Due South: "The Bounty Hunter"

[truepenny]

"The Bounty Hunter" (DS 1.6)
Original airdate: October 19, 1997
Favorite quote:
FRASER: [on the phone] . . . No, I think you should sit down with your wife, I think you should talk to her, and I think you should listen to her. . . . No, no, no, no, no. Henry, I am not suggesting that your wife is always right, but in this case she may well be . . . Yes. . . . Well, yes, I do believe that a three-sixteenths ratchet head wrench is exactly what's called for.

Spoilers.


There are a number of points I want to make about this episode, and they all fit together. I'm going to start with the progression of Ray and Fraser's partnership--the theme I've been tracking--and then move on to what the episode says about Fraser and the very vexed question of relationships.

I.
We get a better sense of Ray qua Ray in this episode, the way he's a loner and an outsider. He's not caught up in the furor of the union negotiations, unlike Huey, who is ringleading, or Dewey, who gets carried away: "I am not a police officer! I am a man!" Ray cuts out as soon as he can. But he's not on the side of pure truth and beauty, either, as his cavalier attitude toward answering the phones shows, particularly in contrast to Fraser:

RAY: What d'you think you're doing?
FRASER: [as a man explaining that water is wet] People are calling for help.

Ray's not a team player, unless the team is Fraser.

In this episode, Ray is learning, as Ray Vecchio did before him, the impossibility of refusing Fraser. Saying "no" to Fraser is like going to the beach and saying "no" to sand. It creeps in anyway. Ray refuses Fraser for very good reason:

RAY: Look, I can't break ranks on this.
FRASER: Understood.
RAY: No, I can't. Look, Fraser, I can't!
FRASER: Well, I heard you, Ray. I understand.

But Fraser, regardless, does not hesitate to make Ray help, first with the babysitting and then with the investigation itself. Notice that Ray's next attempted refusal takes place in the car--he's already given in, even though he's still trying to say "no":

RAY: You overstand my position on this, Fraser. I cannot break ranks on this.
FRASER: No, no, no, I understand this completely. So what I was hoping is that we could explore the possibility of paid duty, as say a supplement to your income. It's my understanding that it's a common practice for many police officers to lend their services in areas, say, such as crowd control or additional security.
RAY: Well, yeah, but--
FRASER: Right. So how much would it cost me to hire you to accompany me?
RAY: To the stables.
FRASER: Correct.
RAY: . . . Fifty
FRASER: Forty.
RAY: Thirty.
FRASER: Twenty.
RAY: Done.

Fraser is determined to have Ray's help--determined enough that he resorts to financial inducement, a tactic which would surely have helped with his previous Ray, although he never descended to it. And what I love about Ray Kowalski is how clear it is that the money is merely a pretext. (My guess is that he throws out "Fifty" just to see if Fraser's serious.) They do this routine twice:

FRASER: Ray? Shall we?
RAY: Yeah. You realize, of course, this is gonna cost you. Another . . . fifty.
FRASER: Forty.
RAY: Thirty.
FRASER: Twenty.
RAY: Done.
JANET: You pay this guy?
FRASER: In Canadian funds.

And then, the payoff--

RAY: Hey, buddy, let's get something to eat. . . . I know you're a little short of cash, but, uh, I'm flush so . . . I'm buying.

--a clumsy, sweet, and oddly tactful way of saying, "You didn't have to pay me."

II.
Fraser is in pretty bad shape. It's interesting, because as viewers, we can't tell. Not until Bob tells us:

ROBERT FRASER: Some people are vulnerable. Their force is at a low ebb, and it's not right to take advantage of people in such a position.
BENTON FRASER: You're right. I . . . I behaved improperly.
R. FRASER: Not you. Her, son. You don't want to rush into these things.
B. FRASER: What kind of thing?
R. FRASER: You're building a house. D'you want to start with the roof? No. You start with the foundation. One brick on another brick. Then the floor. Then some walls, couple of windows. A gabled something would be nice, maybe an oriel or two, stained glass . . . Then you think about the roof.
B. FRASER: By any chance, do they have any psychiatrists in the afterworld? I mean, someone who could help you?
R. FRASER: Let's face it, son. You need somebody. And I think this Janet has got a lot to recommend her. She's bright, capable, and above all, she's sturdy.

