Faulty logic
Perhaps I'm obsessive, but I find apparent inconsistencies in stories that hinge upon a specific fact quite annoying. Thurs night we saw the movie "The Reader" and then watched the fourth series of "Prime suspect" on TV. The drama and the acting in these movies was excellent, with Kate Winslet in the former and Helen Mirren in the latter. But, the effect was spoiled for me by what I consider a glaring discrepancy in each.
Probably I shouldn't give away the details, but if you haven't seen "The Reader" and you intend to, you shouldn't read any further. What was morally upsetting about the protagonist in "The Reader," Hannah Schmitz, was the fact that she was more ashamed of not being able to read and write than that she had been responsible for the murder of hundreds of Jewish women. She had been a concentration camp guard during the war, and was on trial not only for selecting women for death, but for allowing 300 women to burn to death in a locked Church.
With her on trial were five other guards, all of whom claimed that she had been in charge, and had written the report to the SS that was before the court. She could have refuted this charge by simply pointing out that she could not write! But, instead she accepted the blame. As a consequence she was sentenced to life imprisonment for the murder of these women, rather than the 4.5 years that the other guards received for "aiding and abetting" the deaths. So in a subtle twist she, the concentration camp guard, becomes the vicitm, and the real victims are glossed over. Now, it's true that she was ashamed of being illiterate, but really, is it conceivable that she would have accepted to go to prison for life when all she had to do was have her lawyer whisper in the judge's ear that she could not write.
From a dramatic point of view it would have been much more satisfactory if the young man with whom she had had an affair, who was in the audience, and who realized her "terrible secret," had shouted out "she can't write!" Or when he was in conversation with his Professor and told him that he knew an important fact about the case, why didn't he tell him what it was, or why didn't the Professor bother to find out? Anyway in the process of any criminal case, statements are taken, they have to be written, read and signed. How could she have really faked her way through all of that. It was not credible.
In the fourth series of "Prime Suspect" the whole story hinges on whether or not the killer of two women is a copy-cat killer or actually the serial killer of six prior women. Deputy Chief Inspector Jane Tennison has put away George Marlow for the first set of murders, but now her solving of that case has come into question. Another Inspector is convinced that the serial killer must have been someone else who is still at large. So the indomitable Jane investigates the case herself and finds that it all hinges on whether or not the killer of the last two women knew whether or not the previous killer had sprayed his victims with a specific scent, gardenia. This proved that Marlow had to have been the killer of the first six women because he was obsessed by this scent (something to do with him as a child finding his mother having sex with another man). It is implied that the copy cat killer must have learnt about this fact from Marlow's common-law wife Moira. But, since it turns out that the copy-cat killer was in fact Marlow's prison guard (an unlikely story) and since Marlow could have told him this fact, as well as telling him other facts about the way the women were murdered, it seems that the story of the scent was a red herring. Isn't it obvious that if there is a strong possibility of a copy-cat killer the police would want to check all persons who Marlow communicated with, and wouldn't a simple interrogation of his guard have shed some suspicion (since he was clearly supposed to be mentally disturbed). So while it seemed dramatic at the time, it really doesn't hold water.
If only I could enjoy these and other CSI programs without finding fault in their logic.
Probably I shouldn't give away the details, but if you haven't seen "The Reader" and you intend to, you shouldn't read any further. What was morally upsetting about the protagonist in "The Reader," Hannah Schmitz, was the fact that she was more ashamed of not being able to read and write than that she had been responsible for the murder of hundreds of Jewish women. She had been a concentration camp guard during the war, and was on trial not only for selecting women for death, but for allowing 300 women to burn to death in a locked Church.
With her on trial were five other guards, all of whom claimed that she had been in charge, and had written the report to the SS that was before the court. She could have refuted this charge by simply pointing out that she could not write! But, instead she accepted the blame. As a consequence she was sentenced to life imprisonment for the murder of these women, rather than the 4.5 years that the other guards received for "aiding and abetting" the deaths. So in a subtle twist she, the concentration camp guard, becomes the vicitm, and the real victims are glossed over. Now, it's true that she was ashamed of being illiterate, but really, is it conceivable that she would have accepted to go to prison for life when all she had to do was have her lawyer whisper in the judge's ear that she could not write.
From a dramatic point of view it would have been much more satisfactory if the young man with whom she had had an affair, who was in the audience, and who realized her "terrible secret," had shouted out "she can't write!" Or when he was in conversation with his Professor and told him that he knew an important fact about the case, why didn't he tell him what it was, or why didn't the Professor bother to find out? Anyway in the process of any criminal case, statements are taken, they have to be written, read and signed. How could she have really faked her way through all of that. It was not credible.
In the fourth series of "Prime Suspect" the whole story hinges on whether or not the killer of two women is a copy-cat killer or actually the serial killer of six prior women. Deputy Chief Inspector Jane Tennison has put away George Marlow for the first set of murders, but now her solving of that case has come into question. Another Inspector is convinced that the serial killer must have been someone else who is still at large. So the indomitable Jane investigates the case herself and finds that it all hinges on whether or not the killer of the last two women knew whether or not the previous killer had sprayed his victims with a specific scent, gardenia. This proved that Marlow had to have been the killer of the first six women because he was obsessed by this scent (something to do with him as a child finding his mother having sex with another man). It is implied that the copy cat killer must have learnt about this fact from Marlow's common-law wife Moira. But, since it turns out that the copy-cat killer was in fact Marlow's prison guard (an unlikely story) and since Marlow could have told him this fact, as well as telling him other facts about the way the women were murdered, it seems that the story of the scent was a red herring. Isn't it obvious that if there is a strong possibility of a copy-cat killer the police would want to check all persons who Marlow communicated with, and wouldn't a simple interrogation of his guard have shed some suspicion (since he was clearly supposed to be mentally disturbed). So while it seemed dramatic at the time, it really doesn't hold water.
If only I could enjoy these and other CSI programs without finding fault in their logic.
posted by Jack Cohen at 8:45 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home