The Rise of CSI

CSI: Crime Scene Investigation has become the most successful, intelligent, improbable and geekiest drama on commercial network TV. Considering its setting -- Las Vegas -- and its subject matter - decomposing pigs, corpse-sucking larvae, transgender serial killers, serial killer make-up artists, murderous and skate-wielding hockey fiends -- and its near total absence of traditional TV fare like sex or shoot-em-ups, this show shatters conventional wisdom about what people want to see on TV. A year ago, CSI seemed promising. Now it's great and getting steadily better. And as CSI has become more successful, its production values have soared. At times, it's beautifully shot, a cross between the old Miami Vice and the early days of The X-Files, from which it borrows heavily.

The stars of CSI are William Petersen, 49, who plays the solitary, brooding, and obsessively scientific Las Vegas Crime Scene Investigations chief Gil Grissom, and Marge Helgenberger, who plays his sidekick Catherine Willows. They have a team of young and hunky criminalists, including a recovering gambling addict and an ex-jock who has fallen in love with a casino hooker. According to Variety, C.S.I. has become the number two drama on network TV (behind ER), with over 25 million viewers a week.

The real star of the show is science. Grissom and Willows and the other criminalists share one pronounced trait -- they believe nothing anybody tells them, and they only trust solid evidence. They depend heavily on a well-equipped crime lab and use a wide variety of scientific tools to re-construct crimes. Like X-Files, the show shoots many scenes in darkness and shadow, and has a tendency to include brief and disciplined flashes of shocking gore: the path of a bullet will be illustrated graphically, or a diseased organ, a rotting corpse or slashed artery. Computers are a mainstream tool of this crew, along with smart thinking, and laser and DNA testing.

Like X-Files, the show has a dark view of science. Science is the real hero and the real star, but it's used mostly to reveal truth in sad circumstances. The CSI criminalists work in a depressing world where they nonetheless seek the raw truth, and believe in the ability of science to uncover it. Grissom is an older David Duchovny. He has a lonely life, a corrupt boss, endemic authority problems, and absolutely no patience for the stupid, dishonest or lazy. He shares another trait with Mulder -- he has to deal with the fact that in this world, the good guys don't always win.

It's fitting that TV's most intelligent drama follows one of its shlockiest programs -- Survivor. It would seem to be a foolish pairing, an idiotic broadcast followed by one so cerebral. Together the two shows cover the spectrum of contemporary TV. But while Survivor seems to become more unbearable by the week. CSI, already good, is getting better all the time -- gutsy, smart and inventive.

Comments

Problem with CSI

[gazbo]

They do incredibly clever, incredibly observant things. They make huge logical leaps.

We don't make the same leaps, so they have to explain them all, and find some excuse to do so; this gets tired after a while, when sombody performs a bit of a monologue - they may as well turn to the camera and say 'And for the folks at home...'

..and fp..

Re:Problem with CSI

[wrinkledshirt]

Disclaimer: I've only seen a couple of episodes. Maybe they've improved in the meanwhile.

Well, one thing that makes this difference from Watson/Holmes is that the scientific explanations are often in the middle of the show. If, on the other hand, the necessary explanations were left until the end, you'd also have a buildup of suspense.

I agree with the OP, though. The show may be alright but the dialogue is sometimes ridiculous in the way it's handled. Scientists explaining things to each other as if they're all idiots strikes a false chord. And there are so many scientific leaps made that sometimes the audience is put into "Awe gee" mode, becoming passive and having to accept it all (and sometimes becoming a little overly impressed). If they cut down on them, focused in on a select few that really turn the plot, (and maybe spend a little more time on character or whatnot) they could probably get more mileage out of the science.

They probably ought to take a look at how Law & Order handles it. Even though they go into the intricacies of law and police work, they were usually very good at keeping the audience in the loop without making certain things obvious.