Fraser is lonely. (Almost mistyped that as "lovely," which is also true, but irrelevant.) He's lonely and he's vulnerable. The question of trust, which, if you recall, was all through "Victoria's Secret," is back, and it's got the same reversed polarity. Janet and Victoria demand to be able to trust Fraser, when the real question is whether he can trust them. And the answer is, he can't.

The other important thing in this scene is the house metaphor. Because houses, and houses burning down, is thematically important over and over again, and now we can see that it's linked to relationships. Victoria burning down Fraser's cabin is a sign that their relationship is doomed. Ray Vecchio's house burning down in "Burning Down the House" is a sign that that relationship is--if not over, then certainly not something Fraser can draw on. (Also, of course, in that episode, we get the story of Bob and Caroline's cabin that burned down and was rebuilt, and during the rebuilding Fraser was conceived.) Fraser, who lives in his office--

JANET: You live here?
FRASER: Yes. Well, until I find something more permanent, which I imagine will be pretty much--
JANET: Like this?
FRASER: Yes, I suppose so.
JANET: Well, you don't need much.
FRASER: No.
JANET: It's very peaceful.

--needs someone he can build a house with. Note that Janet already has a house--which she built herself. Houses are another metaphor for marriage which is itself another metaphor for partnership (unless I mean that the other way around).

Which brings me to:

III.
The thing the episode is about, which is Fraser's attraction to Janet. It's another in Due South's series of failed romances (I particularly like the little romance-movie montage in the middle of the episode), but it also has something else to say. I want to start by pointing out that one of the very important things about this attraction is the threat it poses to Fraser and Ray's partnership; in fact, that threat is the reason for the attraction. If Janet were a person Fraser weren't attracted to, he would still help her, and might well like her and her children--but she wouldn't threaten the status quo. And that she does threaten the status quo is made clear, if in no other way than Ray's hostility toward her. He doesn't start out hostile to her (I love the visual joke of Ray comparing his gun to Janet's and finding, to his obvious amusement, that his is much smaller); he becomes hostile as it becomes apparent that Fraser is the reverse of hostile. As it becomes apparent that Fraser and Janet are deeply, fundamentally alike:

FRASER: Sorry. It's just that firearms accounted for 39,595 American deaths last year and fourteen hundred forty-one of them were accidental.
JANET: And less than half of one percent involved licensed professionals, and there were circumstances in each of those cases.

Janet and Fraser share a great many qualities, including their disdain for and resentment of urban life:

JANET: You know, I gotta tell you, that there is not a lot of difference between bear hunting and hunting bail jumpers.
FRASER: Well, I suppose not. Though I find the scent trails more useful with bear.
JANET: Well, that's true. And the scat's more informative.
FRASER: Scat in a city--well it's virtually useless.
JANET: Especially in the winter.

They apologize at each other endlessly; they long for their wilderness homes; they both deploy passive-aggressive guilt-trips (Janet much less subtly than Fraser). The likeness between them is deep and profound; they both feel it. A point, in fact, has to be made of the difference between them:

JANET: I'm just gonna warn you, though, if you're gonna be hanging around, I got a bit of a temper.
FRASER: Well, people say the same thing about me.
JANET: Really?
FRASER: No.

In fact, Janet's temper makes her like Ray (where Janet and Fraser apologize at each other, Janet and Ray yell at each other), which I think emphasizes the way in which Janet and Ray are in competition for Fraser. And Janet has all the advantages, especially her children.

It's one of the most consistent details of Fraser's character, how much he likes children. And Bob is longing for grandchildren:

R. FRASER: It's just that lately, I've been thinking a lot about grandchildren.
B. FRASER: Grandchildren.
R. FRASER: Yeah, you know, I'm getting on.
B. FRASER: "Getting on"? You're dead.
R. FRASER: Yes! I am! And in death I'm learning to appreciate the importance of family. All of those great times we had together, you know.
B. FRASER: Dad, Mom and I saw you about once every sixteen weeks. And sometimes then you slept out with the dogs.
R. FRASER: Well, there was always a good reason, son. No, no. My mind is hearkening back to those special times. You know, all those . . . all those great family dinners.
B. FRASER: We never had family dinners.
R. FRASER: Well, God willing, someone will die before Christmas, and I'll have them around for dinner. Maybe your cousins Douglas and Duane, they were always fun. In the meantime, I'm making a close appraisal of this girl Janet. She'd be good for you. She's sturdy.

