Friday, May 16, 2008

"CSI" Recap & Review - "For Gedda"

CSI: Crime Scene Investigation
"For Gedda"

Original Air Date: May 15, 2008

Tara I -- TwoCents Reviewer
tara@thetwocentscorp.com

Wow. I knew this was coming. The news of Gary Dourdan's exit from CSI has been all over the press in the last few weeks. And yet, despite all the warnings, I was still horrified and saddened by the final moments of this episode. This is how they decided to say goodbye to a major character that has been on the show since the beginning of the series? Really? Well, I can't say that I was impressed.

Keep Following the Clues...

4 comments:

  1. CSI: Crime Scene Investigation
    "For Gedda"

    Original Air Date: May 15, 2008

    Tara I -- TwoCents Reviewer
    tara@thetwocentscorp.com

    Wow. I knew this was coming. The news of Gary Dourdan's exit from CSI has been all over the press in the last few weeks. And yet, despite all the warnings, I was still horrified and saddened by the final moments of this episode. This is how they decided to say goodbye to a major character that has been on the show since the beginning of the series? Really? Well, I can't say that I was impressed.

    The plot was fairly simple this week. Gedda, Warrick's nemesis, is found dead, handcuffed to his barber chair. Unfortunately, Warrick is also found at the scene covered in Gedda's blood and unable to remember what happened.

    Things only get worse when the evidence shows that Gedda was shot by Warrick's gun, that the handcuffs used to restrain Gedda were also Warrick's, and that Warrick had hired a private investigator to look at Gedda's involvement in the murder of Joanna—the stripper who was murdered in the "Cockroaches" episode—despite being told to let the matter drop. Unfortunately, the private investigator that Warrick hired was also the first murder victim of the night.

    Warrick is processed and interrogated—on the wrong side of the table this time. Despite being removed from the case, Grissom, in full-on Mother Hen mode, tries to find anything in the evidence that will exonerate Warrick. The only highlight of this episode for me was Grissom. I love watching him go to work when one of his chicks is threatened.

    Grissom uses the blood splatter on Warrick's shirt to determine that Warrick was likely unconscious and being held up at the time of the killing. He also realizes that Warrick's handcuffs were too small to have created the ligature marks found on Gedda's wrists.

    Figuring that Warrick has been framed, Grissom theorizes that Gedda's mole in the LVPD is likely responsible, so he starts looking at the private investigator's death. They quickly find a connection between the cases: chloroform was used both times. An examination of the fingerprints left by the police officers at the two scenes shows that one officer left prints on the private investigator's coffin—something that would not be possible unless the officer was at the mortuary.

    One locker search later, they find traces of blood on the cop's handcuff keys. The cop has fled, but Warrick, at least, is freed.

    To celebrate, the team goes out for breakfast. As Warrick is about to leave in his car, he is confronted by Under Sherriff McKeen. Upon learning that Warrick is never going to stop hunting for the mole, McKeen shoots Warrick in the head—twice.

    Warrick's eyes twitch, and then close, as he slumps against the wheel. I start crying. Yeah, I'm a sucker, but I'm going to miss Warrick!

    For the record, they didn't confirm that Warrick is actually dead. The episode ends as his head slumps against the steering wheel, so it's certainly possible that Warrick is still alive, but I think we're meant to assume that he's gone, especially in light of the news that the actor is not returning.

    Warrick was easily my favorite CSI character, despite his sometimes uneven characterisation over the last few seasons. Gary Dourdan did a fine job playing him, and I will miss him next season.

    Was killing Warrick really necessary? Whatever problems the actor may have had off screen, he was good at his job—he really brought the character of Warrick to life. I wish they'd chosen a different way for him to leave the series.

    What do you think? Did you cry? Or was it just me? Will you miss Warrick? Was his death necessary? Will you still watch CSI without him? It's your turn to give us your Two Cents.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Cry? No. Feel sad? Yes. Typical TV will have a major character exiting by way of death while doing something courageous. Usually there's a deathbed scene or a funeral, something to help the audience members sort out their feelings just as they would at a wake and/or funeral for someone they knew personally.

    CSI does things differently. Sara simply packed up and left. No closure, just a letter to Grissom. Now Warrick may have been murdered and, again, he's simply gone--while sitting in his car, no less.

    Is this a fitting end to a great character? Well, that depends on the character, certainly, and, in this case, it seems to depend on the show, as well. What we see a lot of on CSI are people who meet sudden, violent deaths. Many of the deceased die alone, just as Warrick did. His death--if he is, in fact, dead--makes me feel sad and uncomfortable with how unexpected it was. But it also seems to fit well with the show itself.
    The Sparkster

    ReplyDelete
  3. I have to say that I was kind of shocked by how it happened, but I can't say that I feel sad. It probably had more to do with the fact that it was so 'final'.

    Sara Sidle leaving Vegas affected me more, way more then this. I guess it has to do with the way things where playing out over the last episodes.

    I will miss him sure I will. But I guess that it was time to go for him.

    Besides that I read the news about Lauren Lee Smith being the new team member as a replacement for Sara Sidle and that other guy before I saw the episode and the happiness about that news changed some things for me.

    That in my opinion was the first positive CSI news in a long time that I have heard.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Was it necessary let Warrick die in that why??? What's wrong with the writers?

    ReplyDelete

TheTwoCents Comments Policy