Rowyn. Scottish. They/Them. 25+. Fandom blog. Atm it's mostly The Pitt, Mythology, Critical Role, and the Cosmere.
I write and GIF things occasionally.
Everything is tagged!
An Archive of Our Own, a project of the Organization for Transformative Works
Chapters: 1/1
Fandom: The Pitt (TV)
Rating: Teen And Up Audiences
Warnings: No Archive Warnings Apply
Relationships: Yolanda Garcia & Frank Langdon, Trinity Santos & Dennis Whitaker
Characters: Frank Langdon, Yolanda Garcia, Trinity Santos, Dennis Whitaker, Brendon "The Shark" Park
Additional Tags: Humour, the way I had to pause the episode so I could laugh at this, yolanda and frank are FULLY aware how sibling coded they are, and they are both equally disgusted by this concept, and react with no drama whatsoever, Crack, Crack Treated Seriously, they are SO utterly serious about how ENTIRELY uncool this is
Summary:
On a bright and sunny Fourth of July shift in the Pitt, Trinity Santos uttered the darkest words that had ever echoed within those (un)hallowed halls when she observed, utterly unironically, to Dennis Whitaker that, "You know, she (Garcia) and Langdon would make a great couple."
In the cruellest twist fate has ever known, neither Langdon nor Garcia were present to hear and react to this crime against their attempts at emotional health and mental sanity. So I manifested a world in which: they do.
AKA: Langdon hears Santos utter the most vomit-inducing sentence he's ever heard in his LIFE and immediately calls Yolanda to make it her problem, too. Because this is part of the best friend code: if I'm suffering you're suffering, with me.
I am a 3L in law school. I have interned for a judge in the criminal division, a federal public defender, and a state attorney general’s office that dealt with license revocation proceedings by regulatory boards; I am familiar with how the system works, how the sentencing guidelines work, etc. Here is an informal version of the memo I would write were I a law clerk or an intern for a judge assigned to Frank Langdon’s case, with modifications for both federal and state court—essentially I did the factual and legal research I would do, and this reflects where it took me, but with none of the framing. The facts I am using based on what we have seen on the show are below; if someone thinks that these are not the facts that should be used for some reason, feel free to say so, but I will be blocking anyone who does so disrespectfully or accuses me of minimizing his conduct towards Santos—all I am dealing with are feasible legal consequences.
-Langdon received legitimate prescriptions to an opioid and a benzodiazepine under the care of a licensed physician (Dr. Hagan) after injuring his back. (In the confrontation with Robby in 1x10, he refers to “pain meds and muscle relaxants.” Only some benzodiazepines are muscle relaxants, and none are used for pain relief; lorazepam is a muscle relaxant, but Librium (chlordiazepoxide) is not. Opioids, on the other hand, are commonly prescribed for pain relief).
-He became chemically dependent on the benzodiazepine. (I am not going to speculate about whether or not he also developed an opioid addiction for these purposes because we haven’t seen him take any or talk about being addicted to both; on what we’ve seen, a prosecutor would have enough to charge on benzos but not opioids. Personally, I believe he became dependent on both and was more easily able to justify staying on the benzos to himself—some are used to treat withdrawal symptoms, at least in alcoholics, and opioids are both more addictive and more notorious than benzos. I think he truly managed to convince himself he was not addicted to the benzos and was only using them to combat an opioid addiction, even though it was not the case).
-He began taking benzodiazepines from work to support this chemical dependency. He would do this in two ways:
-One was to steal portions of prescriptions he wrote for Louie and other frequent flyers in the ER who were resistant to acknowledging they have an alcohol problem or at least to combating it—because they are unlikely to pay attention to how many meds are actually in the prescription or to take the full schedule as directed. I do not think he overprescribed to do so; that would be more likely to draw attention, and Santos was not confused at the 20-pill prescription written for Louie, suggesting it was an appropriate number—she only seemed surprised that half of the script was missing.
-The other was to order extra meds when a case came in that would justify doing so, withdraw a portion of the medication from the extra vial, refill the rest of the vial with saline, use medical glue to reseal the vial, and return the vial to the Pyxis with a note that it had ended up being unnecessary. Again, we saw him do this on Louie’s case, Santos discovered the vial, and the rest is history.
-He was not high while he was at work. Benzodiazepines are central nervous system suppressant (CNS) medications. This is why they are prescribed to treat anxiety, withdrawal symptoms, and used to stop seizures—they make someone calmer or less jittery, not manic. The behavior we see from Langdon on the day of the PittFest shift is more consistent with withdrawal symptoms—he is irritable, has difficulty remaining still and controlling his temper, is (as Mel notes) sweating heavily, and so on. He is exhibiting these symptoms as early as episode 1, and they get more prevalent over the course of the day, not less—like they would if he took either of the medications we know he stole that day. Symptoms like these tend to occur within 1-4 days of discontinuation in someone dependent on benzos. Based on this, Langdon’s most likely pattern of use was to stockpile medication when he had opportunities to do so on shift and use when he got home—which again, is something an addict would have an easier time justifying to himself than using while at work as an emergency medicine doctor. As time went on, he may have reached a point where he used at work and learned how to justify it to himself, but I don’t believe he reached that point, because he very clearly did not have such justification prepared in the confrontation with Robby in 1x10.
