yet. That came in just the next episode!

Edited February 15, 2021 by ViceFanMan

[fakespyder]

If the censors did insist on placing a gun in Hackman's hand then the makers of the show deserve credit for doing it in such a way that still calls into question whether Sonny acted out of self preservation or revenge.

The ending does lean on personal interpretation. I've gone back and forth on it, but I'm mostly in the 'shot him in cold blood' camp (albeit with a compromised mental state).

Sonny gave Hackman the opportunity to follow his direction but he knew Hackman wouldn't. Hackman saw it all as a game and he still counted on Sonny acting as a cop. Hackman didn't appreciate how badly he'd hurt Crockett because he's incapable of that kind of empathy.

[ViceFanMan]

31 minutes ago, fakespyder said:

If the censors did insist on placing a gun in Hackman's hand then the makers of the show deserve credit for doing it in such a way that still calls into question whether Sonny acted out of self preservation or revenge.

The ending does lean on personal interpretation. I've gone back and forth on it, but I'm mostly in the 'shot him in cold blood' camp (albeit with a compromised mental state).

Sonny gave Hackman the opportunity to follow his direction but he knew Hackman wouldn't. Hackman saw it all as a game and he still counted on Sonny acting as a cop. Hackman didn't appreciate how badly he'd hurt Crockett because he's incapable of that kind of empathy.

True, Hackman was a sociopath/psychopath...he had no conscience, feeling, empathy, etc...so he might not have fully understood Crockett changing his thoughts/actions. But, even though originally Sonny did go there to assassinate him in cold blood...he ultimately did not do that. Again, he could have just stood from a short distance...or just walked straight up to him & took Hackman out. But, he doesn't ultimately do that. There's even some "banter" (mostly from Hackman) between them. When Crockett pulls his gun, he hesitates...then you hear/see the shot. For a split second you're supposed to think he just shot him outright...but then you're shown that Hackman had a hidden gun of his own that he tried to pull first...giving Crockett the excuse to actually fire. Like it or not, Sonny shot him in self defense.

Even if originally the script did have Crockett kill him in cold blood...they (writers, network, censors, etc...) ended up not having him do that. Even if we wanted it to be that way, or wish they'd of gone that route...it ultimately was not how things were. We have to ultimately go with what actually is & was in the episode, even if we don't want to or like that way. Anything else is just supposition, theories, or what-if scenarios. Those can be fun or interesting...but they aren't what actually is or was. They're more like creating "alternate" endings or scenarios for fun.

Edited February 15, 2021 by ViceFanMan

[fakespyder]

So we all see the gun in Hackman's hand...no denying it. The reason I go back and forth on whether Sonny shot him in cold blood is: did Sonny see Hackman's gun? And if he did was he just being darkly facetious when he replied "Wrong" to Hackman's comment about "You can't shoot an unarmed man"

Also why would Sonny be shaking as if conflicted if he saw Hackman's gun?

While I agree we can't create alternate endings, I do think there's some ambiguity as to those final moments and Sonny's motivation.

Edited February 15, 2021 by fakespyder

[Robbie C.]

And now people are wandering into what-if territory. We don't know Hackman was pulling the gun. We are not shown that. You see the gun as Sonny walks away. There is no indication in the scene that Hackman had the gun visible, or if he did that he pointed it at Sonny.

When Sonny holds the cross in front of him, Hackman is forced to use his right hand, which we hadn't seen in shot prior to this. Both his hands are visible, and the book is high on his chest. His left hand is visible most of the time otherwise. The key transition is when Hackman leans back and closes his eyes, severing any direct human connection he had with Sonny. Sonny shoots and says "Wrong." Then we have a transition before Sonny turns and walks away. Actually, we don't even see him turn. It just cuts to him walking away in close frame. The gun is shown in Hackman's LEFT hand, which was in shot the entire time prior to him leaning back and closing his eyes. The gun is also totally in the open, touched only by Hackman's left index finger low on the grip. Sonny shot him through the book and, by implication, the heart. Hackman is shown earlier to be left-handed, but that hand is visible throughout the entire sequence. That is ALL they show us.

The genius of that scene is simply that it DOESN'T show us what really happened. There is no conclusive visual evidence that Hackman pulled the gun on Sonny, and there's also no conclusive visual evidence that he didn't. It all comes down to how you view the character of Sonny. Period.

Edited February 15, 2021 by Robbie C.