Bob is always, on one level or another, a reflection of what's going on in the depths of Fraser's mind (that's made explicit in "Letting Go": "By the way, son, could you see your way clear to thinking of me in a pair of trunks?"), and here it's very very clear that one of the principal reasons Fraser is drawn to Janet is her children.

JANET: You know, it's really nice of you to do this.
FRASER: Oh, it's my pleasure.

And he's not even looking at her. He's watching her children sleep.

Fraser is the only adult who can deal with Janet's children--Janet certainly doesn't have them under control, and both Ray and Turnbull come out losers in the battle of wits. But they don't treat Fraser as an adversary. They seem to like him as much as he likes them.

This is another place where the competition between Ray and Janet becomes clear. Janet has kids; Ray doesn't--a point brought up explicitly in his scene with Annie, Robbie, and Suzanne--and what's more, Ray clearly isn't comfortable with kids:

RAY: Those kids are immature.
FRASER: Well, they're children, Ray.

But I think the nature of his discomfort is important; it's not the stiff discomfort of an adult, but the anxious discomfort of another child who knows he doesn't have any real authority. When they handcuff him to the pipe and leave, his response is exactly that of a child ditched by other children: "Hey, that's not buddies! . . . I hate you."

It's no wonder Ray is aggressive in his enmity toward Janet. It looks like she's holding all the cards.

But then there's the critical difference between Janet and Fraser (and also between Janet and Ray): Janet isn't honest. She doesn't tell Fraser that the bail jumper she's hunting is her husband. And we end with Janet walking away:

R. FRASER: A man always feels better when he's done his duty.
B. FRASER: [trying not to cry] Dad, when you were alone out there, without Mom, did you ever feel lonely?
R. FRASER: Oh, every second, son. Every second.
B. FRASER: That's what I thought.
RAY: Hey, buddy, let's get something to eat. . . . I know you're a little short of cash, but, um, I'm flush, so . . . I'm buying. . . . Look, it'll be all right.

This is only the second time in the series that we've seen Fraser near tears, the first being, of course, "Victoria's Secret," and the situations are not dissimilar. Fraser has been betrayed and left rather desperately alone--except for his father's ghost. And it's the loneliness, the lack of another person, that makes both moments poignant. Notice, therefore, the way that Ray comes into frame almost as an answer to the conversation between Frasers senior and junior. He offers companionship, and even an awkward attempt at comfort, which we know is not Ray's forte.

Janet's likeness to Fraser, the sense they both have of knowing each other, ultimately isn't enough. The threat to the status quo is defeated. They kiss, finally:

FRASER: Hey! Y'know something? You can trust me.
JANET: Yeah, I know.

But it's a kiss goodbye. And I think maybe it's goodbye because here is where Janet truly fails to be like Fraser: she doesn't offer reciprocation. She doesn't tell Fraser he can trust her. In contrast, though in a different register, Ray is reciprocating. He's giving back the money Fraser gave him. The profound likeness between Janet and Fraser doesn't create or ensure partnership, whereas the equally profound differences between Ray and Fraser don't stand in partnership's way.

---

ETA: Argh! I completely forgot the whole gender roles thing. All of Janet's jobs have been stereotypically "masculine," and she's generally very butch. (Yeah, she gets near tears once in the episode, but so does Fraser. And I'm not 100% convinced that Janet's tears aren't another manipulation tactic.) This bothers her numbnuts husband: "You don't know what it's like for me, you earning the money all the time. What it does to my self-respect." But it doesn't bother Ray (there's the import of the visual joke about the size of Janet's gun, and besides, Ray has no issues about Stella being smarter and more high-powered than he is), and it doesn't even blip on Fraser's radar:

JANET: I don't need the help, you know. I like working alone.
FRASER: Well, actually, I'm not a licensed police officer in this jurisdiction.
JANET: You're not.
FRASER: No, I'm afraid not.
JANET: Well, then, what the hell good are you?
FRASER: Well, I thought perhaps I could help look after your children.