-The physical evidence we would have for court from season 1 related to his diverting are: the pills Robby found in his locker that matched the imprint code on Louie’s prescription, a record of his prescribing history (such as how often he would order an extra vial of meds and return it to the Pyxis), and the vial and cap Santos held on to. That’s it. What this means is the only rock-solid case a prosecutor has is for theft of 10 pills of Librium and 2 milliliters of lorazepam; it would be very easy for a defense attorney to create reasonable doubt around his prescribing records. (Personally, I would call Dana as a witness and have her testify to exactly what she told Santos when she was investigating: it happens all the time, to more than just Langdon, it is not indicative of theft every time; then I would enter another doctor’s prescribing history, probably Robby or Abbot’s, and point out how often they drew and returned meds as well).
-Federally, benzodiazepines are a Schedule 4 substance (shoutout @rolandtowen for pointing this out on my other post). Pennsylvania uses the same scheduling system as the federal government.
-At the state level, Langdon could potentially be charged under:
§ 780-113(a)(2), the adulteration or misbranding of any controlled substance, other drug, device, or cosmetic. An adulterated drug or device as defined by § 780-007 includes one that has had any substance “mixed or packed therewith so as to reduce its quality or strength, or[ ]substituted wholly or in part therefor [sic].
This charge is a misdemeanor under § 780-113(b); if convicted at trial, he could be sentenced to no more than a year in jail and/or a fine not exceeding $5000 for a first offense—which this is. If he was criminally charged, he probably would not be going to trial, for reasons I will discuss after listing possible charges.
§ 780-113(a)(12), the acquisition or obtaining of possession of a controlled substance by misrepresentation, fraud, forgery, deception, or subterfuge; he was misrepresenting his use of medication in the Pyxis records. He could potentially be hit with multiple charges under this provision, depending on if he was overprescribing meds to Louie and others to take the excess, rather than prescribing appropriately and taking a portion because he knew they would not miss it.
This charge is a felony under § 780-113(b); if convicted at trial, he could be sentenced to no more than three years in prison and/or a fine not exceeding $10,000. Again, he would probably not be going to trial.
§ 780-113(a)(16), Pennsylvania’s simple possession with the intent for personal use provision—possession of a controlled substance that was not obtained pursuant to a valid prescription or a manner otherwise authorized in the act.
This charge is a misdemeanor under § 780-113(b); if convicted at trial, he could be sentenced to no more than a year in jail and/or a fine not exceeding $5000 for a first offense. Again, he would probably not be going to trial.
Pennsylvania’s Controlled Substances Act includes a provision (§ 780-142) that a federal conviction or acquittal for the same instance of wrongful conduct would require the state charges to be dropped—even though it’s not technically a Double Jeopardy Clause violation for both state and federal government to prosecute someone for the same act. This means that if Langdon was prosecuted, it would be at either the federal or the state level, not at both.
-At the federal level, Langdon could potentially be charged under:
21 U.S.C. § 331(b), the federal equivalent of § 780-113(a)(2). A first offense is a misdemeanor; if convicted at trial, he could be sentenced to no more than a year in jail and/or fined no more than $1000 under 21 U.S.C. § 333(a)(1).
21 U.S.C. § 843 (a)(3), the federal equivalent of § 780-113(a)(12). A first offense is a felony; if convicted at trial he could be sentenced to no more than 4 years in prison and/or have to pay a fine, the amount of which the statute directs the judge to decide based on the fines available for sentencing in Title 18—the US criminal code.
21 U.S.C. § 844 (a), the federal equivalent of § 780-113(a)(16). A first offense is a misdemeanor; if convicted at trial, he would be fined at least $1000 and could be sentenced to no more than a year in jail as well—the fine is a required penalty in the statute, the jail time is not.
-Now, all of these are options for charging; there is no definitive way to say, “this is what he would have been charged with if criminal consequences were pursued.” Prosecutors have a lot of discretion on whether or not to charge someone and what to charge them with, as well as whether to offer plea deals and what those plea deals look like.