One easy way to do this is to have a forensic scientist have more than one working theory that they're in the process of figuring out. That way they can explain everything they're doing to someone else because it's more natural. "I think this because of this this this, but it might be that because of that that that, you'd better check in with me later on in the day. Oh, and by the way, if you find any X at the crime scene, let me know, will you? It might be sprinkled on the walls."

Re:Problem with CSI

[Yosemite Sue]

While I admit that many of the explanations on CSI do seem to be directed towards the viewers, and the resulting dialogue rather artificial, I don't think this of itself suggests that the characters are not true scientists.

Scientists are always learning. I am not in forensics, but have done some time in labs, one thing that is part of being a researcher is to learn from others who have more experience. A new CSI out of school is NOT going to know everything right away. And even the more experienced scientists are rather specialized, and need to consult with experts in other areas (i.e. the pathologist, the anthropologist) from time to time.

And yeah, the science on CSI isn't always perfect ... but it's a heck of a lot better than what passes for science on most popular tv shows these days!

YS

TV and Successful Programs

[Anonymous Coward]

What most television executives today miss, is that shows that are POPULAR (ie, get good ratings) always have something UNIQUE about them.

Examples: Gilligan's Island, Seinfeld, M*A*S*H, The Beverly Hillbillies, I Love Lucy- they all have something unique about them, whether it's a crazy background plot, the first successfuly show starring a woman, or a show about 'nothing'.

It seems that all of the sitcoms that are coming out nowadays are just copies of each other. Shows that have been on the longest now (Simpsons, Drew Carey, Frasier) seem to still be popular, but are definitely losing their charm as writers struggle to find new story lines. But these shows all had something definitely unique about them, and that's what made them popular.

Airing shows that are trying to be based on 'real life' just come off as copycats of Friends or Seinfeld, and they definitely don't duplicate the success of those shows.

Want to know why shows are popular? They have a theme. Whether it's the Sopranos with the mafia theme, West Wing with it's presidential theme, ER with it's hospital theme, or NYPD Blue with it's cop theme, these shows are popular because they interest people.

Throwing another "The Show" out on TV won't captivate people to watch.

But give us something unique, and television audiences will eat it up.

Almost never saw the light of day

[loggia]

The show was rejected 25 times by television executives before someone on CBS realized its potential.

Willows is NOT a "sidekick"

[Anonymous Coward]

She may be an ex-stripper, but she's hardly some goggling piece of eye-candy who mooches around after Grissom all day, telling him how brilliant he is. She's gutsy and smart in her own right. Jeez......

Enjoyable but how real?

[Anonymous Coward]

I enjoy watching CSI but I often wonder how real it is.

For example, in the hockey episode they shined a light (and viewed thru a filter) and concluded that there had been 30 different women (or was it men) sex partners there. OK, people with active sex lives are likely to wash their sheets from time to time! Even if the sheet isn't washed, I suppose a DNA test could figure out that semen was from different sources but how can some kind of fancy light?

There are many other things I doubt in the show too. This isn't just a minor quibble because the whole show rests on the forensic evidence. Since a fun show.

CSI: HDTV

[ZenJabba1]

If you think it looks beautiful in SDTV, wait till you see it in HDTV, its an amazing picture quaility, with an great story line.

I started watching it only because it was in HDTV, now I'm hooked and love it

Re:Way too obvious...

[cgray4]

Maybe you haven't noticed, but the animation only illustrates what the actors are thinking happened -- not necessarily what actually happened. Maybe it's a subtle way of telling people not to believe everything they see on TV. But it certainly leaves the possibility of people imagining alternate scenarios.

Also, the cuts between the animation and the story are always extremely fast. You don't have to have much of a memory to remember what was going on just before them. If you don't like them, you must have hated Requiem for a Dream.

