I agree. Groff IRL, JS A GAY MAN,AND THE SEX STUFF JUST AWFUL. NO REAL PASSION. I HATE HIS SLUTTY GF.

Didn't feel the chemistry. Having said that, He plays a straight man well. He is an actor, after all.

lol

@Annamarie449 said:

I agree. Groff IRL, JS A GAY MAN,AND THE SEX STUFF JUST AWFUL. NO REAL PASSION. I HATE HIS SLUTTY GF.

He comes off like a bitch in other ways also.
I mean the snooty way he played his part with that school principal. Wendy Carr and Bill Tench were right that Holden Ford (Groff) was way out of line to involve the FBI is a non-criminal case the way he did, especially telling the board that he "couldn't say the principal would not commit a crime" in the future".
While that is true, since it is true about anyone, to say it about that person specifically implies that the FBI believes he could be a risk for abusing children. If that happened in real life then that principal could have sued the federal government big time over that. Congress would have pulled their funding, and Ford would have screwed his career most likely. He didn't need to say anything. The board had enough to let him go without any input from the FBI. All Ford (Groff) did was display extremely poor judgment and expose himself and the FBI to liability.

He displays poor judgment other times as well. He acts almost like a rebellious teenager. It's like he intentionally ignores the way his actions might affect the others in his team: like he has a self-righteous sense about his convictions which trumps anyone else's concerns.

You know the kind of person. When things fuck up, he gets defensive. His excuse usually boils down to "well I didn't know that was going to happen":
too immature to recognize that he has just made the case against himself.

My point is that this isn't all scripted. The actor himself has latitude in the way all this is presented. Groff's personality and inclinations come through in this the same way they do in his sex acting.
(I doubt the girl playing his girlfriend can really get into it since there is nothing real from Groff's side)

@Renovatio said:

The relationship between the detective and his girlfriend... I didn't buy it...

While Jonathan Groff was great in this series otherwise, I didn't buy that there was a real attraction there... even in the earlier parts of the show, in fact it's only when his character has problems with the relationship that it starts to feel real... I think he can pull off playing a straight man in contemporary times, but i don't think he pulled off the relationship well.

(only 8 episodes in, so drama is just starting between them by the look of it) I'm more uncertain as to whether it has more to do with bad acting, or simply acting the part of a weirdo (relatively to the norms infilm and from the beholder's perspective). Admittedly it's the first time I've watched him play, so I don't know if he always pulls the kind of unexpressive acting, like Clint Eastwood or Ryan Gosling To me as well their relationship comes off as odd : it is not the conspicuous passionnate romantic cliche, there's the unlikely matching of a hippie and a cop in his suit, which they repeatedly joke about.

But it may have a lot to do with the personality of the characters. Debbie uptil now has a strong and independent one, can pull her poker faces very well, is very open and often sarcastic. And Holden (the doppelganger of E.Macron, by the way) is portrayed as a calm and introverted person, more interested in listening/perceiving than talking/doing, with a little bit of insecurity (namely about Debbie's study buddy). In fact I wouldn't be surprised if the writers said they conceived him as being on the spectrum of autism (aspberger) : he is certainly very passionate if not obsessed with his work, which transpires in his relationship with Debbie. Also, not unlike his partners, it's interesting to see how he doesn't use his professional skillsets in his personal life.

Maybe this relationship was simply made not to last from the get-go : this scene where they're starting intercourse and he freezes and tells her "it's not you" and she answers, upset, "that's precisely the point", was quite telling imo.

@write2topcat said:

I mean the snooty way he played his part with that school principal. Wendy Carr and Bill Tench were right that Holden Ford (Groff) was way out of line to involve the FBI is a non-criminal case the way he did, especially telling the board that he "couldn't say the principal would not commit a crime" in the future".
While that is true, since it is true about anyone, to say it about that person specifically implies that the FBI believes he could be a risk for abusing children. If that happened in real life then that principal could have sued the federal government big time over that. Congress would have pulled their funding, and Ford would have screwed his career most likely. He didn't need to say anything. The board had enough to let him go without any input from the FBI. All Ford (Groff) did was display extremely poor judgment and expose himself and the FBI to liability.

You may be right about the liability, but don't you think this school arc was really well integrated within the scope of the series ? I mean it reallistically showcased one of these real life instances where the protagonists (board, feds, parents, teachers) are in a grey zone for evaluating the one's intentions and possibly taking sanctions; and beyond that begs the question of how much of their theories can be put to use. They are strong points on each side (otoh he solves problems with the kids, he seems sensitive to nonviolent communication with kids esp when he opposes "trust" and "fear", Holden might be projecting too much, otoh he pays them to be touched, some parents and teachers are uncomfortable with that, the feds studies are showing this can be a yellow-orange flag), which brings (to me at least) absolutely no certainty as to what's best to do.

A bit offtrack, and I don't know how much can be read into that (especially regarding the writers' intentions), but it seemed to me during this part the male characters are significantly less alarmed by the tickling than the female characters

I may have to revisit this series.

