In This Section
|
« Law & Order: SVU
Episode Recap: "Unorthodox"
For all you bloggers who want L&O:SVU to go back to investigating sex crimes I think we can all agree that the rape of a young boy is going to qualify.
Now since Olivia was the featured detective in last week's episode it was pretty obvious that we'd be treated to a little Elliot Stabler tonight. But lo and behold who is that dapper chap standing next to him? Well if my eyes don't deceive me I do believe it's our long lost conspiracy minded investigator Det. John Munch. Haven't seen too much of Richard Belzer since NBC sidelined him at the beginning of this season. NIce to have him back
Wonder what came first though? Did the Orthodox Jew storyline logically dictate Belzer's presence or did they figure: well we're committed to putting Richard in one episode this year so let's throw his religion into the mix? If that's what its going to take I guess we won't see Munch again until SVU starts investigating hate crimes or someone defaces a synagogue. Shame. They even dumped him once it moved past the Hasidic Jewish community. Don't you think his character would be in court alongside Stabler or checking in with ADA Novak?
Interesting glimpse into the Hasidic lifestyle. Sad that it would cover up rapes on children like the Catholic priest scandals we've all heard about. Imagine...it's better to be a thought a child molester than get caught with your girlfriend? If this is true I'd like to know. Anyone? I don't want to take theology lessons from a TV show.
The actor playing the Rabbi looked really familiar under that big beard so I did a little research. The name Bob Dishy doesn't mean anything to me (Sorry Mr. Dishy) but he has been on lots of episodes of the original L&O. Just thought you guys might want to know because that stuff bugs me.
So the accused said he got the idea to rape because he saw it in a movie. A prison movie where one guy raped another guy...well I immediately flashed on the HBO show OZ. Also starring Christopher Meloni...who also happened to play a rapist.
For Rhea Perlman's character to even suggest that one child raping another is "just 2 kids screwing around"??? Casey should have walloped her. (Not that I advocate violence). Still. And as a father Stabler feels bad for the rapist? I don't buy it. I think Stabler would want to protect his children from a future psychopath...bad home life or not. He seemed to identity more with the dad who raised the attacker and not the victim's father. I don't know about anyone else but I know I wouldn't want my kid dating Dickie Stabler anytime soon.
Wouldn't you think one victim would be enough to justify adult court especially considering that Jack raped the victim multiple times? Why would Stabler need more than one kid's life to be ruined for it to count?
Oh and whatever tanner they have been spraying on Mariska Hargitay to turn her orange clearly got doused on Diane Neal. The poor girl looked like a clown in a couple of scenes. Maybe the make up artists went on strike too.
Despite all my carping it was a better episode than most this year. We've seen the ol' "blame the media" defense many times but after 9 years and 2 other L&Os on the airwaves it's bound to happen.
I give it a C.
Check out SVU clips in our Online Video Guide.
|
TVGuide Links:
|
|
|
|
Jan 16, 2008 2:12 AM
|
Why is it that when the Catholic Church or Hasidic Jews close ranks ,it's a cover-up, but when one cop refuses to turn in another cop, it's loyalty to the force?
Blue Code, my a@##!
|
|
Jan 16, 2008 3:20 AM
|
Well, it was definately better than that abomination of the last episode. 
NBC needs to stop the dang voiceovers. It works in CSI; not here.
But thanks to NBC for actually making it a sex crime. With that fact and Munch present in the episode, there isn't too much I can legitly complain about.
But a 12 year old rapist is absurd, even for this show. No way the insanity defense would have been permitted in an actual court: and win.
But if any 12 year old could be a rapist, the Weeds kid did a good job.
|
|
Jan 16, 2008 7:09 AM
|
"But a 12 year old rapist is absurd, even for this show. No way the insanity defense would have been permitted in an actual court: and win."
great episode, but fyi...the rapist was 14, not 12
|
|
Jan 16, 2008 8:27 AM
|
|
I also thought immediately about OZ when the kid mentioned the prison movie. I also thought of the irony that the kid wanted to make someone his "bitch" while he was talking to Stabler, who repeatedly made others his "bitch" on OZ, while the man who plays the forensics tech (sorry, I don't know his name) was also on OZ and was brutally made a "bitch"!
|
|
Jan 16, 2008 9:46 AM
|
|
I was so happy to see Munch in this episode. Glad his Hebrew, or was it Yiddish, came in handy.
|
|
Jan 16, 2008 7:48 PM
|
Making sex on TV and the internet the villain? The 14-year sees rapes on TV and thinks it's OK because when the victim says NO she doesn't mean it. TV has people being shot after saying NO. Does the 14-year old think that's OK?