Fraser doesn't give a rat's ass about his masculinity. He just . . . there's no there there for Fraser.

The other thing this exchange points out (pursuant to what innocentsmith and I are saying in the comments) is, yes, that Janet's hard and that she uses people. "I don't need the help," she says, but as soon as Fraser reveals that he isn't any help, she growls, "What the hell good are you?" Indicating that she was planning to use him whether she "needed his help" or not.

I don't think, as I said below, that the episode blames Janet, or wants us to blame Janet, for how hard she is. She's not a second Victoria, and I don't think she set out deliberately to betray Fraser in the way that (he very clearly feels--look at his face after her Big Reveal) she did. She's a woman raised to be "masculine" (bear hunting at the age of three), and I think she's not a woman cut out to be a mother:

ANNIE: Hey. You're the mother.
JANET: I know that I'm the mother!

(Which would be kind of a spoke in Fraser Sr.'s wheel. Sturdy or not, I doubt Janet would be willing to have more children.) And the show doesn't judge her for that; its sympathies are with her. And with Annie. And with Robbie and Suzanne.

Like Fraser, Janet's trapped in a confluence of roles that she isn't suited for, and she's doing the best she can--but she doesn't have Fraser's gift of grace. The best she can is frequently not very nice and sometimes not honest and sometimes maybe not legal, and, you know, that's reality. But it's also a compromise that Fraser cannot make.

Comments

[callunav.livejournal.com]

Nice.

I've just been rereading The Maltese Falcon and noticing particularly the way Brigid O'Shaugnessy insistently returns to either the question of whether she can trust Spade, or, even more often, telling him how much she's trusting him, as a (wildly transparent) ploy to try to get him either to actively trust her or at least to fail to actively distrust her - which, of course, he should be doing throughout. What's fun about Hammet's writing, of course, is how opaque the characters are. The narration doesn't tell you how Sam Spade feels or thinks about her, and his behavior is either complex or inconsistent...or else very foolhardy.

Not a lot to connect Sam Spade and Benton Fraser, I realize, it was just the shell-games with the idea of trust that reminded me of it.

Edited for typo. SAM Spade. SAM Spade.

[innocentsmith.livejournal.com]

Confession: I hated this episode on first viewing, and on second and third, too. And a big part of why was represented in what you refer to as "the little romance-movie montage," because I took one look at that and went "You have got to be f#@*ing kidding me." I already was hostile to Janet based on what seemed to be a combined case of romance-of-the-week and Mary Sueism, and added to this was her rather sharp dismissal of Ray. And it made me upset to dislike her so much on those grounds, since I'm usually kind of an apologist for strong women characters who give male leads a hard time - I ♥ Stella in a big way, for instance. So by the time the montage came around I was in serious flames on the side of my face territory.

It took me at least, oh, three viewings to realize, wait, the montage is not meant to suggest that on the basis of 12 hours or so these two people are meant to be. The piling on of similarities is not a heavy-handed attempt to make me ship these two - not really. And I think the one single moment that flipped my opinion of all this was:

INT. JANET'S BRONCO -- DAY
Fraser and the kids are all staring intently at the bar entrance. Janet comes out of the bar with a COCKTAIL WAITRESS. They talk for a moment. The WAITRESS
writes something on a napkin for Janet. Janet hugs the WAITRESS, who goes back into the bar.
ROBBIE: Mom makes friends really easy.
FRASER: That's a very important ability to have in life.
ANNIE: She does it just so she can find stuff out.
FRASER: Well, that's important too.

Which I hadn't even taken notice of properly, but which kind of puts it right out there for you, doesn't it?

Poor woobie Fraser.

[truepenny.livejournal.com]

No. Romance in Due South is NEVER a good sign and you're NEVER supposed to take it at face value.

Under all the stuff they throw at you to distract you--the romance-y bits and all the ways in which Janet is like Fraser--Janet is hard. And I think the show suggests she has to be, rather than blaming her for it, but it's a kind of hardness that Fraser just isn't equipped to deal with. My big warning sign is that moment when she takes Bradley's money from his motel room:

JANET: You have a problem with that?
FRASER: Well, ordinarily, yes, I have a problem with theft.