@perelachaise said:

You may be right about the liability, but don't you think this school arc was really well integrated within the scope of the series ? I mean it reallistically showcased one of these real life instances where the protagonists (board, feds, parents, teachers) are in a grey zone for evaluating the one's intentions and possibly taking sanctions; and beyond that begs the question of how much of their theories can be put to use. They are strong points on each side (otoh he solves problems with the kids, he seems sensitive to nonviolent communication with kids esp when he opposes "trust" and "fear", Holden might be projecting too much, otoh he pays them to be touched, some parents and teachers are uncomfortable with that, the feds studies are showing this can be a yellow-orange flag), which brings (to me at least) absolutely no certainty as to what's best to do.

A bit offtrack, and I don't know how much can be read into that (especially regarding the writers' intentions), but it seemed to me during this part the male characters are significantly less alarmed by the tickling than the female characters

He is probably right to be concerned. Certainly all those parents are concerned and that suggests something isn't right. But he needs to use the science he is developing, he needs to have something concrete so he can speak authoritatively.

As an FBI agent he ought to be very aware that he cannot take actions against someone who has not committed a crime, and he should be circumspect about his statements and actions so he doesn't violate the civil rights of anyone. The liability issue is a real one. However, I agree that this issue fits well with the theme of the show, the development of profiling as a science. AND, I think there were things he could have done to help advise those kids and protect them without violating that principal's rights or slandering him. He could have searched the database for cases of child abuse by teachers for example, and noted cases where the children were groomed by tickling, something like that. Then he could have suggested to the school board that a policy be made that forbade any school system employees from tickling children.

In other words, as a lawman he should have advised them to make rules which forbid the inappropriate behaviors, giving the board a legal right to fire the principal if he continued to behave that way, and get him away from the children before anything could happen.
If the tickling were really a benign behavior, and the principal stopped it, he might have remained a productive member of society. If he had a compulsion to touch children and could not stop himself tickling them, they could fire him without incurring liability.

I mean, the FBI cannot tell them "this guy might be a child molester in the future", like the movie Minority Report. They can't take action against pre-crime. But the information they can develop can still be used to protect children before the fact, if lawmakers and board members use that information to create rules and policies.

I don't know what the writers intended by making the males seem less worried by the tickling than the females. Maybe they wanted to highlight the fact that men are frequently unaware of how significant certain behaviors are to females, i.e. men might think their behavior is totally benign while women might be very upset by that same behavior.

[As a side note, I wish they would show an adult way to resolve that difference in perception, i.e. a mature conversation between a man and woman in which she tells him "I can tell you're not aware of this, but when you do/say X, it feels like an insult/assault to me. I'm not accusing you of having bad intentions as I can tell you were unaware of how women view this behavior. Instead of doing X, how about doing/saying Y instead?". And then showing the male processing her words and responding in a likewise mature manner "Thank you for telling me this. You're right, I wasn't aware of how you felt, and I didn't intend my behavior as an insult or assault. I am happy to stop doing X and will do Y instead." Given that it is TV, why not script it such that the people behave in a mature and adult manner, with no pejoratives, no manipulations, etc. It would be nice to see characters who resolve issues without histrionics and posturing, especially since many viewers are young and impressionable and learn to mimic what they see on TV.]

@write2topcat said:

He is probably right to be concerned. Certainly all those parents are concerned and that suggests something isn't right. But he needs to use the science he is developing, he needs to have something concrete so he can speak authoritatively.

As an FBI agent he ought to be very aware that he cannot take actions against someone who has not committed a crime, and he should be circumspect about his statements and actions so he doesn't violate the civil rights of anyone. The liability issue is a real one. However, I agree that this issue fits well with the theme of the show, the development of profiling as a science. AND, I think there were things he could have done to help advise those kids and protect them without violating that principal's rights or slandering him. He could have searched the database for cases of child abuse by teachers for example, and noted cases where the children were groomed by tickling, something like that. Then he could have suggested to the school board that a policy be made that forbade any school system employees from tickling children.

In other words, as a lawman he should have advised them to make rules which forbid the inappropriate behaviors, giving the board a legal right to fire the principal if he continued to behave that way, and get him away from the children before anything could happen.
If the tickling were really a benign behavior, and the principal stopped it, he might have remained a productive member of society. If he had a compulsion to touch children and could not stop himself tickling them, they could fire him without incurring liability.

I mean, the FBI cannot tell them "this guy might be a child molester in the future", like the movie Minority Report. They can't take action against pre-crime. But the information they can develop can still be used to protect children before the fact, if lawmakers and board members use that information to create rules and policies.

I don't know what the writers intended by making the males seem less worried by the tickling than the females. Maybe they wanted to highlight the fact that men are frequently unaware of how significant certain behaviors are to females, i.e. men might think their behavior is totally benign while women might be very upset by that same behavior.