As for hand-holding, CSI seems to leave nearly as much to the viewers interpretation as the X-files. Even when the X-files were good, they still showed plenty of gore and other nasty things. Also, most of the cases were resolved -- or at least resolved in the viewer's mind. Besides, if a show like CSI left cases unresolved, people would get angry. CSI is a straightforward cop drama where X-files was a sci-fi / character based show.

If you really feel the need to criticize CSI, criticize the acting. Those people should be told that their show is in prime time and not during the day.

Re:CSI - Crummy Science for Idiots

[Reality Master 101]

Furthermore, Quincy frequently went after "larger issues" like Tourette's Syndrome, illegal waste dumping laws, and so on. Now, CSI almost never goes after any thing "larger" - it's almost always just some guy offing some other guy.

I agree with you in large part, but some of us like shows that just present an interesting drama without the need to preach a sermon (of course, only Hollywood "approved" sermons).

I think the "issue of the week" is better left in shows of the 70s and 80s.

Perfect CBS program

[Francis The JRT]

Notice how the 50-something main character resembles CBS's 50-something audience, and how impatient he can be with the headphone-wearing kids in the crimelab. Obviously it's meant to re-enforce their viewers' perspective, rather than challenge it. I always felt like the show was geared towards my grumpy uncle Ed, or like it's a Simpsons parody of a CBS show. The fact that it concentrates more on the forensics than, say, a character's fight with the bottle makes it a good tech show. But I do get the feeling sometimes I'm not the target audience.

CSi is good entertainment

[ToasterTester]

Sure many of you posting are slamming for details on this or that. Or that a weekly script written of all ages to enjoy isn't the level of classic novel, who cares. Its good entertainment, that happens to bring some science to people who wouldn't be reading Scientic American. I would bet a lot of the people complaining just don't like TV in general. Fine, but for those who of us who been bit-banging for twelve hours a day and just want to veg' a bit, CSi is good entertainment.

Re:CSI - Crummy Science for Idiots

[bradasch]

I guess you're making the same mistake I did when I started watching the show: confusing entertainment with science classes. If you want something realist, 100% accurate in every single detail, you should watch the Discovery channel. They even got a forensics show, I guess.

What amuses me about CSI is the drama, or even some of the thrill of discovering who is the bad guy. Not the science details.

Ask the average person about any of the things you mentioned. You'll probably end with "Huh?" for an answer.

It's not a science class. It's entertainment. If you want politically correct moral lessons, 100% accuracy you should go to a good educational facility. These things aren't mandatory on TV.

Re:CSI - Crummy Science for Idiots

[Joe Rumsey]

The conflict between Grissom and the guy who represents the mayor's office (I didn't think he was the sherrif, actually, but you could be right.) has nothing to do with authority figures being assholes. You've read that into it based on your own bias. The reason that whole running subplot exits is to highlight Grissom's tendency towards finding the truth at the expense of all else, including people's feelings. It's a recurring theme in the show, and that's not the only device they've used to show it. Grissom is one of my favorite TV characters ever, and that's part of the reason why. Like you and me, he is not perfect, and he knows it. Frequently the tasks that involve dealing with people get delegated to Willows.

Also, I agree that they made a bunch of scientific mistakes in that one particular episode. I even posted something about it on another website at the time, the only time I've done that. But it's the only episode that's been that bad, it's usually much better. It isn't perfect, but that was the worst of the bunch. If it's the only episode you've seen, it's not fair to judge the whole series by it.

I agree with another poster that I don't want them going after larger issues. There's plenty of preachy trite crap on TV dealing with "larger issues" all the time, it's great to have one show that can tell interesting personal stories with believable, well thought-out, and imperfect, characters for once. Quincy was a two dimensional cardboard cutout medical examiner, who needs more of that? It's everywhere!

Homicide anyone?

[corrosiv]

Speaking of intelligent police shows...

It is truly shameful that the brilliant and inspired Homicide: Life on the Street never got the acclaim it deserved while it was around. Even more tragic is how memories of the show are fading. If it isn't in syndication where you are, REQUEST IT!