The Mentalist > The Mentalist Review: The Red List > Comments Page 3
If you haven't seen Fugue in Red, DON'T MISS THIS ONE! And if you have seen it, watch it again! It is absolutely wonderful! It begins very dramatically, moving on to hilarious, ending in the most touching, heartbreaking (but lovely) scene in the entire series. I have the DVD and it's one I watch again and again and again. Simon Baker gives a great performance portraying ever-changing aspects of Patrick Jane's personna and emotional state.
oh well, should have looked at the air date -- it's a rerun from 12/15/2011.
unbelievably, I don't think I've ever seen it. so it will still be fun for me.
sorry about the oversight.
CBS's blurb: "While searching for a firefighter’s killer, Jane is attacked and nearly drowned in a small pond. Upon waking up, he can no longer remember anything about Red John, the murder of his family, or his work with the CBI. Lisbon and the rest of the team must continue the investigation with the help of an increasingly erratic Patrick Jane who has reverted back to his pre-CBI con man persona."
Wow. Can't wait!
My U-Verse just says the title, "Fugue in Red." No description. There should be one.
IMDb: "While investigating the murder of a firefighter, Patrick loses his memory after nearly being drowned by the killer."
Wikia: "During the search for a firefighter's killer, Jane is attacked and nearly drowned, resulting in a temporary loss of his memory and a return to his pre-CBI con man persona."
Oh, this should be a LOT of fun!!! LOL
Haven't seen any info on the Dec. 2 episode. Is it a rerun? If so, which one? Anyone know? Thanks!
Re Mashburn: Lots of dramatic potential here. A budding friendship with Jane betrayed. Lisbon devastated to realize she had a one-night (maybe more) stand with him, the viewer angst at seeing such an entertaining character (so much like Jane in some ways) become suddenly a horrible villian. Can't think of any other character that would work for a really blockbuster ending. What would falsify this theory?
Moriarty was so well respected that to criticize him would be to make oneself an object of derision. So if RJ follows this pattern, he is hiding in plain sight, doing his evil deeds behind the scene while appearing admirable openly. Bruno Heller said we might (would?) be disappointed to learn who RJ is, so it is probably someone we like OR someone we think is too uninteresting to have been worth our time. There are more of the latter then the former. He has to have money and be in a position of power and influence. And almost 6 ft tall. I'm tempted to go back to Mashburn, who was devastated by a failed love affair.
We can narrow down our search by looking at people who really fit the Moriaty personality traits. Not too many we have seen so far will fit that type.
You're right, it's a lot to take in sometimes. We now know Red John's quasi religious beliefs and why he thinks he's above the law. I don't think Red John should be put into a box. Look at Jane, he never went to high school and look how far he got. We know Red John is not a woman. We also know he is probably connected to Visualize. We know what his skills are. We know that William Blake poetry connects poeple to Red John. Now I'm curious about why Red John mostly kills women and slices them up in the manner that he does. He rapes them as well. Obviously he hates women, why? He like his victims scared and likes them to see their own deaths coming w/o mercy. Must have mother issues! Can you think of anything else?
Actually, Bertram quoted only the last 2 lines. Lisbon heard all this. After Jane heard RJ recite Tiger Tiger, he was seen holding a book of Blake poems, obviously thinking there was a way to understand Red John through the poems. Lotsa luck with us figuring it out. If RJ is patterned after Moriarty, he is a brillian, charasmatic, manipulative, controlling person who is publicly greatly admired and above criticism. He is also nuts, having become mentally deranged after an initially promising intellectual career. Very hard to interpret an insane person's liking for the Blake poems. (Or, personally, even a sane person's.)
Here is the poem Cradle Song. Bertram quoted the last verse and LaRoche noted it was a William Blake poem, so there is an RJ connection here.
by: William Blake (1757-1827)
SLEEP, sleep, beauty bright,
Dreaming in the joys of night;
Sleep, sleep; in thy sleep
Little sorrows sit and weep.
Sweet babe, in thy face
Soft desires I can trace,
Secret joys and secret smiles,
Little pretty infant wiles.
As thy softest limbs I feel,
Smiles as of the morning steal
O'er thy cheek, and o'er thy breast
Where thy little heart doth rest.
O the cunning wiles that creep
In thy little heart asleep!
When thy little heart doth wake,
Then the dreadful night shall break.
Hi, @shila I think I understand your question. Lorelei (RJ associate) was sent to prison by the CBI, but she was whisked away secretly to another federal prison by the FBI taking control of the case. RJ is known to have a plant high up in the FBI. Jane was trying to find what prison she was in to come up with a way of getting her out so she could take him to RJ. Jane tracks down the guard who transferred her from the CBI prison to the FBI prison and gets the info from the guard as to where Lorelei is. Then Jane goes to Brent Stiles in the theatre for his ability to create a situation for Lorelei to escape and Jane to pick her up. The plan works. I hope this sheds a little more light on the plot!