She disarms him by playing the Think Of The Children card, but still. Fraser wouldn't do that.

And it occurs to me, belatedly, that that may be what's going on with Fraser's helpfulness to Bradley when he suggests that he ran in order to keep the goons from finding his kids. It's a typically Fraserian double-edged sword: I think he really does want to believe that that was Bradley's motivation, but it so transparently wasn't that--subtly (and Fraser is totally capable of being this subtle about his insults) it's a reproach to Janet for using that same motivation to justify her own morally questionable actions.

[innocentsmith.livejournal.com]

I think what maddens me, more than anything, is Janet's approach of I-don't-need-your-help-I'm-a-strong-independent-woman...help-me-I'm-a-woman-how-dare-you-not-help-me-you-cad!
It's an approach I think Fraser is particularly vulnerable to, but I personally find highly objectionable. That being said...she's not a bad person, necessarily; she's most likely been pushed into this pattern of behavior by the life she's lived, and her husband has obviously done his level best to persuade her that simply being a strong woman is an act of emasculation.

The hardness is definitely an issue. One of the things I so admire in DS is the recognition that these matters aren't simple, that to get to the same place in her career that a man would, a woman has had an entirely different life experience: we see that in many different ways throughout the series, but in this episode, especially, with the contrast between Janet's competence and the other bounty hunters' idiocy. But at the same time...I'm unable to read Janet's little "oh, well, I guess the kids and I will just sleep in a parking lot" speech as anything other than blatant manipulation.

And yes, I think even as he's reaching for her he's pulling back: I will never not love Dead!Bob popping up just as Fraser and Janet are about to kiss, going, "Resist!" But he can't. Because he's at a low ebb, and he needs someone,, something.

[truepenny.livejournal.com]

Yeah, but the thing about Janet's passive-aggressive manipulation is that it's just a heavier handed version of Fraser's habitual M.O. He does it to Ray in this episode, just as he does it to Ray Vecchio over and over and over again:

RAY: Look, I can't break ranks on this.
FRASER: Understood.
RAY: No, I can't. Look, Fraser, I can't!
FRASER: Well, I heard you, Ray. I understand.

It's just that Fraser's much better at it, and much more subtle, than Janet, possibly because he's had lots more practice, and possibly because he can't successfully play the Poor Helpless Little Girly Me card. (Fraser may not care about his own masculinity, but he's well aware of how it affects his interactions with other people, particularly other men.)

I think it's also important to recognize that, no matter how manipulative she's being, Janet is at the end of her rope. And--this just hit me--having been raised, as she has been, to compete in aggressively masculine contexts, she can't ask for help.

[innocentsmith.livejournal.com]

the thing about Janet's passive-aggressive manipulation is that it's just a heavier handed version of Fraser's habitual M.O.

Right, but the thing about that M.O. is that Fraser uses it on the Rays in order to secure their help for other people. With the possible exception of in the pilot, but even there, his aim is to see justice done. You could argue that Janet's trying to help her children, and/or get justice in the sense of making her husband do right by them, but it's still a motive with a lot more personal gain behind it than Fraser's usual.

(It is always interesting to me to see Fraser get stymied by people using his own tactics. seperis observed of "Burning Down the House" recently that Ray seems at the outset to be working a "bulldoze you with weirdness so you can't argue straight" strategy, which is of course very Fraserian, and this may be part of why Fraser reacts by first trailing him like a fascinated puppy and then getting into what seems to be a game of chicken to determine which of them is crazier.)

having been raised, as she has been, to compete in aggressively masculine contexts, she can't ask for help

Except she does; she walks right in and asks for help. Which is fine: she's asking for it in a professional capacity. IIRC, police aren't obligated to assist bounty hunters, but often do as a professional courtesy if they have the time and resources and the hunter's in good legal standing. So certainly from Janet's standpoint this is an entirely reasonable request and not a girly plea for help. (Although even typing that, I find it a little aggravating because, hey, there's nothing wrong with needing help.)

But when she doesn't get it, she lays a guilt trip on the cops. Who are perfectly within their rights to tell her no. And yes, she's walking out with "I'll do it myself" on her lips when Fraser intervenes. And I can see that some of her frustration is born of being at the end of her rope and having a really crap day - having a million guns suddenly turned on you is no way to improve your mood. But she's pretty consistently dismissive both of Ray's help - which, hi, he is helping, and with a pretty thin pretext with the money he's bargained himself down on - and of the whole concept of blue flu.