-The District Attorney for Allegheny County is Stephen Zappala, Jr.; he has held the position since 1998. His bio on the DA’s public website emphasizes his belief in criminal justice reform, leniency for first time offenders, and he created a Drug Court diversionary program in Allegheny County. Drug courts typically offer one of two methods of avoiding jail or prison time: diversion prior to pleading, in which case the charges would be dropped upon successful completion of the program, or a plea deal where a suspended sentence is imposed pending completion of the program, and a defendant who successfully does so avoids jail or prison time and sometimes has their record sealed or expunged as part of the process; Allegheny County’s drug court is the latter (In the FAQ about drug court, one of the questions is "do I have to enter a plea before beginning the drug court program?" and the answer is yes).
-Based on the priorities of the Allegheny County DA, state court proceedings would likely look like this:
-Langdon is charged with one or all of the state offenses. His attorney reaches out to the ADA assigned to the case to discuss a plea deal with completion of drug court rather than a carceral sentence. Langdon pleads guilty to the misdemeanor of simple possession and receives a suspended sentence pending completion of the drug court program, which includes an individualized assessment of how to help him overcome his addiction. If he completes it successfully, he is not going to see jail time. While I can’t find anything as to whether his misdemeanor record is then sealed, expunged, or otherwise affected once he completes drug court in Allegheny County specifically, one of the defining features of drug courts generally is the dismissal of charges or expungement of convictions when successfully completed.
-The ADA would report the plea of guilty to a misdemeanor and participation in drug court to the Board of Medicine; his license would be automatically suspended. The Board of Medicine would then hold a hearing to determine if Langdon is an appropriate candidate for a PHP; if so, they would lift the suspension of his license and direct him to participate in a PHP for a period of 3-5 years. If he successfully completed the PHP, he would retain his license.
-Ten months is long enough for all of this to take place if he pled guilty/accepted the plea agreement when he first appeared before a judge, which does happen; a plea agreement in exchange for participation in drug court is hardly novel.
-Even if he was not criminally reported but was instead only reported for diversion to the Board of Medicine, ten months is long enough for the Board to hold a hearing on his license and decide to place him in the PHP rather than take more severe punitive action. The one thing I am not sure of and cannot find online is whether the Board would be required to report him for criminal proceedings as well if the diversion is reported, but the policy considerations that the state of Pennsylvania has behind offering avenues to let practitioners keep licensure and receive treatment for substance abuse disorder make me think it is unlikely.
-To be clear, both drug court monitoring and PHP monitoring are incredibly invasive; they involve counseling, random drug testing, and community supervision (which means limited privacy in the home not only for himself but for his family, as his assigned supervisory probation officer would not have to meet the usual probable cause requirement to search his home). Drug court participation requires frequent appearances in court, and PHP monitoring often involves mandatory forms of treatment—like attendance at Narcotics Anonymous meetings, which is a program that relies on religion and belief in a higher power in its process, although it claims to be spiritual rather than religious.
Federal proceedings, on the other hand, would look a little different:
First of all, it is very unlikely he would be charged federally at all. The U.S. Attorney’s website has press releases going back to 2013 dealing with indictments, sentences, convictions, and plea deals deemed significant enough to warrant public notification. This is obviously not indicative of all cases charged and convicted in the Western District of Pennsylvania, but it gives a good picture of the federal government’s priorities in prosecution of drug crimes. There is not a single federal case on this page where a doctor was indicted, convicted, or sentenced on simple possession for any schedule of drug, or indeed of any drug crime that did not include illegal distribution of Schedule III or higher meds to others and/or defrauding Medicare or Medicaid. There is a single case under 21 U.S.C. § 843 (a)(3) that involved illegally obtaining drugs for personal use, but it was by a woman who was forging prescriptions to get meds from pharmacies, not a doctor diverting meds from patients.
-Something else indicative of the unlikelihood of federal pursuit of charges under these circumstances is that there are no published federal criminal cases in LexisNexis (one of the databases for court decisions used by lawyers) against a doctor for diverting or adulterating drugs for personal use, nor for simple possession, in the Western District of Pennsylvania. When and if the federal government bothers to charge doctors in Langdon’s position, their cases are not resulting in opinions or orders by judges.
If Langdon was, for some reason, federally charged, the US Attorney’s office would likely charge him with the felony under 21 U.S.C. § 843 (a)(3), and then offer to let him plead out to a misdemeanor, whether adulteration or simple possession.
- Even if he was charged with and convicted of all three offenses, under the federal sentencing guidelines, he could be sentenced to a maximum of 6 months in jail, and likely would be sentenced instead to a term of supervised release no longer than three years, with conditions imposed to help him overcome his addiction.
Both of the above paths are what we in the legal field—and I am sure many others—call consequences for Langdon’s actions, even without the imposition of jail or prison time that Robby and Santos seem so sure is the only way that Langdon can face consequences. I have many points in making this post; one is that Robby and Santos have no idea what they are talking about in terms of punishment Langdon would be facing. Another is that jail or prison time is very unlikely, as is loss of licensure. Drug dependency rewires an addict’s brain, and while this does not excuse Langdon diverting drugs or treating Santos in the manner that he did, our court system recognizes that it does explain it.
