DARK SHADOWS FORUMS
General Discussions => Current Talk Archive => Current Talk '24 I => Current Talk '11 I => Topic started by: Watching Project on April 01, 2011, 08:40:01 PM
-
Robservations #1185
-
Why didn't Barnabas bombard the judges with evidence that Mordecai Grimes quarreled with everybody? Summon the butcher, the baker, and the candlestick maker to the stand and make them tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth about how they closed up shop for the day the minute they saw Mordecai coming up the street.
And did Barnabas take the trouble to have a talk with Julia about the state of the medical profession in the 1840s? I'm sure she could give him a few hints on natural causes of death that an 1840 autopsy would not turn up, and then he could call in an expert medical witness from Bangor and ask him a few questions.
David Selby did a nice job with Quentin's display of temper on the stand and “When I get through with this, I'll deal with you!” (And boy oh boy, did Humbert Allen Astredo grin Satanically or what?) But on calmer reflection I find it not entirely believable. We've heard about Quentin saying that sort of thing, but have we ever actually heard him saying it before today? To Samantha? To Gabriel? To Trask? To Gerard when he learned that Gerard was perfidiously attempting to steal Daphne from him?
I like the evolution of Jeremy, economically presented. If I remember correctly, this is the third episode in which he has appeared. In the first, he was a nice young lad, with malice toward none. In the second, he was still a nice lad, but he was telling Carrie what to think. And now he has assumed his father's mantle – taking up Mordecai's quarrel with the foe. In another twenty years he'll look just like his father, like David Henesy turning into Louis Edmonds.
And when you get right down to it, how does Carrie know that Quentin didn't kill Mordecai Grimes?
-
Of course Carrie doesn't know for sure that Quentin didn't kill Mordecai, but as Jeremy has become more irrational (yes, nicely done!), she seems to have become (somewhat) more rational and less easily led. I think we can also infer that she would never believe that a member of the family that was so good to her family (and especially to Grandfather Ben) would kill anyone. (I know that's convoluted!)
I really enjoyed Dawson's flamboyant summation for the prosecution. Humbert Allen Astredo really seemed to be enjoying himself--I've always loved his expressive use of his hands. Barnabas probably should have done all the things you suggest, Lydia, but I think his rather economical, restrained summation for the defense was intended to be a contrast with Dawson's.
-
I really enjoyed Dawson's flamboyant summation for the prosecution. Humbert Allen Astredo really seemed to be enjoying himself--I've always loved his expressive use of his hands. Barnabas probably should have done all the things you suggest, Lydia, but I think his rather economical, restrained summation for the defense was intended to be a contrast with Dawson's.
It certainly was a contrast... Barnabas's summation, while technically correct, made Quentin and him sound guilty as sin. One could almost interpret his remarks as gloating over their having eliminated any possible opposing testimony.
I like HAA in the courtroom too, and while I generally don't think of Dawson as a distinctive character, I've noticed this time around that Dawson raises his voice when he's especially driven to do or express evil, even when he doesn't want others to know he's evilling. He shouts in an alarming, jarring way beyond how anyone might speak in a normal everyday conversation. I like it.
-
Barn’s defense was very weak. I agree with Lydia that he should have researched the possible causes of death with Julia. He also should have called up some character witnesses on Quentin’s behalf.
Too bad Barnabas didn’t summon Gerard to the stand and ask him about the head. And Barn could have questioned Flora, Leticia and Quentin regarding Gerard’s sudden change in personality.