Help: Bayless' Fate at the End of the Movie
Michael
the joint?
Thanks,
M.
ATKokmen
>What does the blue marker mean? Is Bayless going to
>the joint?
If I recall correctly, the blue marker signifies a case from a previous year
that's been closed. So the fact that the name was changed from red to blue
signifies that the case has been closed (from the detectives' point of view)
but since we don't see the trial or the decision, we don't know what that means
for Bayliss.
The (almost certainly) purposeful ambiguity of the scene is one of the
most-discussed and analyzed points of the movie (I recall a hearty discussion
trying to figure out whose hand wrote the name, for instance...) and is
certainly open for a bit of interpretation.
ATK
_______
"There is only one requirement for any of us, and that is to be
courageous...And I believe, because I've done a little of this myself,
pretending to be courageous is just as good as the real thing."
--David Letterman, 17 September 2001
kelly
Keith Gow
lyrical:
>"Michael" md...@nospam.cornell.edu writes:
>
>>What does the blue marker mean? Is Bayless going to
>>the joint?
>
>If I recall correctly, the blue marker signifies a case from a previous year
>that's been closed. So the fact that the name was changed from red to blue
>signifies that the case has been closed (from the detectives' point of view)
>but since we don't see the trial or the decision, we don't know what that means
>for Bayliss.
>
>The (almost certainly) purposeful ambiguity of the scene is one of the
>most-discussed and analyzed points of the movie (I recall a hearty discussion
>trying to figure out whose hand wrote the name, for instance...) and is
>certainly open for a bit of interpretation.
Pembleton does say he caught two bad guys that night, so Bayliss most
certainly would have been arrested and charged - the name wouldn't
have been changed at all if Pembleton had done nothing.
It's hard to know if there was any other evidence that would have
convicted Bayliss, though.
-- Keith Gow --
NOTE TO ISPs: This off-topic post complies with this newsgroup's
policy "Off topic posting in alt.tv.homicide"
- http://tinyurl.com/b20g - and the group founder's statement
http://tinyurl.com/be54 . This post is not in violation of the
charter. Further details can be provided if needed
Michael
"Keith Gow" <kw...@vicnet.net.au> wrote in message
news:400ca5c1...@News.CIS.DFN.DE...
> On 19 Jan 2004 23:17:38 GMT, atko...@aol.comBlok (ATKokmen) waxed
> lyrical:
>
> >"Michael" md...@nospam.cornell.edu writes:
> >
> >>What does the blue marker mean? Is Bayless going to
> >>the joint?
> >
> >If I recall correctly, the blue marker signifies a case from a previous
year
> >that's been closed. So the fact that the name was changed from red to
blue
> >signifies that the case has been closed (from the detectives' point of
view)
> >but since we don't see the trial or the decision, we don't know what that
means
> >for Bayliss.
> >
> >The (almost certainly) purposeful ambiguity of the scene is one of the
> >most-discussed and analyzed points of the movie (I recall a hearty
discussion
> >trying to figure out whose hand wrote the name, for instance...) and is
> >certainly open for a bit of interpretation.
>
> Pembleton does say he caught two bad guys that night, so Bayliss most
> certainly would have been arrested and charged - the name wouldn't
> have been changed at all if Pembleton had done nothing.
>
> It's hard to know if there was any other evidence that would have
> convicted Bayliss, though.
Has the writer what's-his-name ever weighed in on this ending?
Thanks again.
Mike
UncleDave
"Michael" <md...@nospam.cornell.edu> wrote in message
news:rL1Pb.94193$fq1....@twister.rdc-kc.rr.com...
I thought the blue was for a case that couldn't be solved, like the Afena
Watson case. Red for open and working on, black for closed, blue for "we
can't solve this one."
--- Uncle Dave
L. Ross Raszewski
I think it's some kind of catch-all "special status" marker. We also
see it when Falsone closes the Mysterious Unsolved Case From The
Forties
ATKo...@aol.com
>
> I thought the blue was for a case that couldn't be solved, like the Afena
> Watson case. Red for open and working on, black for closed, blue for "we
> can't solve this one."
I don't think so. IIRC, the most conspicuous use of the blue marker
was in the episode "Finnegan's Wake" where the detectives (mainly, I
think, Falsone) solve a decades-old murder with the aid of guest-star
Charles Durning playing the older detective who worked the case years
ago. At the end, they solve the case. I seem to remember a speech
from G saying that since when an old open case gets solved, you don't
just put it on the board in black--you put it on the board in blue.
So blue signifies that the case has been closed (from the detectives'
point of view, that is) just as much as black does. It's just that
there's something different about that particular case--that it's been
open for longer.