[fakespyder]

I didn't mean to imply Hackman was pulling the gun, just that we see him holding a gun in the final shot. I was kind of jumping around the timeline in my comments so apologies for the confusion.

25 minutes ago, Robbie C. said:

The genius of that scene is simply that it DOESN'T show us what really happened. There is no conclusive visual evidence that Hackman pulled the gun on Sonny, and there's also no conclusive visual evidence that he didn't. It all comes down to how you view the character of Sonny. Period.

Well said.

Pretty much what I was trying to get at in my own clumsy way

Edited February 15, 2021 by fakespyder

[ViceFanMan]

1 hour ago, fakespyder said:

So we all see the gun in Hackman's hand...no denying it. The reason I go back and forth on whether Sonny shot him in cold blood is: did Sonny see Hackman's gun? And if he did was he just being darkly facetious when he replied "Wrong" to Hackman's comment about "You can't shoot an unarmed man"

Also why would Sonny be shaking as if conflicted if he saw Hackman's gun?

While I agree we can't create alternate endings, I do think there's some ambiguity as to those final moments and Sonny's motivation.

The whole point of showing the gun in Hackman's hand, totally out in the open for us as viewers to see after the shot (as obviously Crockett saw it too as it was right there), was to show that ultimately Crockett shot him in self defense...otherwise there would be no point for Hackman's gun if supposedly they did have Sonny shoot him in cold blood. They would have not included Hackman's gun, and just had Crockett walk up and shoot him. That's not what happened. They wanted the split-second shock moment of thinking Crockett just shot him outright...then they show you that, no Hackman did have a gun, tried to shoot Sonny first, but Crockett was quicker as was able to take Hackman out first in self defense.

The "you can't shoot an unarmed man" & "wrong" comments by both were made in sarcasm as obviously Hackman was not unarmed, and Crockett saw that..and also knew that there's no way Hackman would be unarmed at any time! I know some like & want it to be that Sonny just shot him in cold blood...but again, it just isn't there. Like it or not, the writers & network changed it to self defense. Anything else is just creating the what-if & "alternate" scenarios.

Edited February 15, 2021 by ViceFanMan

[Robbie C.]

36 minutes ago, fakespyder said:

I didn't mean to imply Hackman was pulling the gun, just that we see him holding a gun in the final shot. I was kind of jumping around the timeline in my comments so apologies for the confusion.

Well said.

Pretty much what I was trying to get at in my own clumsy way

I was actually replying to another poster and didn't mean to imply you'd said that.

[Robbie C.]

46 minutes ago, ViceFanMan said:

The whole point of showing the gun in Hackman's hand, totally out in the open for us as viewers to see after the shot (as obviously Crockett saw it too as it was right there), was to show that ultimately Crockett shot him in self defense...otherwise there would be no point for Hackman's gun if supposedly they did have Sonny shoot him in cold blood. They would have not included Hackman's gun, and just had Crockett walk up and shoot him. That's not what happened. They wanted the split-second shock moment of thinking Crockett just shot him outright...then they show you that, no Hackman did have a gun, tried to shoot Sonny first, but Crockett was quicker as was able to take Hackman out first in self defense.

The "you can't shoot an unarmed man" & "wrong" comments by both were made in sarcasm as obviously Hackman was not unarmed, and Crockett saw that..and also knew that there's no way Hackman would be unarmed at any time! I know some like & want it to be that Sonny just shot him in cold blood...but again, it just isn't there. Like it or not, the writers & network changed it to self defense. Anything else is just creating the what-if & "alternate" scenarios.

Perhaps you can indicate at what point in the last four minutes of the episode we see Hackman trying to shoot Sonny? Or where Sonny's facial expression changes in any way prior to the shot to indicate he sees a gun? Or, for that matter, any point in those four minutes where we see a LIVE Hackman with a gun? It isn't there, unless you have a different version of the episode than the Universal DVDs. At 45:26 we see both of his hands as he deals with the cross. At 45:50 Hackman leans back and breaks eye contact with Sonny. Sonny already has his 645 up at this point. We saw it shake slightly in his hand while Hackman still had eye contact, but it steadies at 45:54 when the camera returns to Sonny. There is NO change in Sonny's facial expression between that moment and 45:58 when he fires a single shot. He also doesn't move or even blink. At 46:03-04 he says "Wrong" in reply to Hackman's comment about not being able to shoot an unarmed man. He then shifts and moves out of the shot, turning slightly but not quite turning fully around. At 46:16 we see him walking away, but there was a hitch...not a smooth turn. The angle is also different. Did he just turn and leave, or did he walk over to Hackman? We don't know, and the shots are in my view constructed to leave that question open.

