I still think it's funny that Jervis and Jonathan has enough respect for eachother to refer to eachother as "Mister Tetch" and "Mister Crane". Like yeah we are both mad men but we are gonna be polite to eachother.
And then you have Jerome who refer to them as "Bag head" and "Hat Head"
So - as with The Trial of Jim Gordon, I'm going to regard this episode as an extra, and do some meta as opposed to a full recap. My rationale is pretty much the same: this is an optional easter egg, and one that can easily be regarded as outside canon if desired.
Also - I found the deeper message, like that in The Trial of Jim Gordon, was so unpalatable it strained the show’s broader ideas and themes. So I’ve decided it’s not part of canon, for me.
Thoughts after the cut. Same disclaimer as with The Trial of Jim Gordon. I love the show. I tweeted like a maniac as episodes were airing, and got booted from Twitter. I want another network to pick it up.
However, my idea of meta is the old fandom one, which is critical analysis. If that’s not your thing, fine - but that’s what I’ll be doing here.
So, first things first.
I understand the rationale behind the time-jump, to an extent. The two extra episodes were just that - extra. One was spent on The Trial of Jim Gordon, which I have already been salty about in another post. This one was a sort of nod to the fans - offering Batman as a sort of reward. I’ve always been more interested in the story Gotham actually set out to tell, though, the story before Batman. The story of the city and its inhabitants. As such, I was always going to be less taken with an episode which was fundamentally mostly interested in giving us Batman.
But there were a couple of other issues that confused me. Gotham has always presented its own vision of the city, the characters. It’s shown it can be creative with canon, as well as adding its own ideas. Not only, for example, is their take on Oswald unique, but Fish Mooney – so pivotal in his development – only exists within Gotham’s universe. We got the Executioner and Cyrus Gold – yes, but we also got Nathaniel Barnes and Butch Gilzean, who had character and stories and lives all of their own.
I like that it thumbed its nose at Jim’s moustache. But go all the way with it. Yes, we know Batman’s coming. But if you want to continue to focus on Jim, and his wrestling with the notion of heroism – then just do that. Have the courage of your convictions. You can draw inspiration from the 60s series if you want, but you’re not shackled to it: Oswald doesn’t have to don a top hat and become 60s Penguin if you don’t want him to. The city doesn’t have to morph aesthetically into something we saw in the movies. You’ve told your own story. See it through.
That aside - the details.
The flash-forward was also a difficult ask because the story has been unnaturally cut short. Characters who were still wrestling with huge issues didn’t really get to address them in a truncated season and - as such - it’s sort of hard to accept where we find them now.
For example
We’ve seen Jim deal with several demons over the years. He has major issues with authority. His relationship with his father looms large. He wants to be a hero, but gets on better with the villains. He compartmentalises like crazy. He’s emotionally dishonest with others and himself. He enjoys playing dangerous games. He can’t resist a pissing match.
Am I to honestly believe that Jim has been entirely clean and pure in the interim? Why? Because the city was saved after near destruction? That’s happened before – he didn’t change. If anything, he’s more likely to have reverted to old habits once the crisis was over. Is he reformed because he’s a father now? Didn’t stop him killing Theo Galavan while Lee was pregnant.
Jim’s development was still very much in progress. As such, he feels unsatisfying here and - given what we know about him - you can’t help but feel he’s probably been up to his old tricks, but we’re just getting to see the sanitised surface of his life.
Lee likewise generally suffered quite a bit from the truncated season, and is good example of how the flash-forward doesn’t serve characters well.
In season 4, we saw her explore a darker side to her personality that the show has strongly and consistently hinted at since way back in season one, explicitly – when she says that Jerome’s confession of matricide thrilled her, and implicitly, when we wondered why the hell she was working in Arkham. We also saw her enjoy power in season 4. We saw her deeply committed to improving the lot of the residents in the Narrows, even if her way of going about it was short-sighted. We saw her shoot Sofia Falcone point-blank in the head in cold blood. We saw her, although many hated it, form an intense romantic relationship with Ed, where she seemed to find a fulfilment and recognition that she never found with Jim or Mario.
However, in season 5, the show clearly needed her to quickly step into the role of Mrs Jim and stepmother to Barbara. This meant becoming the angel at the hearth again, so it essentially erased those experiences, all that new characterisation.
