C.S.I.

Nobody had any special expectations for the CBS science drama C.S.I. (Crime Scene Investigations), which airs Thursday nights after Survivor, so much of this neat but nerdy drama feels slapped-together. Probably nobody was more surprised than the network when the show took off. It's a new kind of science thriller, a different way of looking at police work and the law. This weekly science detection mystery is a long-overdue nod to the debt that contemporary law enforcement owes to technology, which probably solves more crimes these days than old-fashioned gumshoeing. (Read more).

Several things about this show are odd. For one thing, it's stars -- stocky William Petersen as C.S.I. head Gil Grissom and Marg Helgenberger (playing Catherine Willows) as his sidekick -- are not the hunks and babes of most series. Given the realities of network TV, the younger staffers are prettier, but Grissom is a guy who could actually be a convincing investigator, not a GAP model.

Oddly, too, the show is set in Las Vegas, America's capital of Weirdness. The backdrop of giant, theme-parky casinos gives the show a deliciously odd feel. And the shows plays on the fact that the crime lab in Las Vegas is the country's second busiest, after New York City's. Given the millions of strangers and tens of millions of dollars that pour into and through Las Vegas, the string of bizarre homicides needed to sustain a show like this is plausible. Less plausible is the lavishly equipped offices the C.S.I. works in. Few Silicon Valley companies have better offices or equipment. For the C.S.I., apparently, money is no object.

Although the production values are frequently chintzy (though improving, as the producers belatedly realize they have a hit), and the writing is pedestrian, there are some fine touches. When the C.S.I. unit is called to the desert to reconstruct a skeleton and figure out how the victim died, we suddenly get a fascinating case study in how forensic investigators learn things about bones.

Grissom doesn't carry a gun, kick doors down, chase suspects through alleys, or bang them around interrogation rooms. His SUV is crammed with test kits, infra-red lights, tubes, and evidence bags.

When Grissom determines that one skeleton might have been strangled, we see a sudden, graphic insert of a real neck, with muscles and tissue contracting and cutting off air and blood. The insert only lasts a second, but it's riveting. So is the show's use of increasingly sophisticated databases to match evidence up with recorded crimes, and to gather information from twigs, dirt, pieces of hair. DNA plays a starring role on this show.

One episode had Grissom and his team reconstructing a fire to try to clear an innocent man charged with setting a fire that killed his wife and child. The details -- as investigators peer at burn and fire traces on walls and floors -- were as interesting as any high-speed auto chase.

The C.S.I. unit is part of the Las Vegas police -- represented here by ever-rueful Paul Guilfoyle as Capt. Jim Brass -- which unravels two or three major crimes per show. The episodes unfold without rough stuff -- fist fights, no shoot-outs, hardly ever an explosion. Just science applied to the unraveling of mysteries.

Naturally, computers play a huge role, which could be one reason the show is doing so well. As the Net plays a bigger role each day in American's lives, their fascination with how data is collected and sorted online is growing. Aggregated information is a central tool of our C.S.I. heroes.

The influence of The X-Files is all over C.S.I.. Scenes take place in dark and eerie rooms, and spooky deaths need to be explained by the heroes. One episode showed a gambler who owed a lot of money executed professional-style in a tacky, hotel elevator. The show isn't afraid to be depressing, and the C.S.I. investigators are often defeated. Even their jazzy equipment is no match for a professional hit. There's a dark, often brutal reality underlying these stories. Last week, the C.S.I. had to track down a carjacker/rapist whose victim was in a coma. With his victim unable to talk, they nailed the killer through a belt loop and other DNA evidence.

On the debit side, there's the abscence of a charismatic character like Scully , Mulder or Sipowicz, or of compelling actors like Anderson, Duchovny or Franz. This crew is comparatively bland. Helgenberger's Willows plays an ex-show girl, but has nothing of Scully's fearless, dark complexity.

Still, it's an intriging show, especially for tech-lovers,problem solvers and people interested in how science has become the homicide cop's real partner, playing an increasing role in resolving human conflict and tragedy. Which is to say, this is a police drama for nerds and geeks. It's good stuff.