Santos doesn’t have to forgive him or even accept his apology, but she is wrong when she says he should have gone to prison, and she is cruel, or at least unempathetic, to wish relapse on him—even, perhaps especially, if she doesn’t actually have a problem with him being an addict, as she claims in 2x12. She has spent ten months internalizing her feelings of being an outsider and places the blame for that at Langdon’s feet, which is an unreasonable emotional reaction; it is also understandable, because she is human and humans are flawed. But she has a responsibility to herself and others to learn how to emotionally regulate herself, at the very least at work. I believe she would be much happier if she were to go to therapy and learn skills for coping with self-hating thoughts, self-destructive behaviors, and learning how to hold herself accountable for her actions without condemning herself emotionally. She sees things very black and white, but nothing is only black or white in life.
@thepittmonth Week 3 (July 13-19): patients, cases, and healthcare
#Doctor As Patients Series: Curious Camera Focus:
Langdon: 'Five year old boy, accidentally shot by his brother playing with Dad's gun...'
THE PITT 1x09
I considered posting this as it was with no yappage/commentary and letting the images speak for themselves - which I guess they will if no-one clicks the 'read more' cut. But you have! So you get: yappage. Because when I tell u guys I've been rotating this rotisserie chicken style in my head forever: I MEAN IT.
I cannot (read: WILL not) accept this as purely coincidental/Not Significant. Because camera focus is used too often to draw our attention to things/character connections between what's being said and the character being focused on (most obviously noted being the one from 2x11 where Baran talks to Brenda and asks if she's ever thought about hurting herself while the camera slow-zooms in on Robby).
But this whole scene/little speech has some good examples of it, too, like just before this we have Robby saying "the kids you'll lose will linger" and the camera then lands on Collins and Dana - Collins having just had a miscarriage, and Dana knowing this, so Dana reaches out to hold her hand/offer support.
And I #get the Santos connection, too, with the 'afraid of getting in trouble' of the kids getting mixed up in grown-up stuff and getting hurt and being afraid of the repercussions of that now that it's known (by the hospital) and how that obviously relates to Trinity's backstory. And also her current storyline of knowing/suspecting Langdon's drug diversion and her uncertainty over that and that 'trouble' word repeating, with both Langdon and Garcia calling Santos herself trouble, while Santos at first insisting, "I don't wanna get anyone in trouble." Alll of that makes sense.
And having the camera on Robby for the parts of this it's on: ALSO makes sense!
So it only makes sense that we are seeing a very specific, very lingering, slow-zoom shot on Langdon when that specific line is spoken. And I need to knooooooowwwwww W H Y/every detail!!!!! (ESPECIALLY when Frank didn't work this case personally).
BC ALSO!!!!
Now, okay, you could argue that this is meant to be another nod to/reminder of his own kids/the danger he could potentially pose to them, with reference to pot-gummy boy Tyler from earlier in the season, and the idea that, y'know, kid gets injured/killed after playing with dad's gun = kid gets injured/killed after playing with dad's drugs. Fine. Sure. Ya. I can go along with that as being an element of this...I ain't accepting it as ALL of it. Nuh-uh.
This is just...Okay so context for those who cannot remember/need a lil help - Robby makes this speech at the beginning of 1x09 as part of the debrief for the little girl, Amber, who drowned in a pool after she dived in to save her little sister/pull her out.
Robby is speaking to them about the child he first lost, 20 years ago while doing his residency at Big Charity in New Orleans - something that still sticks with him so clearly he can remember details (like the little boy's age) and that he was afraid of getting into trouble all these years later, he goes on to start telling them about his coping mechanisms of, to quote Dana 'literally burying your feelings'.
So, for the purposes of this scene/the narrative of season 1 and this debrief, HOW Robby's first pedes-death happened doesn't actually matter and isn't actually relevant in the context of this moment - it's more about it still lingering with him and those feelings and what to do with them.
But for that, it could've been ANYTHING, right? In fact it could've been nothing (by which I mean: they didn't even NEED to specify a cause, really, for this scene to happen/work). But they DID. They DID and they specified it so goddamn specifically and then they slow-zoomed in on Frank's face while they specified specifically and I would humbly like to @ noah wyle personally and demand to know: W H Y!?
Francis. What horrors linger in ur backstory? Come on. This is a safe space. U can tell me. I know they're there. I'm like 80% sure they involve guns in SOME capacity at this point - between this and the fact that Frank is the one who clocks the jewellery store owner's gun (AND the fact he was reaching for it) and is the one to restrain the guy (by diving on top of him like a Smart Human (some day we'll talk abt Frank's shitty instincts. not today tho) and then call the all-clear. (aaand that his first patient of s1/the first patient he ever presents is a: GSW! Woo! Everything is fine. It either means nothing or everything and everything is WAY more fun so I'm going with that one).