As such, like Jim, she feels flat here – like we’re only getting to see a facade. She’s back in her old post of intermittently saying supportive things to Jim, and apparently quietly looking forward to him quitting his job. When she's bizarrely given the task of defusing the bomb, as Lucius the tech specialist stands by the side - it really only underlined that stripping her of all that history and characterisation meant that she doesn't really have a real role of her own in the wider workings of the city.
Now to the heart of my problem with this episode.
We’re told, without any explanation, that Oswald was sent to Blackgate shortly after reunification, and Ed to Arkham.
Now, to be honest, I find this fairly implausible. In all the rebuilding efforts, I doubt the authorities would have the will or energy to go back and rake over who committed what crime when the city had been abandoned by the government. And even if they did, both their actions – willingly manning the barricades (Oswald sustaining an injury when doing so), would have likely gone some way to mitigating everything else.
You could argue that it's for some nameless crime they committed later - but the show could easily have indicated that by throwing in a line about some heist or scheme they tried to pull off that ended up with them being put away.
Mayor James - ‘Oswald Cobblepot is getting released tomorrow’
Harvey - ‘Should have got 20 years for that stunt he pulled after reunification - not 10. So should Nygma.’
It didn't take the trouble to do that - so I'm left assuming they were sent away on the basis of crimes committed during the split.
However, this poses us with some problems both in terms of the plot, and more deeply in terms of narrative repercussions. Because if we are going to start to get persnickety about charging people with crimes they’ve committed, and then having them face actual consequences – well, we saw Barbara shoot loads of randoms in season 5. Going back not too far, Lee shot Sofia Falcone in the head. Going back further still, Jim murdered Ogden Barker and Theo Galavan, and was indirectly responsible for several deaths by inviting Sofia Falcone to town.
So – then – if we’ve decided that actually charging people and sending them to prison is now the done thing, why are we so selective with who’s punished? Gotham is a show with a million shades of grey. It gives its villains humanising back stories and motivations – but it ultimately still wants to punish a select few like it’s a black and white universe. You can’t do that when your good guys are equally tainted. Not unless you want to give off an unfortunate stench of hypocrisy, anyway.
Oswald flat-out asks Jim on the pier. I could have escaped this city. I chose to stand shoulder to shoulder with you and defend it. Why was I punished?
It’s telling that Jim never actually furnishes Oswald with any good answer to his question on the pier. Because - over the years - the show itself has never quite figured out how to answer this one. He can’t answer. What could he possibly say?
Why then, do some get away scot-free, while others are punished? Why, as Ed observes, do some get to make choices - while others never get the chance?
Jim and Lee are ‘heroes’ (arguably wandering into designated hero territory, at points). They're never going to face consequences for anything. Jim going on a self-pitying drinking binge doesn’t count - not compared to a ten-year stint in Blackgate or Arkham. Lee never expressed any remorse for Sofia.
As for Barbara, well Barbara is brought back into the heroic fold, too.
First and foremost, she’s offered moral redemption by bearing Jim’s child. Becoming a mother meant all previous sins were forgiven.
When we meet her here, we see now that she’s wealthy and powerful – playing a serious role in the city. It’s empowering in a way – but it’s also a means of re-affirming the established order and putting her back in her box. Remember that Barbara is from one of Gotham's elite families - and she's finally behaving like someone from an elite and wealthy family would do. To make her position clear - she’s explicitly placed in the same category as Bruce here in terms of her wealth and control of the city. I’m assuming that pregnancy also made magically clean whatever money she used to buy up the city when it was on its knees. She didn’t seem to have access to her parents’ cash before now - so she must have used her ill-gotten gains.
(I would argue that strategically buying up parts of the city post-reunification is screamingly Oswald, but like other chunks of his characterisation and storyline, it got sent Barbara’s way in season 5 in a bid to flesh out her character)
Last up, she’s not demanding a romantic relationship with Jim anymore, but they’re now forever safely tied in that context due to their daughter - there’s no mention of Tabitha, or casual mention of a new partner. Troublesome, restless Barbara, poor little rich girl – demanding of Jim’s time and attention, namelessly unhappy, and with a murky ‘past’ is now ‘fixed’ and neutralised.
Thinking about those brought into the fold necessarily asks you to think about those who were excluded.
