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

Have you seen it in hi-def?

[Wag]

CSI is clearly the best looking show on TV. I think that is part of its attractiveness. How many scientists do you know who look like Marg Helgenberger and Jorja Fox?
They might be geeks, but they're Hollywood geeks.

It is by far the best shot HDTV on tv right now. Pitty more people can't see it that way.

Almost never saw the light of day

[loggia]

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

Nice Show, Obsolete Data

[NReitzel]

While the modus operandi of the show is stimulating and thought provoking, the facts presented are sometimes from some parallel universe. I'm a licensed EPA inspector, and sometimes the writers of this show come up with things that might have been feasible thirty years ago, but aren't plausible in our modern safety-oriented society. This leads me to believe that the writers include among them some old fart (from a fellow OFC* member) who hasn't let factuality come in the way of a good spin. Perhaps he (she?) is an out-of-work political speech writer.

I'm all for using clever scientific methods to knock off troublesome momos, but using stuff that has been unobtainable for twenty years stretches credibility a bit. While that bothers me personally, a worse possibility is causing people who aren't knowledgable (like network TV watchers) to want our government to institute even nastier safety restrictions to solve problems that have actually been fixed for decades.

Ok, it's a nit, but it bugs me.

* Old Farts Club

Science for the MTV generation

[toxcspdrmn]

I saw CSI (the episode with the animated bullet trajectories) on British TV only last week. A laudable effort to make science accessible to the mainstream, but it did seem to me that the "mainstream" they were aiming for must have the attention span of a goldfish.

The Miami Vice comparison is particularly apt - lots of jump cuts etc. The CG animation is sometimes overused (and the animation of a bullet striking a lung had me rofl).

That said, much of the basic science is sound. I particularly liked the admission that while a $10k electronic nose was very cool when it came to identifying perfume residues, the same results could be had with a bottle of adsorbant and an existing benchtop gas chromatograph).

Anyway - I'll be watching it again to see if they can get the balance of plot/science/graphics right. If nothing else, it is nice to see an attempt to incorporate some properly researched, hard science into a mainstream show. Better they labour the explanations a bit than dumb it down at the expense of veracity.

Good show, bad science

[Gray]

I always saw CSI as successful for pretty much the same reasons as Law and Order. It requires a low emotional commitment but a high intellectual commitment. They're both about systems first and the people within them second. There is a demographic (a lot of them work with computers) that eats that up.

My only complaint would be the same as a bunch of other people here, they play is real fast and loose with the science. Often it has nothing to do with a plot point, it's just poorly researched.

I understand there are crazy time constraints on network television, they aren't made of time. I would suggest hiring a 'resident geek' to read scripts somewhere on the way out and suggest 'technical' fixes to move their science more into reality. I think it would really help the show, and it would give them access to a world of wierd science stuff they aren't getting now. And make it more crediable ta boot.

People who's heads are full of wierd science are a dime a dozen down at the local comic store (or here on slashdot), pick one up..

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.

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!

Absolutely wonderful in HD

[jesup]

CSI is gorgeous in HD - the night shots of Vegas from the air, with all the color; the dark exteriors and interiors which would wash into a blur on a regular TV; the closeups of evidence, etc are wonderful in HD. HD does such a good job on color and low-light reproduction compared to NTSC that people who see it at my house are amazed, and CSI is a great example. I think the transfers or camera work has gotten better too since it started.

And everything said in the article is true - it's a riviting drama where science is often the star, for more so than the old detective-story-ish Quincy was.

I'm shocked it ever made it to the screen, and hope it'll be there for a Long Time.