The idiot is 14-years old. Doesn't he know TV show are not real? Doesn't he understand reality and fiction? He is suppose to be 14 not 8.
Would the 14-year old get a pass if he had used a gun against the older boys who picked on him instead of attacking others who are smaller than he is?
Episode after episode has the Doctor, Benson and Stabler reminding us that children who were abused when they were young grow up to be abusers. What message did his innocent verdict send to his victim?
The message this episode sends goes against all previous episodes.
I watch a violent movie. Do I get a pass if I act out?
No for violence but yes for rape?
If the 14-year had killed someone with a handgun he would have gone to prison because he should have known better no matter how much TV he watch. Why should the verdict be different for rape? Violence is violence.
|
|
Jan 16, 2008 8:05 PM
|
thedew
I agree. Well said.
|
|
Jan 16, 2008 9:16 PM
|
Well, it has finally happened. I am an old fuddy-duddy! I totally agree with the speech that Stabler gave Casey in her office. When did we start glorifying Porn Stars, Wannbe Celebs (who are only famous for their "leaked sex tapes"), and all the others who are getting pregnant without the benefit of marriage. There are so many mixed signals being sent to kids and teens. It must be extremely hard for good parents to raise their children right.
That of course does not excuse the 14 year old actions. If I were on the jury, I would have thrown the book at him. No means No. Period!
|
|
Jan 16, 2008 9:45 PM
|
|
All I can say is I hope I never get put on a jury where the lawyer is trying to use the "big, bad media" as an insanity defense. I think that's the biggest bunch of hooey ever. Millions of people watch TV, listen to the radio, go online, etc., but they're not going out and doing everything they see. They know right from wrong, and truth from fiction, and don't do the things they know to be wrong. A 14 yr. old is definitely old enough to know these things, and if he doesn't it isn't because of brainwashing by the media, it's diminished mental capacity. The only way the media could possibly influence someone that strongly is if there's something already wrong mentally, developmentally, or emotionally, in any case of which that should be the defense and it shouldn't be blamed solely on the media.
|
|
Jan 16, 2008 11:34 PM
|
I agree wholeheartedly with everything you said about this episode, Traci. My take on it may differ a bit, because I'm a Conservative Jew.
You wondered which came first, a script that featured Judaism (in which Munch would be a logical choice) or the writer perhaps using Munch's being Jewish and working something around that. I contemplated the same issue; to me, the script seemed to be written about the Hasidic community, with Munch there mostly as The Ultimate Yiddish Translator. The very cool detective did look great, as if wardrobe really paid attention.
It pained me to see Belzer relegated to that use, when the writer could have made it an opportunity to fill in some additional background information on John Munch. Ever since the days of "Homicide: Life on the Street," fans have wondered if John is a Reform, Conservative or Orthodox Jew. I wanted at least a smidgen of Munch's reaction to the Hasidic community's actions and way of thinking. Instead, he was once again cheated out of what could have been a great moment or two.
At this point, I suppose I should simply be grateful to have seen him, a thought mirrored by many fans across the major SVU fanboards.
The community was based on Kiryat Joel in New York state, in case anyone was idly wondering. The Yiddish wasn't as clear as it should have been (not that I'm fluent, but if it's spoken clearly I can make it out), almost like the actors had to struggle with it, so they mumbled to a point. And what was with the laughable job they did with those beards? (Did they spend the makeup budget on soda and chips or what?)
I got the feeling the writer, although Jewish, hadn't been to temple in a long time. When the detectives interrupted services, they were *not* Ma'ariv, as was said. Ma'ariv services are never held in the daytime.
The hastily convened Beit Din (rabbinic court) was laughable. It's not such a rapid process, as viewers were led to think. It's a very serious thing, given great consideration. While I can't speak for the extremely Orthodox community, in a Conservative community it's worse to be a child molester than get caught making out with your girlfriend. I was deeply disturbed by the similarities drawn between Hasidim and Catholics in regard to scandal, even though in reality I'm sure such tragedy happens more often than we think.
I felt Elliot Stabler was completely out of character in this episode. While I know his heart's gone all squishy over his new child, I really cannot see him pleading for a 14 year old rapist who molested several victims to be tried in family court. That's not the Elliot I'm used to, and I felt it was ridiculous here.
"The media made me do it" was a ridiculous premised, beaten to death too many times before. I, too, thought of Oz. This was another indication of lazy writing. We were probably all supposed to be horrified the rapist was sentenced to a mental health facility, rather than being sent to prison.
While Rhea Perlman was so good at playing the media-manipulating lawyer, to the point of making me hate her, I think she should have been toned down just a touch. It was almost over the top.
