white collar meta part 2

[jmtorres]

Previously on jmtorres: Meta regarding episode 1.07 Free Fall and speculation on the cliffhanger.


And now, having seen 1.08 Hard Sell, the culprit is:

Technically still up in the air, although he [Eastin] does seem to be pushing Fowler, and flashback as told from Peter's POV clears Peter.

I keep wondering if the POV is trustworthy on this show. Is Neal the POV character (most of the time)? Are we supposed to trust him, the conman? Is Peter POV any more trustworthy? I'm torn about this. Logically, I feel trusting the POV would be wrong. But all the cinematographic clues indicate that they're playing the POV straight and honest. (If they are not, this would be an example of bad television. Either you give narrative clues that POV is untrustworthy before eight episodes in, or you give cinematographic clues, or, gosh, preferably both.)

I said that by mystery conventions whoever "took" Kate should have been around from early on, possibly even the first episode. My theory was Mozzie, based on "who's been around that long?" plus assorted other clues like opportunity and motive. Eastin said something on twitter about things having been planned from the pilot, which would seem to indicate he gets the concept... except he's pushing Fowler.

My worry was being too damn clever and pulling something out of his ass, effectively, because he may think he littered obvious clues, but I worry he's too green to know if his clues are actually functioning as clues or not. Mysteries are hard. You want it to be a surprise to most of your viewers, but not so out of left field that there's no sense of "oh YEAH now I get it!"

I am afraid the clue Eastin thinks justifies pulling Fowler out of his ass is: the ring. The ring is an FBI ring, not that anyone told us this, but the ring in Eastin's head was always an FBI ring, textualized or not, therefore, he is free to make the culprit an FBI agent, even one that he didn't put in the show until episode 107.

I am afraid we're getting screwed on this one. I mean, seriously. Having watched the first eight episodes, who here would be satisfied at pinning it all on this Johnny-come-lately Fowler? I'd be happier if it were Ruiz--was there earlier, is a dick in general and about Neal; really, he would work if he'd appeared in even one more episode and ever made a sneering reference to Neal getting dumped.

Just. Fowler? Really? *rubs eyebrow* I continue to be... discontent.

Comments

[damned_colonial]

How about Hughes (Peter's boss)?

[jmtorres]

I would be happier with that than Fowler!

[isagel]

Hughes was my favourite candidate before 1x08, but then he wasn't even in this episode. (Or did I manage to miss him?)

I seriously don't think Eastin has a good solution to this, unless it is somehow Peter after all. It feels a bit like he started the mystery without knowing where it was going. (Although I still definitely think Peter could be lying to Neal about something.)

[dragonfly]

I'm not as bothered by Fowler as you are, not that I'm at all certain he's the culprit, but I'd be okay with it. I don't see eight episodes in (really seven to where they introduced Fowler) as that far along. I'm sure Eastin would like to imagine he'll get a full season plus three more seasons, total, at least, and seven episodes in just doesn't seem that long to me. We didn't even know for sure that Kate was being "held" by someone (Neal's suspicions notwithstanding) until she called Neal at Grand Central Station, so you could say the mystery of who has her started then.

Not that I intend any great defense of Eastin, here. I'm just not particularly bothered if Fowler turns out to be the bad guy.

[echan]

My take from Peter's retelling of his conversation with Kate is that I'm no longer sure anyone 'has' Kate. Peter seemed to prove that Kate never really loved Neal, she just liked keeping him around and his puppy dog act. Neal is crazy for Kate, and Peter is sick of it because he see's it's not worth it, so he negotiates with Kate for the price of Neal's freedom from her -- the amber musicbox. As far as to what degree Kate is a captive, I think it's a business arrangement more than a hostage situation.

[jmtorres]

I think that Kate was not kidnapped has been apparent for a while, she's running around making calls etc. At most it's an extortion?

[china_shop]

But all the cinematographic clues indicate that they're playing the POV straight and honest.

In Free Fall, after Peter asks if Neal took the diamond and Neal denies it, Neal gets the slow-motion walk of just having pulled off a con. I still haven't figured out if that was Peter-POV suspicion, or the show giving us a hint about something. I really don't think Neal took the diamond.

Also, in 1.08, my partner's convinced that Peter's flashback is coded sepia for This is a Lie. I'm resisting, though -- I need to believe we can trust Peter.

And yeah, I don't think anyone has Kate, but I wouldn't be surprised if Mozzie and she were conspiring to scam Neal. Sad (because Mozzie!), but not surprised.

[dragonfly]

I looked at that slow-motion walk because you mentioned before that it twigged you and my opinion is that it's not a "I just pulled something off" walk. That would be from Neal's POV.

I think it's Peter's POV and means something more like, "I don't know what to think about that guy." It's a walk of mystery. Is he conning me or not? The angle we see that walk from, mostly, is from behind, where Peter is looking at his back. I think it's meant to communicate Peter's ambivalence, not Neal's triumph. YMMV.

[china_shop]

I think it's Peter's POV and means something more like, "I don't know what to think about that guy." It's a walk of mystery.

*nodnod* I can see that. I guess it just confused me because I'm used to trusting the narrative (which, as far as we know, is mostly objective, yes?), so it seemed like confirmation that Peter was right not to trust him, rather than an expression of Peter's doubt.

(Icon love!)