Of course, I think that if you really dig down into the minutiae of
the show, you'll probably find a few discrepancies about how the blue
marker was used. And, regardless, the presence of a third color
(whose use is so seemingly so vague) does undercut the beautiful
simplicity of the board that G. so beautifully described in the very
first episode--that the board is a stark, simple, irrefutable
at-a-glance way of knowing just how the detectives are doing...
UncleDave
"L. Ross Raszewski" <lrasz...@loyola.edu> wrote in message
news:debPb.30660$ko5....@nwrddc01.gnilink.net...
OK, here's what "The Homicide: Life on the Street Glossary" by John Bobby
has to say on the subject:
"If the name is in red, it's unsolved, or an investigation is in progress.
If it's in black, it's solved. If it's in blue, it's from a prior year.
(Finnegan's Wake). If the victim is identified, they are listed as 'Doe'."
So, it *is* possible for a blue name to be erased and re-written in black.
I was just basing it on the Adena Watson case, which was never solved.
--- Uncle Dave
L. Ross Raszewski
>
>So blue signifies that the case has been closed (from the detectives'
>point of view, that is) just as much as black does. It's just that
>there's something different about that particular case--that it's been
>open for longer.
Possibly there's something in there related to the fact that a name
which appears in black had to have been on the board in red
previously, whereas a case in blue was not previously in red (Which
might be relevant if a quick scan of the colors is used to determine a
detective's clearance rate.)
>
>Of course, I think that if you really dig down into the minutiae of
>the show, you'll probably find a few discrepancies about how the blue
>marker was used. And, regardless, the presence of a third color
>(whose use is so seemingly so vague) does undercut the beautiful
>simplicity of the board that G. so beautifully described in the very
>first episode--that the board is a stark, simple, irrefutable
>at-a-glance way of knowing just how the detectives are doing...
It does, true. Of course, I *think* I recall that the use of the blue
appears in the book as well.
Slartibartfast
news:d2cd9253.04012...@posting.google.com...
> Of course, I think that if you really dig down into the minutiae of
> the show, you'll probably find a few discrepancies about how the blue
> marker was used. And, regardless, the presence of a third color
> (whose use is so seemingly so vague) does undercut the beautiful
> simplicity of the board that G. so beautifully described in the very
> first episode--that the board is a stark, simple, irrefutable
> at-a-glance way of knowing just how the detectives are doing...
While we're on the subject of the board; perhaps I'm being stupid, but I
can't quite work out the mechanics of it.
First a case gets written on the board in red; once it is solved it is
wiped out and re-written in black in the same place.
What happens then? Obviously the case can't stay there forever, or
they'd end up writing on the floor.
If it stayed there for a fixed time and was then crossed off, you'd have
to start again at the top while there were older cases underneath.
I reckon that they must employ someone to come in every couple of weeks
to wipe the whole lot off, then re-write just the latest black cases
with the red ones underneath.
I know the whole thing is probably just a dramatic device, but I need to
know!
--
Slartibartfast
To reply by email, remove the FJORDS from my address
David Worrell
from a previous year, btw.
It is amazing how often message boards end up resembling the Greek Chorus of
regulars at the Amsterdam bar in Donald Westlake's wonderful Dortmunder
books. This thread reminded me to make that point. :-D
David Worrell
"Michael" wrote:
> Has the writer what's-his-name ever weighed in on this ending?
>
> Thanks again.
>
> Mike
>
>
Somebody...it might have been Fontana...it might have been someone
else....replied when questioned about what would happen to Tim, something to
the effect of, "He's guilty of murder, he was charged and convicted and went
to jail." But I forget the source.
Keith? Was it perhaps in Spectrum's interview with Fonatana last year or so?
Tryan6
>I thought the blue was for a case that couldn't be solved, like the Afena
>Watson case. Red for open and working on, black for closed, blue for "we
>can't solve this one."
There is no such theing as "we can't solve this one" in any department.
Homicide cases are either open investiagtions or closed investigations. Since
there is no statute of limitations on homicide, an unsolved case must remain
open forever and all evidence involved must equally remain. All cases are only
closed by arrest or in the case of a murder/suicide, by the death of the
suspect. The only other means allowed by the Department of Justice is
"exceptional clearence" which I have only seen used once in my department and
that was on a 25 yr old hoicide finally tied into a serial killer who was
already on death row and it was deemed an unnessicary expense to try him yet
again.
Jamie
Keith Gow
<js...@mindspring.com> waxed lyrical:
Hmm, I don't remember Fontana ever being that blatant about it.
ATKo...@aol.com
> While we're on the subject of the board; perhaps I'm being stupid, but I
> can't quite work out the mechanics of it.