Also adding to this that Frank deals with a L O T of 'accidental injury inflicted unintentionally by family member/friend*' (which is indeed quite a niche thing, yes, but the boy is SWIMMING in it - esp in season 2). *quick note I'm ONLY counting accidents caused by friends/family - there are a lot more accidental/unintentional injuries but for the purposes of this...
As a quick account of this we've got:
1)- Tyler Jones aka pot gummy boy - who ate his dad's weed gummy by accident (yes, drugs connection/kids accidentally getting drugs from dad - it's STILL an accident, and one caused by a family member, it can count for two things!)
2)- 1x06 - Zac Dawson and Miles Hernandez - I'm counting the ambulance thieves in this because they are friends and they cause each other damage in an accident/that wasn't meant to happen while fucking around. It works. I'll take it.
3)- 1x13 Martin aka 'my new friend Martin' - the PittFest fentanyl OD who got a percocet off 'a friend' so he could dance bc he has a bad knee (don't look too hard at Frank's bad back and the pills HE takes so HE can dance (which is used a lot as a phrase meaning 'to work in the Pitt' in s1 and a lot in s2 which...idk, sure y'all, do what u gonna do)). Still fake pill from friend causing overdose = it's on my list.
4)- 2x02 - Clint Hansen - who has a nasty burn on his arm from bacon grease off a big gridle after his cousin Mona yote some water and it splashed him. (the Hansens also get bonus points for: being Southern af (hi appalachia!Frank headcanons/pball interview), -bickering/being dysfunctional af (and repeatedly triggering Frank but that's a thing we'll get to at a later date) -being the gift that keeps on giving in terms of accidental trauma caused to family members -a lot of bickering back and forth revolving around sides of the family and xyz being 'crazy'/'psycho' and that clearly 'running in the family' it's fine, I will definitely not come back to this in another post in another capacity at any point.
5)- 2x03 Harlan Hansen - BP waaay too low bc he decided to shlorp some of cousin Wendy's blood pressure pills as presrcibed by "family pharmacist" Sloan who thinks pooling meds is a solid plan (again: we can have drug parallels AND accidental 'nearly killing ur family member by trying to help' parallels. These patients contain multitudes, and so does Frank).
6)- 2x03 Duante Polk - bead boi! Bead boi gets a mention bc, even tho the bead-to-the-nose was technically self-induced, dad was present and also he and his sister were making bracelets together when the incident occurs so: I'm counting it/stop stop there are already enough parallels calm down, we get it!!!!
7)- 2x05 Alex Burton - ah, dear sweet dumbass Alex and his dry-ice burn from his attempt at getting a penguins brand aka 'the family crest' from his brother Aaron. I really feel like this one explains itself.
8)-2x07 Kenneth Reese (according to the 2x07 script anyway) lovingly referred to as 'Motorboat Man' by myself who is, as u may have guessed: the guy who got sliced up by the motorboat propellors. The flight medics specifically noted that this happened when he was trying to untangle a waterskii line and his buddy started the engine while he was doing this sooo: to the list!
9)- 2x08 Jackie Lidell - this is getting listed because her tongue lac was caused mid-selfie by her friend jerking her head up and crashing into her chin/closing her mouth on her tongue which: ouch.
10)- 2x10 Derek Foster - sure I'll count water park dad and his 'fun day out with son getting derailed by collapsing water slide they were on together for the purposes of joy, whimsy, and father-son bonding' why not?
11)-2x11 Micah Azurmendi - heatstroke boy, who got said heatstroke accidentally (according to mum) after crawling into the car to take a nap while she was working in he garden and didn't notice. Or it was caused deliberately. Either way, for the purposes of the list: here it be.
Now I don't know about you, but ELEVEN (11) instances of 'accidental injury directly caused by family member/friend' feels like an awffy lot to be a mere coincidence to me/by jove, I think they're trying to tell us something!!!!! (and if they ain't: well I would like some other better explanation please and thank you).
Also hey: #BonusContent, because this ISN'T a Frank-case/patient, but it is close enough to this/UNHINGED as a parallel to s1 that I feel compelled to include it anyway. But in 2x07 Robby and Cassie tootle on in to have a chit-chat with Roxie and when they do they find her mid-conversation with her boys who are having this delightful little exchange:
Tucker: Brian Jenkins is allowed to hunt with a .22 on his grandpa's farm.
Shane: Sounds like an accident just waiting to happen.