I agree, @anitraward1. RJ is a Moriarity. And I think some kind of programming, hypnotism, NLP, probably a highly effective combination, has to be involved and Visualize figures in somewhere. And RJ must be VERY adept at it, so good he could actually make Kristina believe she was dead and only respond to Jane in a "seance." Now, how creepy is that???
A scene that keeps coming back to me and making me laugh is when Jane and Lisbon are leaving the golf course right before the first commercial break. Jane had previously told her Red John couldn't be Lisbon because she and he are friends, while Lorelei had indicated RJ and Jane were NOT friends. On the way back to the car, after Jane has really ticked her off with his antics and bluster on the golf course, she tells him he can put her on his list. Cracks me up! Lisbon is great!
NEXT- We need to analyze Red John's killing style and why he kills. Who he kills and so on. This will give us the next piece of the puzzle. Wow! I'm done! For now! let's have at it!
"POWER CORRUPTS; ABSOLUTE POWER CORRUPTS ABSOLUTELY."
Continued- It looks like Red John wants a one ruling source or he believes in one source ruling over the people w/ one belief system.
Red John does not believe in democracy.
He is the Napoleon of crime.
He is a Moriarty type.
His is inside the govenment and connected to Bret Stiles who was very good friends w/ a president. They half to be in the White House! Hence Homeland Security!
Continued-Red John belives the two are the same or nonexsistent. He also believes that what supposely good people do is evil and how dare they judge him when they don't know the difference themselves. Red John's point here is that good pople can do good and cause evil and evil people can do evil and cause good. Also that it doesn't matter how you get there good or bad because it won't make a difference. Which means he has to have a survival of the fittest mentality. You were right Rationalgal, Red John or whoever he works for wants to change people's way of life and what they believe.
Continued- How could heaven be for good people and hell be for evil people if a completely good source created both places. Also that if the source that created the evil that man uses does not send itself to hell, it won't send man to hell either or the source is flawed. Then if man did not create himself and the source being the completely good source put good and evil in man and controls man; how could man therefore be resonsible for anything he does. How could the source which created both choose between the two without looking flawed.
Continued-Then it would conclude that the source that created it could not punish because it being a good source created evil in the first place. It assumes that a all knowing source would not condradict itself. If it does, it could not be an all knowing source as not to see the contradiction in the first place. It poses the question of how could this same source punish man for his evil and not punish itself for creating it. It the source punishes man and not itself the source is flawed and not an all knowing source. Since the source cannot do that without being flawed then the source had something else in mind when it was created good and evil which involves enlightenment.
Soooo.... The poem questions good and evil. It questions how the same source could create both good and evil. It also questions how a good source could even create evil if it is completely good. It points out that if a good source can create evil then that source is also evil. Then it presupposes that if evil came from a good source, then evil is good. It then would have to assume that if good created evil that evil is good and good is evil. This would then cancel out good and evil and reduce them to nothing.
Rationalgal, How wise you are! I read that poem over and over. What! What! does this mean! What enlightenment could Red John get from this. I got what the poem meant but was falling short of the enlightenment part until I re-read your paragraph. I believe we have gotten into Red's head and now we need to sling the door wide open! Here is my part to this thing. It's way to early for this!
Well I am "The Mentalist"'s big fan. I didn't have time to read all the treads so if my question was asked and answered before, please don't yell at me!
I am confused. in the second episode of this season, from what I understood Red John's assosiate ran away and in the third episode Jane was looking for how she ran away. Then, again, they show Jane engineering a plan to get her out and he succeeds... Please, which part I didn't understand well? Explain, please. Thanks
The poem seems to be about the conflict between good and evil, but questions how we can differentiate them when they come from the same source. People who do evil things always they they are doing good. People used to burn other people at the stake and think how wonderful it was that they were saving the victims' souls. I see something like this is RJ and his minions killing people and reveling in the idea that they are part of a bigger picture and know what it means to be enlightened and similar claptrap. Jane stands opposed to this. Is this a contest to break down that opposition. Crazy fanatics always think everyone else has to think just as they do. (And yes, I think we can assume RJ has been disguising his voice. Otherwise, Jane would know who he is.
Here's the Tiger Tiger poem
TIGER, tiger, burning bright
In the forests of the night,
What immortal hand or eye
Could frame thy fearful symmetry?
In what distant deeps or skies 5
Burnt the fire of thine eyes?
On what wings dare he aspire?
What the hand dare seize the fire?
And what shoulder and what art
Could twist the sinews of thy heart? 10
And when thy heart began to beat,
What dread hand and what dread feet?
What the hammer? what the chain?
In what furnace was thy brain?
What the anvil? What dread grasp 15
Dare its deadly terrors clasp?
When the stars threw down their spears,
And water'd heaven with their tears,
Did He smile His work to see?
Did He who made the lamb make thee? 20
Tiger, tiger, burning bright
In the forests of the night,
What immortal hand or eye
Dare frame thy fearful symmetry?
You are posting as a guest. To post as a user, please Login or Register.
Remember My Info