Now, like you, I wonder how long it will be until we see Belz on the show again. I sincerely hope it's sooner than we expect.
|
|
Jan 17, 2008 4:11 AM
|
|
Thanks for taking time to write in and explain the Conservative Jewish faith a bit. I know its just a TV show but, like you, I want some attention to detail. I also think its especially important when you are depicting religion where a lot of misinformation exists.
|
|
Jan 17, 2008 5:00 PM
|
I think this was a good episode. It really made you think, it was a little hard to watch. They were all cute little children, so it was hard to really feel that horrified indignition. IMO, the verdict (and that there was averdict at all-wouldn'tve minded if they left it open-ended) made it a little less powerful in that they were trying to show a 'horror-story' but it seems implausible. We haven't gotten to the point where that defense would work, at all, so I was able to dismiss that. I do think they effectively showed how the kid could use his innocent looks, to garner sympathy. Even if it was unconsciously. he looked sweet, cleancut-if it was one of the kids who bullied him, a bigger kid, mean-looking, he probably wouldn't have gotten off so easy.
For the jewish guy with the girlfriend, I figured it was more that he knew he didn't do it, and it was clear the jewish community believed him, so he didn't need to confess to something that would definitely get him kicked out of the life he loved. (Though, I was wondering, why didn't they just get married? I mean, since they were both faithful, practicing jews, what would be the problem?)
|
|
Jan 17, 2008 11:42 PM
|
I like how the NBC boards keep deleting my posts and Cardinal Robbins' post too on what we thought of this episode. I guess it was because of a "board hack."  ">
The next time Baer mentions Munch will be in an episode, I'm going to write him a letter asking if it is a Munch-centered episode like the Legendary Five, or is it a throw-in-Munch-to-please-the-MunchFin-Junkies-so-we-can-get-our-ratings-up-with-them episode?
Are you illiterate or something? When we say we want a Munch episode, we want one like the Legendary Five.
The plot sucked, Elliot was doing all the work without his help, Elliot was OOC again (I'd expected him to take a swing at that father when he wouldn't help his son), Munch was used like a Jewish Culture and Religion for Dummies book, Baer lied to the MunchFin Junkies YET AGAIN, Munch had more scenes in Uncle than this thingymagig you called an episode, WTF?
The Legendary Five episodes had better plots with Munch. Every time you say there is Munch in an episode, Baer, that's how I rank them. Too bad if you think it's not fair. Give us an episode like we're use to. And quit lying just to boost up your ratings you selfish idiot. I don't turn on SVU unless it has some decent Munch scenes. Yes, I only watch it for Munch now since the writing has gotten to the point of instant pukeage.
Next time you write an episode "with Munch," consult these scripts as they will help you know what a Munch episode is...
1. Remorse
2. Legacy
3. Manhunt
4. Painless
5. Parts
Sure, I might have fans, especially the E/O demented ones, tell me to be grateful for seeing Munch, but I think we, the MunchFin Junkies, are entitled to having a well written episode with Munch partnered with his original partner, Detective Odafin Tutuola, just like E/O shippers. It's not fair and for those who say too bad and suck it up to me, I repeat the same message back to you. I will not rest until I have had an episode like the Legendary Five. Baer, you owe the MunchFin Junkies that much.
|
|
Jan 19, 2008 12:25 PM
|
|
Law & order SVU sure has Jumped the Shark! They should get rid of Olivia Benson more so than Elliot. She's a terrible actress. And both Benson and Stabler take too much on on their own. I think it's time for the both of them to move on. Bring back Elliot's other partner (when Mariska was on maternity leave.) She was good!
|
|
Jan 24, 2008 3:25 PM
|
|
Hi Fellow SVU Fans,
I just wanted to let you guys know I resigned from the blog last week. The bosses at TV Guide want me to take on fewer responsibilities so I had to let it go.
Thanks for all your support. I am sure the great web guys are looking for a suitable replacement as we speak.
Cheers
Thank you for the information on Richard Belzer's episodes being cut. I was very irritated over the situation, since I really miss seeing Sgt. Munch and want him back on the show ASAP. On ALL the episodes.
I'm starting a letter campaign, encouraging all Belzer (John Munch) fans to write in and voice their wish for him to be included in every episode.
Please send your letters to:
Wolf & Baer
SVU
Chelsey Piers
Pier 62/Suite 305
New York, NY 10011
To further show Belz how much we miss him on the show, please e-mail a copy of your letter to his manager:
Eric Gardner
Panacea Entertainment
Juno@panacea-ent.com
Many thanks for taking the time to write! Let's bring Belz back to SVU!
If you want to write to the magazine re: Richard Belzer or anything else for that matter.
TV Guide
Radnor, PA
19088
or
letters@tvguide.com
Include your name address and phone number.
|