WHY YES, SHANE, IT DOES SOUND LIKE AN ACCIDENT WAITING TO HAPPEN (esp when u factor in good old Elbridge from 2x14 who was injured, per the EMTs, by "shooting his .22 caliber pistol in the air with an aluminum pot on his head for protection. Didn't work." (can I just say I fucking hate these writers and the attention to detail they have in this fucking show (positive))?
A N Y W A Y. All that to say: I SEE YOU, VILLAINS, AKA PITT WRITERS. I SEE YOU AND I KNOW YOU'RE UP TO SOMETHING AND ONE DAY: I SHALL KNOW WHAT.
Final tidbit because we're in PEAK 'what the fuck, why not?' mode atm: what iffff that 'devastating back injury' referred to for Frank had something to do with this (things u do not want near the spine/spinal cord at any point ever: bullets/bullet fragments). I don't think this one is particularly likely honestly (I'm leaning: disc issues! actually, for #reasons I can get in to at some point that's not now) but wouldn't that be: Interesting. And really this is the point of all of this 'wouldn't it be interesting IF.....'
Anyhooooo - that's ma gifset, ma meta, and all ma tea fully spilled. Pls feel free to speculate and share said speculations with me that we may debate on how exactly this boy was previously traumatised - and if this becomes canon/even close to canon at any point #rememberme!! (and if it doesn't: no one will ever remember this so it's fine).
*gets out a big megaphone* sanitizing female characters by removing all moral ambiguity and their ability to make complex choices is not any more feminist than demonizing them. you have to learn to appreciate female characters without finding some way to simplify their personhood into either "evil bitch" or "perfect pure girlboss." it is still dehumanizing to view women as virtuous morally pure angels of light who can do no wrong. thats just bog standard benevolent misogyny.
i like when fiction treats love as a more complicated force and not something that is inherently pure or redemptive. portray it as flawed and complex as any other human impulse. give me love as prejudice, love as possessive stasis, love as addiction, love as blindness, etc.
One challenge of representing minorities on screen has been the idea that if a character is flawed that will be taken as representative of that minority group because this is the only person in the group on screen. And for a long time, this contributed to complex interesting white characters and boring minority side characters.
The Pitt doesn't do this. Its core characters are almost all deeply fucked up. But it is diverse enough to not have each of those characters be the only person of their particular group represented on screen.
For example, Samira has some major flaws as a doctor - caring but very slow, orders too many tests, can't take feedback, isn't a team player. But that's clearly not because she's an Indian woman. Have you seen Shamsi? She's efficient, bad ass, a little mean. Have you seen Victoria? She's young and smart and figuring shit out. They have flaws but their flaws are different. This helps show they aren't meant to be flaws of a group but flaws of a specific character. Samira's flaws are because she's a complex character. They aren't because the show is pushing a narrative that Indian women make bad doctors.
Did Baran continue to work an entire shift while having seizures then almost start driving? Yes. But are we meant to look at that and say people with disabilities have bad judgment and can't be trusted. No. So clearly not. We see Caleb, Mel, Becca, multiple characters with disabilities on screen. And we understand Baran to be a capable and compassionate doctor, the show goes out of its way to show us that. But it also shows her coping with shame about her disability and how that's complicated by the ways she has to navigate the workplace as a woman and as an ethnic minority. She's meant to be a complex character. We're not supposed to look at her and say people with disabilities, women, or people from the SWANA region are incompetent. If someone thinks that's the right reading here then it's time to go back to go back to elementary school literature class.
Likewise, Robby, a Jewish man with severe mental health conditions, should be allowed to be a complex character. Does he sometimes do things that are sexist? Yes. Is he falling apart and lashing out? Yes. And I think people have grasped that this isn't a statement abou5 how people with depression or PTSD are bad. There are other characters with PTSD, Abbot most notably, who handles his PTSD very differently. So we can see Robby's struggle as his own, as a complex character. But when it comes to the fact that he's Jewish, even though there are multiple other Jewish characters on screen, including Lena who is a caring death doula and nurse, and multiple Jewish patients from different racial and class backgrounds, somehow Robby becomes a justification for a whole load of antisemitic tropes to be dragged into the conversation.
I hate that the Pitt fandom sometimes makes me wish the show didn't make Robby Jewish. I want to be able to watch a show where a character is Jewish but isn't a paragon of virtue. I want to not have fans bringing antisemitic tropes to every conversation of this character or the actor who plays him.
I want to be able to see complex female characters and complex character from all racial and ethnic backgrounds and characters with disabilities represented on screen and be able to see them fuck up and be deeply flawed and struggle just like we've seen messy fucked up white characters on screen for so long.
This fandom needs to stop asking for every woman of color to be a paragon of virtue on screen. And it needs to stop rhetorically tying every flaw of a Jewish character to millennia old blood libels. Please. Otherwise, all that happens is we are stuck with complex, flawed, messy white characters and the most boring minority characters because everyone is too afraid to put a messy character into the world who might be seen as a bad representation for their group.
