This entry is part of my "Videodroming Project," which you can read about here. Basically, it is to record my impressions of entertainment media that I watch...with a view especially to semiotics -- or how entertainment programming and commercials draw on the social and political issues of the day. Last Wednesday I watched CSI:NY. First off, let me say that this is a very well-made show. I liked the overall style, which used quick cuts and speeded-up zooming effects -- which mirrored the high-tech computer processes the investigators use to catch criminals. The filmmaking style heightens the sense that this is a fast-paced world where time is of the essence in solving crimes.

I also liked that it stars Gary Sinise, and that the fine character actor Elias Koteas played the culprit for that episode. I also got a kick out of the (unintentional?) nod to Hitchcock in the scene where one of the characters was dangled from a rooftop by Koteas. It instantly brought to mind "Vertigo" and "Saboteur" (and now that I think about it, "North by Northwest").

I found the depictions of the investigators' forensic work to be fascinating and educational for the viewer. My favorite was when the investigators analyzed the tire-track impressions of the criminal's SUV, with computer graphics depicting the topology of those impressions. Basically, it showed that the impressions were no different before and after the heist. As the investigator said, "If he had a million dollars after leaving the bank, the impressions would have been significantly deeper." The conclusion was that he had left the money in the bank, in a safety deposit box, for him to retrieve later as an incognito bank customer (in part to dupe his accomplice out of the money).

The only thing that bothers me about this program is that it sells the viewer a little too much on the value of using surveillance and other big brother activities for the sake of catching a bad guy. At one point they download his medical records. They also use video captures from surveillance cameras at locations such as the Lincoln tunnel, to run facial recognition checks on him. This is all great in the name of catching criminals -- but I think it skirts the serious civil liberties' questions that have been discussed, especially in recent years. Someone watching a show in the 80's depicting all this would be most likely disturbed by this Orwellian world -- it would have seemed like very scary science fiction. In fact, just ten years ago, this type of technology was portrayed in Tony Scott's "Enemy of the State" (with Will Smith and Gene Hackman) as being quite menacing. But in a show like CSI:NY it plays as all well-and-good in the name of getting the bad guy. It was also interesting that Koteas' bankrobber held people hostage -- which brought to mind the parallels to terrorists who do the same thing.

Along those lines, it was especially noteworthy that Koteas' character tortured a young woman using "simulated drowning" as one of the investigators put it. Immediately this made me think of waterboarding. The actual scene was really quite graphic, worthy of a PG-13 rating, if not an R. It certainly made it seem quite horrific. So is that good -- that it shows that something akin to waterboarding really is torture (one of the investigators refers to what Koteas did as "torture.) Or does it suggest that because bad guys (such as criminals and terrorists) can do these things -- law enforcement/anti-terrorist agencies should be able to use them as well?

Another plot development was the ease with which Koteas was able to forge several passports for himself, emphasizing the slipshot nature of the immigration system. Hmmm...maybe an effective countermeasure is the upcoming National ID card? (sarcasm).

There were also familiar -- perhaps conventional and even unoriginal -- subplots around themes of family ties. One involved one of the investigators dealing with his wayward sister. She worked at a strip club with women dancing in cages. Later, when she was at police headquarters an obvious "scumbug" called out to her -- the inference being this had been a lover. Her brother the investigator raised some objections, and she snapped back with "I don't need you passing judgement on me." The other subplot was around Koteas' character and the motivation of his crimes being economic desperation driving his need to protect his family. I think this certainly echoed what is foremost on everyone's mind these days -- the economy and the desperation so many certainly feel. Again, this is a case of semiotics -- or the culture reflecting the times. (One of the commercial spots also echoed this, in promoting the low fares of Southwest Airlines, in which the announcer said, "We know times are tough, that's why Southwest has these great deals.") Overall, I think that the subplots of family drama certainly drew from familiar archetypes, especially those of the present day.

As for the commercials, they were in large part about health concerns and playing on people fears in that regard. One was for Spiriva, a drug to treat COPD (Coronary Obstructive Pulmonary Disease). As is typical with these kinds of ads, it depicted people being able to enjoy life in their autumn years (traveling to exotic places, having exciting adventures, etc). It was shot in the typical soft-focus romantic style. And of course, there was also a Cialis commercial likewise showing how this wonder drug could help people (especially middle-aged couples) live in romantic, soft-focused fantasies. And there was a commercial for the virtues of "Honey Nut Oats" to safeguard a healthy heart.

Another ad was in the vein of the old "milk -- it does a body good" ads. This one showed a healthy, very good-looking young woman living an athletic life -- with the connection being made to her consumption of milk. Conversely, there was an ad of a slightly out-of-shape woman being compared by her kids to the fat Snowman in her yard. The announcer said ominously, "This is your wake-up call!" The ad was promoting the virtues of a product that would help her (and any of you out there like her ;) ) cut down on fat.

One commercial was for Hydraxatin to reduce wrinkles -- which of course reinforces the cultural ideal of maintaining youth and beauty and against aging (again the recurring theme of the ads for this hour). "This drug is so popular with celebs it was recently given out free to them in their tote bags at a film festival!" And, "Hurry 'cause when this offer is gone...it's gone." I liked the urgency of that -- don't miss out on what the celebrities all love to use!

As is always the case with the split personality of television -- there were ads that ran entirely contrary to the others which focused on health. One was for Burger King. Basically, a man in a Hamburger costume was advising his young son, also in a costume -- about his first time with a girl. Something about "girls love a Whopper." At the end he said, "I put some extra napkins in your bag for you." "Thanks Dad." This ad was kind of creepy -- and not exactly a savory pun about young people and dating. But apart from all that, the main message would be -- take your date to Burger King -- she'll love the food! (And of course, when your both hitched and middle aged -- you'll need Spiriva and Cialis -- thanks to all the artery-clogging you did in sowing your wild oats! That you now have to eat!)

Also of note was the spot for that night's Late Night with David Letterman. It had Dave reading the "Top Ten Things Overheard in the meeting between Republicans and Obama" -- "We sure do miss the Clinton years -- when we would have these meetings at Hooters." C'mon already -- Clinton-is-randy jokes are so old they have rings around them (as Johnny Carson once said to Milton Berle about his jokes). Hey Dave and Jay -- I know you guys have a hard time coming up with material -- but can't you try a little harder than that? And why did that particular joke have to be featured in the promo spot? It sort of reinforces the Bush campaign myth of "restoring dignity to the White House." Why wasn't a joke taking a swipe a Bush featured? I mean aren't his improprieties (to put it mildly) far more worthy -- not to mention actually timely of emphasizing to the general public? Thanks a lot. You help encourage rightwing idiots to write us emails here at Democrats.com about "Sick Willy" and Monica Lewinsky. Gee, wish I could think of a way of wasting your time in such an annoying fashion.