>
> First a case gets written on the board in red; once it is solved it is
> wiped out and re-written in black in the same place.
>
> What happens then? Obviously the case can't stay there forever, or
> they'd end up writing on the floor.
>
> If it stayed there for a fixed time and was then crossed off, you'd have
> to start again at the top while there were older cases underneath.
>
> I reckon that they must employ someone to come in every couple of weeks
> to wipe the whole lot off, then re-write just the latest black cases
> with the red ones underneath.
>
> I know the whole thing is probably just a dramatic device, but I need to
> know!
I seem to remember at least one episode that took place at the new
year where some character turned over the board, so as to begin
writing on the flip side. Starting the year with a new slate, as it
were. (Presumably, any still-relevant cases would be moved to the new
side of the board.)
You're probably right that they'd have to periodically erase
no-longer-relevant closed cases in order to make room on the board.
For what it's worth, I seem to recall once coming across Baltimore
crime statistics that indicated that there might be about 300
homicides a year in Baltimore. I don't have a good sense of how many
names the board could accomodate, but I don't think the board was so
small and the crime rate so great that they'd have to erase the board
"every couple of weeks." A few times a year, perhaps...
Patrick
wrote:
Perhaps this would be a good time to mention that practically anything
you want to know about The Board can be learned here
http://members.aol.com/jimking/
courtesy of, well, Jim King.
--Patrick
Slartibartfast
news:400eb86f...@nntp.bestweb.net...
> Perhaps this would be a good time to mention that practically anything
> you want to know about The Board can be learned here
>
> http://members.aol.com/jimking/
>
> courtesy of, well, Jim King.
Thanks Patrick. I never ceased to be amazed by what's out there on the
Net.
RESchwalb
<< Somebody...it might have been Fontana...it might have been someone
else....replied when questioned about what would happen to Tim, something to
the effect of, "He's guilty of murder, he was charged and convicted and went
to jail." But I forget the source. >>
When Fontana gave the annual William Paley lecture at the Museum of TV & Radio
in NY, (12/6/2000), he was asked this very question. He replied, somewhat
incredulously, "What happens to Bayliss? He goes to jail!"
Nevertheless, some of us appear to be in denial. :)
Robin
David Worrell
Robin wrote:
Thanks. That's probably where I got it from.
Sjplwc
>>When Fontana gave the annual William Paley lecture at the Museum of >>TV &
Radio in NY, (12/6/2000), he was asked this very question. He >>replied,
somewhat incredulously, "What happens to Bayliss? He goes to >>jail!"
>>Nevertheless, some of us appear to be in denial. :)
Regarding Tim's fate, I guess I followed a theory I've developed for
TV/Film situations like this: Whenever a storyline ends without a crystalline,
definitive ending being spelled out for us, I take it that we are to *assume*
what is most apparent or implied in the seemingly unfinished story.
For instance, at the end of *Good Will Hunting*, Will is driving off into
the sunset planning to reconnect with his estranged girl; there is no absolute
indication that they get back together and work out their differences, but the
entire arc of the final fifteeen minutes of the film, the tone of the last few
scenes of the movie, is that Will is getting his act together overall and so I
assume this will include getting the ruptured relationship with his lady back
on track.
Similarly, at the end of *Conspiracy Theory*, there is every reason to
consider it pretty nigh impossible for Mel Gibson and Julia Roberts ever to
reunite -- except that the delight in Ms. Roberts' face when she realizes Jerry
(Gibson) is still alive, and his corresponding delight when he realizes she
realizes it (got that?), sends the definite signal they both fully expect to
see each other again; so we are supposed to conclude the same, even though it's
never spelled out that will actually occur.
Along these lines I approach the HLOTS movie: in the normal unfolding of
things, a murderer who turns himself in, confesses to the crime and is arrested
is headed for the big house. There is nothing in the film to suggest otherwise,
so I have always concluded that, yes, Tim ends up in prison.
IIRC, wasn't there a thought that we (the viewers) were supposed to assume that
Tim eats his gun sometime after his arrest? That the mysterious "fourth chair"
so hauntingly depicted in the final frames of the film was actually being
reserved for Tim? I don't buy this notion, but I recall it being bruited about
at some point, and I do find it interesting.
Steve
ATKo...@aol.com
> Perhaps this would be a good time to mention that practically anything
> you want to know about The Board can be learned here
>
> http://members.aol.com/jimking/
>
> courtesy of, well, Jim King.
Thanks! That's a great page. From the pictures of The Board on that
site, it looks like the whole thing might be able to accomodate as
many homicides as would happen in a year without having to erase it at
all (though they might have to resort to even smaller writing toward
the end of the year and/or if the homicide rate upticked slightly...)