Also we (fandom/audiences/anyone who's discussed the importance of representation and diversity in media over the years) LITERALLY fought and pushed for this kind of culture/show - this was the GOAL!!! (and my god did it feel impossible at times).
But THIS is what was pushed for: a show that doesn't tokenise its minority characters, so they don't have to Be their representation and nothing else, so they can NOT have their stories and arcs revolving around/constantly circling back to them as the queer character or the disabled character or the Jewish character - they can just be characters/people with flaws and interactions and arcs that are not all about one element of them, and so they don't have to represent an entire community on their own, they can just be individuals.
We (as fandom/audience) HAVE to let this happen! We HAVE to stop analysing things with the same perspective and language and attitude that we did in the 2010s because: things are actually finally changing and improving and going where we want and we have to go with them!!! We asked things to change: they changed! Now we have to change with them.
We asked for a show/time where every character could be analysed essentially the same way you would a cishet white guy (which is to say as what was considered the 'default' neutral base that was only influenced by backstory and current story bc he didn't have to be the weight-bearing pillar of an entire community desperate for representation)- and I am about to start begging y'all to imagine/do this unironically, because we are in serious danger as a fandom of undoing what's been done and actually projecting old biases that are trying to evolve and change back onto the things we watch.
What do I mean by this? Okay, solid example: I saw a LOT of fans arguing/complaining that the scene with Baran at the end of season 2 where she breaks down in her car after her shift and realises that she's not safe to drive due to her worsening disability was: all about Robby/that 'Robby made her cry'/that this was her realising that 'Robby was right' and it was 'vindication for Robby'. That right there? That is NOT something the show did. That is something the FANDOM did. That is misogyny perpetuated by the fandom.
The show: had a deliberate gap of multiple scenes/time to distance from Baran and Robby's conversation. The show also very deliberately took her/showed her: OUT of the Pitt/the ED/Robby's in-show domain/place where he still was (which it very very rarely does - this was an exception and a very deliberate and important one) so that she would be in a 'neutral' space/in her OWN space (her car) and in privacy/by herself so this was not being done by or for anyone else, or even so anyone else could witness it - this was a private moment purely for and about her and her coming to terms with her disability and the realities of her situation. It could not have been written/filmed/set-up to be more purely about Baran, and yet...
The FANDOM: made it about Robby. The fandom made a woman's scene and a woman's disability and a woman's story arc about a man. Because fandom is trying so hard to find instances of misogyny and bias (especially from Robby and/or Noah Wyle) that they are creating them where they do not exist/where the show has gone out of its way to avoid forging that connection/where that connection: does not exist. But y'all made it exist anyway. Because it's more important to some of you to have things to get mad at than it is to see and respond to what is actually there. So you see what you expect to see. You see what you WANT to see. And tragically what you want to see is the same thing we've been begging to get the fuck off our screens for YEARS now.
Check yourselves. Do not get sucked in to blindly assuming everything is an act of misogyny or racism or inherent bias. Yes these things still exist, yes we need to be conscious and aware of them and call them out and shut them down: WHEN THEY'RE ACTUALLY HAPPENING. We do NOT need to create bonus instances to get mad at/prove how on the ball and ready to spot Badness we are. Sometimes: a male character and a female character can have a disagreement on screen and it does not necessarily need to contain giant vats of misogyny. Sometimes it's just: two characters have a disagreement on screen and it can be analysed with just that in mind (which is what we GODDAMN WANT!!!!!).
Apply some goddamn critical thinking please. And that means apply it to: the things you are watching, and the things that people are saying about what you are watching. Go back and rewatch the scenes in question. Fact check. Actually start with the most basic 'what is it I am actually watching on-screen now and what is it telling me'. Not 'what do I expect to see/what do I think is going to happen/what do I vaguely remember based on what people have said' what ACTUALLY functionally happens on-screen?
TL;DR: shows are attempting to exist in 2026 meanwhile fandom is stuck in the early 2010s or before and my god it shows and it ain't a good look for y'all.
Frank Langdon + ‘Learn From The Best’ series: IV
Present to Dr. Langdon: Shepherd Of Med Students
THE PITT 1x02-1x03
So the name of the game with this one is me fixating on McKay specifically telling Javadi to present to Langdon specifically, and then exploring the Why of that which is where the other elements come in/that is the road they all tie back to. All roads lead to 'present to Dr. Langdon' and that is because: Langdon is the (self?)-appointed Med student/junior resident wrangler in The Pitt.