[As a side note, I wish they would show an adult way to resolve that difference in perception, i.e. a mature conversation between a man and woman in which she tells him "I can tell you're not aware of this, but when you do/say X, it feels like an insult/assault to me. I'm not accusing you of having bad intentions as I can tell you were unaware of how women view this behavior. Instead of doing X, how about doing/saying Y instead?". And then showing the male processing her words and responding in a likewise mature manner "Thank you for telling me this. You're right, I wasn't aware of how you felt, and I didn't intend my behavior as an insult or assault. I am happy to stop doing X and will do Y instead." Given that it is TV, why not script it such that the people behave in a mature and adult manner, with no pejoratives, no manipulations, etc. It would be nice to see characters who resolve issues without histrionics and posturing, especially since many viewers are young and impressionable and learn to mimic what they see on TV.]

Yeah you're making a good point about changing the rules so that the situation can't come up in the first place. However, having now watched the last two episodes, and Holden behaving more and more like his subjects, at least his reaction seems consistent with his growing narcissism (which doesn't sit well with my previous hypothesis about aspie :/), as he'd be ascerting his power over the fate of the principal. Perhaps that's one of the reasons he doesn't look over-embarrassed when he's playing Nostradamus.

Couldn't agree more with your side note, would be even more effective if we were taught to do this IRL. Problem is, that would put an end to gut-wrenching drama, right ? No wait, we'd also have changed, and so would have its meaning. Then where would it come from if non violent communication was culturally assimilated ? Do we absolutely need a society that goes down the drain to enjoy good drama on our screens ? I'm so confused now...

@perelachaise said:

Problem is, that would put an end to gut-wrenching drama, right ?

Exactly. It seems like TV and movies are all about the exaggerated emotional responses, the angry, offended, excited, passionate expressions.

People slow down to look at car wrecks, but don't pay attention to others when things are going well. I think TV is similar. That is why so many shows move from one crisis to the next, characters make really dumb decisions which place them in jeopardy, or face them with dilemmas, and so on.

Still, I think they could keep things interesting and still show us some mature adults communicating to resolve issues, instead of giving us a constant diet of angry, offended sandwiches.

Great observation😊

It seems like the show has a general issue with portraying relationships. What was the point in Wendy's relationship this whole series other than to give her character something to do (because she wasn't in Atlanta), and to give her a way to relate to the killer in one interview? It was such a boring and irrelevant side plot. If it was going to tie in that would be one thing, but just to set it up out of nowhere, labour it for a while, then drop it as the series ended felt lazy as hell and made it feel like filler.

It seems like cop shows in the past rarely included story arcs about the cops' personal lives. They were totally focused on the cops at work, the cases, the criminals they chased and so on. In more recent years we see more "personal interest" stories about their personal lives. OK, that isn't necessarily good or bad I guess. It depends on how they handle the stuff. Some times it feels like cookie cutter story arcs, the same things repeated in this show and another show and another. That gets boring. Also, as you pointed out, it works better if those arcs are tied into the main plot somehow.

I will say this though about the Wendy Carr situation; at least it helped illuminate the different time period when this story takes place. It wasn't simply a story about her love interest. She had to hide her orientation from her colleagues, because even though the DSM had changed homosexuality from a deviance to an orientation disturbance, or whatever she said, the attitudes of most people had not changed, and in some areas it was still illegal. So it made sense that she needed to keep that aspect hidden. I like it when the story accurately reflects the time period.

Also, they didn't spend an inordinate amount of time on that arc; the show is still mostly about the creation and development of the BSU, and its struggle to be taken seriously until the Wayne Williams case.

The arc about Tench, his wife, and their mentally ill boy seems more germane to the main plot. Tench is clearly affected by that issue and it colors the way he views the cases they work on. Though the boy didn't participate in the murder, he witnessed it and was traumatized. And he failed to report the crime. Did he suggest they put the infant on a cross because he wanted him to go to heaven, or something like that? They stopped short of suggesting that possibility, but I thought they hinted at it. But it was his failure to speak about it that seems to have them questioning his participation. But given his almost catatonic state after the trauma, it doesn't seem odd to me that he didn't tell anyone. Hell, he barely ever speaks at all now. Either the event traumatized him so much he has gone inside himself, or he was messed up before this. From the way they play it, it seems more like he was traumatized and has withdrawn within himself. If that is the case, then they should cut him a break and get him into regular counseling, not once a week, but daily until he is able to respond to people again, and deal with whatever he is repressing.

Good point about the Wendy storyline/ history tie in. I agree that aspect of her relationship does add to the show overall, but for that to work, all they needed was to make clear she was in a same sex relationship/ had same sex interests (which was obvious from the first moment she sees the barmaid in the bar). Maybe a couple of subsequent scenes/ shots to illustrate that is still going on and it's a factor that she's disguising at work. I actually do think it was an inordinate amount of time spent on that arc though. I'm wondering if it's more to illustrate her compartmentalisation of the job v her relationship, and highlight that the aspects they focus on in serial killers are also facets of life for many regular people. I still think it mostly felt like filler though, and we're having to work hard to give this plot line a sense of purpose that should probably be much more self-evident! :)

Compared to the way they used to do these shows, yeah it's a lot of time on the personal life aspect. I think that as shows go these days, it isn't a whole lot of time out of the show. Granted, most of it doesn't really add to the show, aside from the time period part. I guess I have just gotten used to a lot of stuff in modern shows. I complain still, but have resigned myself that it's the way things are now.