Which is a serious issue with points on both sides, and...okay, I was about to say I wished there was a little more attention given to the idea, but, you know, I don't know if I necessarily do; it seems a bit absurd to wish Due South were doing a Very Serious Drama kind of episode when I do enjoy Dewey being a dork and Fraser trying to resolve the domestic argument. But the thing is, this is not a case of someone in danger needing and being refused police protection, which is the real problem with blue flu, as Ray knows perfectly well:

Ray: Listen to you two. You need professional help.
Fraser: Psychiatric?
Ray: No, cop help.
Janet: Well, hey, I tried.
Ray: Yeah, but I told you, we're in the middle of something here.
Janet: Yeah, so you keep saying.
Ray: Look, I don't- I don't like hairbags shooting up the city any more than you do.

At this point Ray has already asked her if there's something she's not telling them. And granted, from her standpoint her relationship with Bradley has nothing to do with the guys shooting at them so it's not relevant. But still. In the real world cops who strike are doing something that cuts against the whole nature of their jobs, and a labor dispute has to have gotten pretty bad to get to that point; the ones who break ranks are (a) casting the other cops as bad guys for wanting reasonable wages, benefits, and hours for what is, after all, a very hard job, and consequently, (b) at serious risk of having the everloving s*** kicked out of them. And now I'm wandering down the path of "srs show is srs!" but...this is the background here, and Janet clearly knows it.

Also, Ray has a point about them needing cop help, and I can't help wondering why on earth she couldn't just have gone to another district. I mean, end of her rope, yes, and here's Fraser offering to help, and psychologically it's maybe part of the nature of bounty hunting as working independently from other kinds of law enforcement.

[innocentsmith.livejournal.com]

And then there's the fact that it's Due South, so given the show's fairytale logic of course this is the only police station in the world. But there are things about Janet's situation - shouldn't those kids be in school? are there really no family members or friends who could be watching them back home (perhaps among the people Janet lists as having warned her not to marry Bradley) so that they're not riding along to hunt down their own father? if Janet chose this job in order to support her family, why is she this broke? because she's been staying home watching them when Bradley's the usual caretaker? see previous question, then, and doesn't it seem like Annie herself is going on strike from acting as a substitute parent, which makes me wonder how often she's asked to do it - which as a watcher can be handwaved as just being details the show's not really concerned with, but which don't IMHO cast Janet in a very responsible light.

[truepenny.livejournal.com]

I think the show is perfectly aware of the fact that Janet is not a good mother. Annie's bitterness--"Hey. You're the mother."--is very pointed. The show doesn't hit that theme real hard, any more than it goes into details about the union disputes (which, yeah, they could've done more with, but otoh, at least they ACKNOWLEDGE that it happens), but it's there. Her kids are practically feral--and they certainly do not listen to her.

[truepenny.livejournal.com]

Janet's problem--and I mean that as "the problem that Janet has to deal with" rather than "the problem with Janet"--is that personal and professional have completely collapsed for her. She is professionally a bounty hunter, professionally hunting down a bail jumper. That is her job. But it so happens, because the bail hunter is her husband, that it is also an intensely personal can of worms: her children, her lack of money. I am in complete sympathy with Janet when she says, "Y'know, I don't get any help from the cops if I tell them I'm after a deadbeat husband. Especially not my own deadbeat husband." She has an impossible series of contradictions to negotiate. And although you're right (in your other comment), and surely, if this were reality, somebody could be looking after the kids, the show needs them to be hanging off her, because it highlights something really important about gender roles. Fraser's dad could go off into the wilderness for months at a time, because he didn't have to take his toddler along with him. Fraser can live the way he does because he doesn't have children to take care of. Fraser, like his father, can separate his personal life and his professional life, and have them stay separated. (Granted, in Fraser's case, he does this by eradicating all traces of a personal life, but still. That's a choice he has the luxury of making. Janet doesn't.) And I think one of the things that Janet's likeness to Fraser highlights is the way that she--like Bob and like Fraser--is not equipped to be a mother. She's a terrible mother. But she'd be a great dad.