I'm going into that level of detail because at its core Vice was a very visual show. Each shot was very deliberate and chosen to convey a particular effect or image. If they wanted us to KNOW Crockett acted in self-defense, they would have shown that. If they wanted us to KNOW he didn't, the gun wouldn't have been shown near Hackman.

The entire scene is shot with the intent of being ambiguous. You can assume Sonny acted in self-defense, or assume he for whatever reason planted a gun on Hackman after he killed him. Even the positioning of the gun barely in Hackman's left hand (his arm flopped on a side table almost out of reach if the gun had been hidden there...and there's really nothing on the table that could have hidden the gun) leaves the question wide open. You have your opinion of what happened, I have mine, others have theirs. The episode is deliberately inconclusive here. And to me that's what makes the last four minutes of this episode so good.

Edited February 15, 2021 by Robbie C.

[vicegirl85]

I agree, it is left ambiguous.  Viewers can choose the interpretation that feels right to them.  It's OK for people to have conflicting interpretations, but it's not possible to know for sure, according to what we are shown in the scene.

[Robbie C.]

4 minutes ago, vicegirl85 said:

I agree, it is left ambiguous.  Viewers can choose the interpretation that feels right to them.  It's OK for people to have conflicting interpretations, but it's not possible to know for sure, according to what we are shown in the scene.

I agree. That's why I broke the last part down in as much detail as I did. The whole thing was shot in such a way you can find point/counterpoint in just about every angle. The only thing we know from what the episode actually shows is Sonny fired a shot and Hackman is dead. And if you want to go all grassy knoll with it you can't even say for sure (based on what they show) that Sonny was the one who shot Hackman... (just had to throw that in there...)

[ViceFanMan]

We can create all the what-if & alternate scenarios we want for fun & to try and make things more interesting.

No matter what we want or wish for, or try to make it into something else...we can’t get around the fact that it was purposely shown that Hackman had a gun, tried to pull it out to shoot Crockett first, but Sonny was faster & saw/knew what was happening. 

Again, if the “in cold blood” scenario was being left open for interpretation...there would literally be no purpose or reason for Hackman’s gun! The episode flat out shows that Hackman did have a gun and Crockett shot him in self defense. You can’t get around that...even if you want & try to! Whether we like it or not, the in cold blood aspect was changed by the network & writers to self defense.

I’m not against the scenario that Sonny would have taken revenge and/or shot Hackman in cold blood (although we all know it’s wrong & Crockett probably would have had issues with himself afterwards)...it definitely would have made for interesting plots later on! Personally I’m actually glad they changed it, but it would have made for some interesting controversy if they’d of left it “revenge”. But...they didn’t.

I’m just acknowledging what actually happened and was purposely shown in the episode. Trying to make it into anything else is, again, creating what-if or alternate theories/scenarios that are not there—as cool or interesting as they might be. 

[Robbie C.]

So you can't actually locate a scene that SHOWS Hackman pulling a gun? You keep stating this as fact, when there's nothing in the actual episode to support it. We see a gun with Hackman at the end, giving weight to one interpretation. We also see Sonny shooting, with no wider shot indicating a threat, giving weight to another interpretation. Those are the facts of what we're shown. Insisting Hackman pulled a gun and tried to shoot Sonny is just as much an alternative or what-if version (given what we're actually SHOWN) as insisting Sonny planted the gun and just blew Hackman away for revenge.

As ViceGirl pointed out, there's nothing wrong with believing one version of the event. There's also nothing wrong with believing another. The whole thing was shot (I believe) purposefully to allow that.

[fakespyder]

Well, as this difference of views clearly demonstrates, you can see why I go back and forth on the issue

[Bren10]

Just wanted to refer to this thread where a lot of this was analyzed and discussed.

 

 

[ViceFanMan]

1 minute ago, Robbie C. said:

So you can't actually locate a scene that SHOWS Hackman pulling a gun? You keep stating this as fact, when there's nothing in the actual episode to support it. We see a gun with Hackman at the end, giving weight to one interpretation. We also see Sonny shooting, with no wider shot indicating a threat, giving weight to another interpretation. Those are the facts of what we're shown. Insisting Hackman pulled a gun and tried to shoot Sonny is just as much an alternative or what-if version (given what we're actually SHOWN) as insisting Sonny planted the gun and just blew Hackman away for revenge.