Gotta love the internet!
Martha K.
Gotta love Jim King...
Martha K.
Keith Gow
<snip>
>IIRC, wasn't there a thought that we (the viewers) were supposed to assume that
>Tim eats his gun sometime after his arrest? That the mysterious "fourth chair"
>so hauntingly depicted in the final frames of the film was actually being
>reserved for Tim? I don't buy this notion, but I recall it being bruited about
>at some point, and I do find it interesting.
As much as you theory seems sound, I think it's precisely these
ambiguities that make those endings interesting. Certainly while I buy
that Frank turned Tim in, I don't necessarily buy the fourth chair is
for Tim.
Some people can't bare to think of Frank turning Tim in, so perhaps
Tim turned himself in. And then ate his gun.
And some people think Frankentim had a special man-on-man relationship
and went off for a quick shag... but those people write fan-fic. ;-)
If I had all the answers, we wouldn't be discussing it and I wouldn't
be entirely happy with the ending. But we don't, we are and I am.
Mardelle
>As much as you theory seems sound, I think it's precisely these
>ambiguities that make those endings interesting. Certainly while I buy
>that Frank turned Tim in, I don't necessarily buy the fourth chair is
>for Tim.
>
>Some people can't bare to think of Frank turning Tim in, so perhaps
>Tim turned himself in. And then ate his gun.
Near the end of the movie, Frank says to Little Gee, "Caught me a couple of
(bad guys) today."
Clearly that statement implies that Frank
turned Tim in.
Mardelle
Keith Gow
lyrical:
While I agree with you, that line is still vague. He might have caught
Bayliss, but he may not have turned him in. The hand that writes the
name on the board in blue is not Frank and probably is Bayliss.
I know Frank probably did turn him in, but I'm also willing to believe
that Bayliss turned himself in after he realised even Frank couldn't
absolve him.
Eromitlab
At the bottom of each detective's column on The Board, there's a
little square of space filled with, on average, five or six red names.
Those are the detective's unsolved cases from the year before. So
say it's New Year's Day, January 1st, 2000. All the black names are
erased from each detective's column, and the red names (from 1999) are
transferred to this aforementioned space, where they will remain until
A.) they're solved or B.) January 1st, 2001 rolls around and they're
erased, with 2000's remaining unsolved cases for that detective taking
their place. You'll notice that, following the rooftop scene, the
hand we see erases "Ryland" from one column near the bottom of The
Board, before travelling upwards to write it in blue. And nobody in
the world is going to convince me that that ISN'T Bayliss' hand doing
the writing. The sleeve is the same color as that of the trenchcoat
he was wearing while out on the rooftop. I remember someone claiming
to be Eric Overmeyer (or perhaps it WAS him...who knows?) posting at
the Pattern BBS (long, long ago when HLOTS actually still had a
message board) who swore up and down that it was the same hand they
always used, attached to the same body housing the same person who
always did the writing, and that that body belonged to neither Kyle
Secor nor Tim Bayliss. I call bull-plop on that.
By the way, I believe that the 4th chair is for Homicide, the program,
and that the movie is just one long metaphor for the cancellation of
the show. I mean, look at it: Gee is killed by television, or at
least a cameraman (named Eric [Overmeyer] Thomas [Fontana] James
[Yoshimura]) while engaging in what could be described as something
representative of a ratings war (the race for mayor), "ER"s are
mentioned and panned, it was called "Life Everlasting," Gee Jr. asks
Andre Braugher if he misses "Homicide" and says that "Life goes on and
on," and Gee's opponent for mayor looks a lot like Don Johnson. Okay.
That last one is stretching. Robert Gessner didn't look like Don
Johnson. But I mean the rest of it.
L. Ross Raszewski
>While I agree with you, that line is still vague. He might have caught
>Bayliss, but he may not have turned him in. The hand that writes the
>name on the board in blue is not Frank and probably is Bayliss.
I've noticed a lot of talk over whose hand that is. I don't see what
the issue is here; it seems like most of the time, it's just one of
the administrative staff who writes the names anyway. The most likely
candidate for writing the name on the board is "Secretary #2"
Keith Gow
Raszewski) waxed lyrical:
Aww, party pooper ;-)
It's definitely a man's hand who writes the name in blue and I like
the idea that Bayliss writes the name that puts him away.
It's not like we haven't seen detectives writing names on the board at
other times in the series.
L. Ross Raszewski
>
>It's definitely a man's hand who writes the name in blue and I like
>the idea that Bayliss writes the name that puts him away.