[innocentsmith.livejournal.com]

Agreed on all points. And you know, I'm finding myself liking the episode a lot better in this light, and finding Janet much more comprehensible and credible as a character.

I guess that, to the extent that I still have issues with it, said issues largely come down to a discomfort with the episode as yet another argument the show's making on the theme of "love sucks." My first time watching the DVDs, I got to a point (somewhere around "A Likely Story," I think) where I was snarling the TV screen, "Yes, okay, fine, girls are evil and unreasonable and you can't trust them. Stick with your buddies. Fine, I got it already." Which isn't, in fact, what's being said at all: it's a much more complex argument about, as you've pointed out frequently now, the nature of romantic infatuation vs. the love found in friendship and partnership. And I can get behind that.

Maybe it's the romance-of-the-week thing that irks me: if an episode seems to be centering around "here is yet another way in which love never works out," well, because the two leads in whichever season are men, and the show's not going to have them have romances with other men (as opposed to, um, each other...you can probably tell from the whole thrust of this paragraph that I'm much with the slash), what this equals is a series of women introduced as love interests and then dropped by episode's end, with the implication that someone here has failed. Maybe the guy, maybe the girl, maybe the whole idea of love.

Mind you, Due South is infinitely better about giving these women - and all secondary, minor, or only-appearing-once characters, really - their own personalities, issues, agency, etc. than 90% of all shows I can think of. It's still sort of...repetitive. And maybe that says more about me and my own issues than about the show. I don't know.

[truepenny.livejournal.com]

Well, yes.

On the other hand, it doesn't actually trot out the romance-fail trope all that often. Suzanne Chapin, Irene Zuko, Victoria Metcalf, Janet Morse, Luanne Russell (I'm not sure I count Stella in this, because the point of Stella's appearances on the show are that, yeah, life does go on after your romance fails, and maybe you do have to see each other every day and work together, and that sucks. And Thatcher probably belongs in that category, too.) We hear a lot more consistently about Caroline than about any of these other women, and there is the one heterosexual romance in the show's canon that does work.

I think, really, the point the show harps on is that "romantic love" is a really crappy way for men and women to relate to each other. And if they want to be repetitive in the service of that idea, I think that's okay.

And other kinds of love also fail. Child/parent relationships. Friendships. Even the relationship of a man and a wolf has its very rocky moments. Love is hard.

[truepenny.livejournal.com]

(I'm not trying to say you're wrong, just to offer a different slant on it.)

That is...

[themadblonde]

my favourite moment of the episode too- Gross' reaction when he sees her take the money. Unfortunately, Fraser does nothing about it &, even considering the kids, that strikes me as being very un-Fraser. I actually wondered, when later the cash had disappeared, if I hadn't missed Fraser picking her pocket & putting it back to keep her from being a thief. It would make sense for him to accept the theft if he knew she was the guy's wife (& in a way his opinion of her seems to improve once he knows she was just taking cash from her husband), but @ that moment he doesn't. Just a character/writing glitch, for me.

[wychwood]

I'm intrigued, actually, by Ray's thing with the union. Because I do buy that he's trying to find that compromise, but - he's a Chicago blue-collar kid with a meatpacker dad, right? I thought he'd be way more into The Power Of The Union than he is.

Also - I do like that Fraser (however determined that Ray *is* going to help) manages to come up with a way to soothe Ray's conscience, so Ray doesn't have to make the choice between friendship and solidarity.

[j-s-cavalcante.livejournal.com]

Again, this is brilliant and insightful and so much fun to read. I loved your discussion with innocentsmith as well.

And the observation about the visual gag with the guns? WHY did I never notice that? Sheesh.

...a flawed foundation

[(Anonymous)]

I did not like this episode because, no matter what the attraction between them, it wasn't going anywhere. Janet is a married woman - a lying, thieving married woman. To continue the house metaphor, she would not be a sturdy foundation. From the moment Fraser knows she is married, the potential for permanence is over.

Maybe the money theft for the sake of the children could be justified in Fraser's worldview, but I do not see anyway he could ever come to grips with adultery. The lack of devotion to a vow (a sacred duty) that Janet displays would require too much of a paradigm shift in Fraser-ness.