Oswald might have roots in an elite family, like Barbara, but - crucially - he’s also one part poor immigrant (as well as all his many other markers of 'otherness'). He can’t escape this - we got his jangling east European music as soon as we saw him in this episode, and we were reminded of Gertrud when he said he would lay flowers on her grave as his first act after his release.
Ed’s background is unknown, but we can safely hazard a guess that there’s no moneyed upper-class upbringing there. He was also willing to step up when it counted, and was even used by those in power for their own ends during the break – but none of that counts for anything, apparently, and he finds himself in Arkham. You could argue that Ed is unwell, and needs to be in a hospital – but Arkham is not shown as a hospital in any meaningful sense in the show. It’s an oubliette, where you send those you just can’t be bothered dealing with. It doesn’t look any better here than we’ve seen it before. Why hasn’t anyone tried to improve it? Again, they don’t have to succeed - if you’re determined to stick to canon, but why not suggest that Jim or Lee or Lucius has at least tried to have conditions improved or an official review launched into treatment of inmates? It would go a long way to nodding to the long and complex histories these characters have. However things ended – Lee and Ed had a pretty intense relationship. They cared about each other. She can sleep at nights knowing he’s in Arkham?
Jeremiah might have been clever enough to win himself a scholarship and a way out of the circus – but it’s not enough to enable him to escape his past – either explicitly, when he was hunted down by his resentful brother, or implicitly – when he winds up in a similar situation to the other outsiders. Yes, Jeremiah might have been manipulating the situation – but he was still sent to Arkham and left vulnerable to casual abuse. Whether it’s intended or not, Jeremiah’s accusation of abandonment can be read more deeply. Bruce left town - but, just like Oswald and Ed, the city in general abandoned him.
Selina’s an example who, I would argue, reinforces that this moral order of the universe. She's always been depicted more ambiguously - capable of villainous acts, but tied to the heroes through her bond with Bruce. This is reflected in what we learn about her here. Like Jeremiah, she's been punished by Bruce's abandonment, but her grey heroic status means that she doesn't lose her freedom, despite living a life of crime.
So what picture are we painted of the city?
Aubrey James is back in charge - corrupt as Oswald ever was as mayor, but less competent. The city’s remains were picked clean by Barbara - it’s now seemingly largely owned and controlled by two scions of the city’s elite. The commissioner’s got more than one murder to his name. His wife has one attempted murder to hers - giving her the benefit of the doubt and assuming that Sofia’s still in her coma. Arkham’s still a hellhole.
What does all that say? Like I said before, you can argue that this was the inevitable endpoint – but you’ve changed the story already, so that doesn’t wash.
What you’re left with is the outsiders comprehensively punished. You can sacrifice your chance at escape and an easy life in favour of standing shoulder to shoulder to defend the city, you can be unwell, you can be a victim – doesn’t count. No matter what you do – you’ll always be an outsider anyway. You can’t win for losing. Some are chosen, some aren’t. And if you’re not, tough luck.
So in this universe, why the hell not don a showy suit and your best hat and commit yourself to villainy? Go for it, I say.
(Yes - I’m aware this is more analysis than it warranted, and it really just wanted to say ‘look Oswald has a monocle and Batman’s here now!’ - but I felt the need for venting meta)
Can we just talk about how the Gotham writers killed off Tabitha in the first episode of this season not only to follow the tradition of burying their gays but also just so that they could force Barbara and Jim back together which literally no one wanted anyway
Man the episode "How the riddler got his name" is like one of my favorite episodes so far and I think 80% of that was because Lucius Fox was one of the main focuses for once.
I know Nothing’s Shocking didn’t get much love, but I honestly really enjoyed the A plot, and wanted to post a few images which I liked. There were a lot of callbacks to season one here, which I adored, but it was also a well-crafted story on its own merits - showing the cumulative effect of a chain of selfish, uncaring and neglectful actions: the destruction of an innocent girl.
I only noticed when looking over the images that after Harvey shoots her, Jane tumbles onto a makeshift bed - surrounded by the facsimile of a child’s bedroom - ice skates, a doll’s house, drawings - that she created in the attic. She’s reduced, as she drops to her knees, to the height of a little girl again.
She’s haunting her own home, has been dead for a long time - ever since Harvey helped pull the trigger, all those years ago.