Okay listen I'm about to be SO annoying about this set (by which I mean: I'm about to make a bunch of commentary based on my own #RelevantPersonalExperience lol) But I have actually done more shadowing/observing than the average bear in my time (both as a Youth - I think I started around 13/14? (veterinary medicine is HELLA competitive and they want you to have as much experience as possible so you know what you're getting into) and into my adult years when I pursued a teaching degree and they make you: go shadow actual teachers to learn about teaching) so I got #OPINIONS about this shit.
So whis may seem a lil disjointed/random-is: you must trust me and my Vision - t'will all come together/make sense in a moment as I explain. There's a lot of things to love about this little series, I promise:
1)- Cassie telling Javadi to present specifically to Langdon is:
This is #significant, or at least it is in my experience - if everyone is kinda eeksy-peeksy on the mentoring/being shadowed front, you don't bother specifying, you just get told to go jump in with whoever or go explain to whoever. Javadi has options for Langdon, Collins, and arguably probably Mohan, too (bc I'm sure an R3 can handle a fairly basic asthma case) but Cassie says: present to Langdon because he is, in Cassie's opinion (and in mine hence: this entire series lmfao) the best teacher/mentor figure and likely the person Cassie herself would be most comfortable/likely to present to/he's her go-to.
2)- Perlah calling Langdon up and not only asking him where he's at (so Javadi could go to him/go find him potentially) but asking him to come to Central bc there's a med student looking for him (and the fact Langdon heads right on over):
So there tends to be a sliding scale of people and their willingness to shadow/mentor.
At the very bottom of this are the (fortunately relatively few) who act as if you are: the biggest bane of their existence and will actively radiate contempt/annoyance while you dare to exist in their presence.
Then you get those who act like you're part of the wall/a particularly uninteresting coatrack and allow you to be there as long as you do not make yourself known.
Then there are those who are neutral, they just kinda vibe and you vibe and occasionally they'll mention a thing/give the occasional instruction. Then we get the people who are happy enough to give this a go, kinda explain some things to you/talk to you after consultations a bit.
Then there are the rare precious few who are obviously: actively pleased you're there and want to teach/guide/encourage your love for the thing they love and share with you.
Langdon falls into this last category. And this is obvious from watching him/the rest of the series (that man very obviously loves his job AND he loves learning - and this translates to him: loving teaching, because he wants to share both of those things with his acquired ducklings) but it's also obvious to me from this little beat with Perlah.
The fact that she knows Langdon well enough to know that if she calls him up and let's him know there's a med student looking for him he will be: right there for 'em. And this is not a given, btw. (PTMC IS a teaching hospital, so my categories of 'willing to mentor' are a bit higher on the sliding scale bc it's an expectation of the environment, but even so) I've worked with people who would not deign to come and see little old peasant student me if they were on fire and I was a hose.
3)- I like that, before Javadi appears - you see Langdon checking boards. He looks for her patient/is making himself aware of the situation. Because he hasn't seen/spoken to Javadi yet when he asks after her 'asthma guy', and Perlah didn't tell him any specifics when she called him, just said she was looking for him. But Langdon makes the effort to see what's what and that means that when she approaches him HE initiates/asks her what's going on with asthma guy - so she doesn't have to fumble around for an opener/presentation, she can just confidently explain the treatment/response because she knows Langdon is aware of the situation.
And on a more personal level: I had THE WORST social anxiety when I was younger and this - having the person I was 'bothering' be the one to initiate/not making me start this conversation would've felt like the world's greatest gift. And Javadi is not: me, but regardless, first day in a new environment with new people, esp as a relatively young med student who probably hasn't done a million rotations yet, just having this as someone who sets the stage/opens things up for you does SO much in terms of making that person feel like someone you can trust/who will be there for you and that you can go to with cases and problems.
4)- This is reinforced/added to by the fact that he doesn't just ask her about the patient she came to present to him and then shoo her off to go take care of that/okay I have done the thing, now go away - he makes the point to ask her how things are going out in Chairs/keeps engaging and chatting with her - as well as giving her an opportunity/a possible memory prompt to ask any other questions she might have.
Whiiiiich takes us into;
5)- Javadi DOES decide that Langdon is #Approachable/someone she can ask things of. I love the little side-eye/glance Javadi gives Langdon as she #assesses him and decides if he's someone she can broach this with/if it's safe to try fishing for info from him and she concludes that: yes, yes he is.
(Unfortunately for her: Frank does not do the gossip/is evidently blanking on what she's after (Javadi: what can u tell me abt cassie's dark and mysterious past that may give me clues as to why she's got an ankle monitor. Frank: Cassie's...past? U mean, like, what she did for school?? Javadi:....... REGARDLESS! Frank: teaching 10/10. Gossip source: 0/10)
And this concludes today's: thoughts on Langdon being a good mentor/a GIFT to every med student/junior resident who's past through the Pitt and has had him step up and take an active interest in their education.