Comments

Survivor lead-in more important

[JoeMac]

I think a larger part of CSI's success, because I've seen it and been disappointed a couple of times, is the tremendous advantage it gets from being led into by Survivor 2.

Let's face it: Survivor 2 is really good. I don't even like the reality genre that much but Survivor 2 really compells me. It's just about the only reason I watch CBS (except for 60 Minutes, I'm sure not many others here do that :)).

As for the redeeming qualities of CSI, I think they've all been developed at least as effectively on Discovery Channel, History Channel and PBS.

I agree that the kind of scientific analysis that CSI involves in a drama can be fun to watch, but CSI is not the best vehicle for it. The tackiness overwhelms it. The true drama of a scientific investigation can be just as present on NOVA as the fake melodrama of CSI.

In the tradition of Quincy and The Rockford Files

[bee]

Is it just me? It seems that tv has in general has gone bland, no odd quirky shows like Quincy or The Rockford Files any more. Granted, there's the X Files, and Twin Peaks, but I'm hard-pressed to think of any others in the last 10 years or so.

---

lack of realism in tv shows

[geekpress]

I like CSI. I enjoy watching the investigators follow the trail of evidence, letting it take them whereever it leads, regardless of their preconceived notions of the case. The show generally follows the rules of science, even if some of the details are unrealistic. That's pretty rare on TV.

Of course, CSI isn't all that realistic. They get lots of details wrong. But most shows are unrealistic -- for the sake of making the story comprehensible to the average viewer.

For example, in ER, radiologists rarely have any role; the ER docs usually read their own x-rays, CTs, etc. In the death of Lucy Carter, they had the surgeons doing interventional radiology procedures. In Elizabeth's paralyzation of the surfer, no one other than a neurosurgeon would have ever performed such a procedure. And those are just the particularly egregious, memorable errors.

But to introduce extra people into the plot and explain their presence would have slowed down the plot excessively. And I suspect that most people don't notice. (My husband Paul is a radiologist, so he tends to note such things.)

So CSI doesn't strike me as all that unusual in its oversights, omissions, and errors. Any TV show will have serious inaccuracies which go unnoticed by most people, but are glaring errors to professionals.

It's not the Discovery channel; it's entertainment!

-- Diana Hsieh

What?

[British]

I'm shocked. NO mention of NBC's The Profiler? That's what CSI struck me as a copy of. Now THAT was an interesting show. There was forensics in that show too, but it wasn't primarily focused on it.

I never miss an episode

[uglyMood]

Reviews of CSI always miss one important point: it is hilariously, magnificently bad. Each episode begins with Grissom's pre-credit cliche (if we're real lucky, it's an inappropriate Shakespeare quote).

After the credits, our heroes investigate the crime scene, during which a character will utter a line setting up the dramatic conclusion. This bit of dialogue will be heavily stressed so that later you will remember it and say "how ironic."

Then comes the establishment of the subplot, usually featuring the Ex-Stripper Who's Trying To Put Her Past Behind Her or the Young Man From The Streets Who Pulled Himself Up By His Bootstraps But Made Mistakes Along The Way.

After that, Grissom explains a forensic technique that's been in common use since 1947 to his fellow investigators. In elaborate detail. A piece of equipment that they've all been using daily since they were hired will also be explained, sometimes with helpful graphics. Everyone but Grissom will express dumbfounded amazement at the Miracles Of Modern Science. At lunch, a ham sandwich is explained.

The action will be punctuated with visualizations of theories of the crime. We know they are visualizations because of the overexposed high-contrast film, jumpy editing and echo-chamber sound track.

Finally, after some breathtaking leaps of logic, the crime will be solved. The subplot will then be wrapped up, and the final shot will be of Grissom pensively considering the Toll This Work Takes On Them All. Once, he did this from a moving roller coaster.

This show is the funniest thing on TV since the first season of G vs E.