As ViceGirl pointed out, there's nothing wrong with believing one version of the event. There's also nothing wrong with believing another. The whole thing was shot (I believe) purposefully to allow that.

Again...we don’t need to see Hackman pulling a gun. The whole point was to purposely not show that at first...for the split second shock of thinking Crockett might have shot Hackman in cold blood. Then we’re purposely shown that wasn’t the case...then we are shown Hackman’s gun & that he’d tried to pull it & shoot Crockett first.

But, Crockett wasn’t stupid, nor crazy...yet (that came in the next few episodes ). He saw, and was probably expecting, the gun...as Hackman would never be unarmed at any time! No matter how many ways we try to “cut” it, nor how many ways we want to beat the proverbial dead-horse...we can’t get around the fact Hackman had a gun, it was shown in his hand, and that’s why Crockett ultimately fired...in self defense.

I totally get that you & some others like, want it to be, and would have preferred the shoot, in-cold-blood, for revenge scenario. That’s totally cool for personal preference!  

But, like it or not, we can’t get around the fact that the network changed that & went with the self defense version instead. Otherwise, again, there’d be no purpose or reason to show & include Hackman’s gun. Any other “chosen” interpretation or ideas are just what-if or alternate scenarios...as interesting or cool as they might be. 

[ViceFanMan]

6 minutes ago, Bren10 said:

Just wanted to refer to this thread where a lot of this was analyzed and discussed.

 

 

Remember this thread...and this scene-clip proves the point that Hackman had a gun, tried to shoot first, but Crockett was quicker, and was able to take Hackman out...in self defense. That was the point of showing the gun. Otherwise they’d of not had Hackman’s gun, and just had Crockett shoot him in cold blood/revenge.

Edited February 16, 2021 by ViceFanMan

[fakespyder]

We could go even deeper into the rabbit hole though:

Is it really self defence on Sonny's part? If Hackman goes for a gun after seeing quite clearly Crockett's intentions in giving him back the necklace and Sonny aiming his gun. At this point Hackman is still unarmed as he's holding the necklace.

If anything Hackman going for a weapon is self defence. A sickening thought but I hope you see where i'm coming from.

Just another take. We could go round and round on this subject.

[RedDragon86]

Reality- Sonny killed Hackman while he was unarmed.

BS TV version - They put a gun in Guy Boyd's hand to water it down.

[ViceFanMan]

11 minutes ago, fakespyder said:

We could go even deeper into the rabbit hole though:

Is it really self defence on Sonny's part? If Hackman goes for a gun after seeing quite clearly Crockett's intentions in giving him back the necklace and Sonny aiming his gun. At this point Hackman is still unarmed as he's holding the necklace.

If anything Hackman going for a weapon is self defence. A sickening thought but I hope you see where i'm coming from.

Just another take. We could go round and round on this subject.

I see what you’re saying...but like it or not, Hackman pulling the gun makes it justified for Crockett. In the real world...who knows? But in MV-world, the aspect of showing Hackman had a gun & tried to pull it first, shows self defense for Crockett. 

1 minute ago, RedDragon86 said:

Reality- Sonny killed Hackman while he was unarmed.

BS TV version - They put a gun in Guy Boyd's hand to water it down.

Sorry...but reality is Hackman had a gun & tried to shoot first. That was the point of showing it. Maybe originally they were going to have Crockett shoot him unarmed...but ultimately they chose not to do that, & went with the self defense idea instead. Like it or not, that’s “reality” for the episode & MV. Anything else is just supposition, what-ifs, or alternate ideas/scenarios. 

[RedDragon86]

13 minutes ago, ViceFanMan said:

I see what you’re saying...but like it or not, Hackman pulling the gun makes it justified for Crockett. In the real world...who knows? But in MV-world, the aspect of showing Hackman had a gun & tried to pull it first, shows self defense for Crockett. 

Sorry...but reality is Hackman had a gun & tried to shoot first. That was the point of showing it. Maybe originally they were going to have Crockett shoot him unarmed...but ultimately they chose not to do that, & went with the self defense idea instead. Like it or not, that’s “reality” for the episode & MV. Anything else is just supposition, what-ifs, or alternate ideas/scenarios. 

I don't know, the gun being in his hand felt forced for TV purposes. Like at first "oh my good Sonny has did it, he has killed him" "Or but look he had a gun in his hand, so it is OK"

Edited February 16, 2021 by RedDragon86