>
Well, secretaries don't have to be female, of course. It makes a lot
of sense that it's not Pembleton's hand; not being an actual police
officer any more, he can't actually make the arrest, which means that
it goes down in the books either as Timmy turning himself in, or,
let's say, the desk sargent (I assume that there's a spot on the
paperwork which says "arresting officer" which has to be filled in no
matter what, with the name of the guy who's job it is to fill out all
the paperwork). One would assume that the arresting officer's hand is
the one we see, whether it's one of the homicide detectives (The
'classic' detectives are all at the Waterfront, but there's still the
newbies -- I could just see Gafney relishing having his little crappy
head boy getting the credit on this one -- and the second shift
detectives (*Someone's* got to be on duty, after all)) or someone
administrative. I like the symbolism of Bayliss writing the name
himself too, but I just don't think it jives, especially in light of
the fact that he refuses to turn himself in: he makes Frank take him
in.
Keith Gow
Raszewski) waxed lyrical:
>On Sat, 24 Jan 2004 22:09:27 GMT, Keith Gow <kw...@vicnet.net.au> wrote:
>>
>>It's definitely a man's hand who writes the name in blue and I like
>>the idea that Bayliss writes the name that puts him away.
>>
>
>Well, secretaries don't have to be female, of course.
I hope I didn't imply otherwise.
But most of the time the person writing the names on the board was
female. It's not hard to tell a male from a female hand.
>It makes a lot
>of sense that it's not Pembleton's hand; not being an actual police
>officer any more, he can't actually make the arrest, which means that
>it goes down in the books either as Timmy turning himself in, or,
>let's say, the desk sargent (I assume that there's a spot on the
>paperwork which says "arresting officer" which has to be filled in no
>matter what, with the name of the guy who's job it is to fill out all
>the paperwork). One would assume that the arresting officer's hand is
>the one we see, whether it's one of the homicide detectives (The
>'classic' detectives are all at the Waterfront, but there's still the
>newbies -- I could just see Gafney relishing having his little crappy
>head boy getting the credit on this one -- and the second shift
>detectives (*Someone's* got to be on duty, after all)) or someone
>administrative. I like the symbolism of Bayliss writing the name
>himself too, but I just don't think it jives, especially in light of
>the fact that he refuses to turn himself in: he makes Frank take him
>in.
I can still imagine Frank taking Bayliss down to the squad room,
Bayliss changing the name to blue and then Frank escorting him to
wherever he'd need to be to turn himself in.
It's much of a muchness really. :-)
Eromitlab
Bull-plop. It was Bayliss.
cillamarie
didn't. That is, unless he changed his coat. I just watched the dvd and
had the same question. In the scene with Pembleton, he has a dark gray
coat and not the brown that's seen near the board.
vladim...@gmail.com
> "Michael" <md...@nospam.cornell.edu> wrote in message
> news:rL1Pb.94193$fq1....@twister.rdc-kc.rr.com...
> >
> > "Keith Gow" <kw...@vicnet.net.au> wrote in message
> > news:400ca5c1...@News.CIS.DFN.DE...
> > > On 19 Jan 2004 23:17:38 GMT, atko...@aol.comBlok (ATKokmen) waxed
> > > lyrical:
> > > >"Michael" md...@nospam.cornell.edu writes:
> > > >
> > > >>What does the blue marker mean? Is Bayless going to
> > > >>the joint?
> > > >
> > year
> > > >that's been closed. So the fact that the name was changed from red to
> > > >signifies that the case has been closed (from the detectives' point of
> > > >but since we don't see the trial or the decision, we don't know what
> that
> > means
> > > >for Bayliss.
> > > >
> > > >The (almost certainly) purposeful ambiguity of the scene is one of the
> > > >most-discussed and analyzed points of the movie (I recall a hearty
> > discussion
> > > >trying to figure out whose hand wrote the name, for instance...) and is
> > > >certainly open for a bit of interpretation.
> > >
> > > Pembleton does say he caught two bad guys that night, so Bayliss most
> > > certainly would have been arrested and charged - the name wouldn't
> > > have been changed at all if Pembleton had done nothing.
> > >
> > > It's hard to know if there was any other evidence that would have
> > > convicted Bayliss, though.
> > Has the writer what's-his-name ever weighed in on this ending?
> >
> > Thanks again.
> >
> > Mike
> >
> >
>
> Watson case. Red for open and working on, black for closed, blue for "we
> can't solve this one."
>
The blue marker means solved cold case, the case that has been open for more than a year. It has nothing to do with the police involved shooting or the case that it can't be solved. The case is closed so it means that Tim Bayliss has been charged for it