I don't know. I thought he did a rather good job of being creepy. And Jane has never pretended to be brave and has made his dislike of guns well known so Red John could easily have thought that there was no way Jane would have the chutzpah to actually do anything. I think it worked.
Oh no, don't get me wrong, he did a great job being creepy, but...I just love Bradley, so I can't hate any character he plays, no matter how sinister or creepy, because...it's Bradley! And he'll shrug or move a particular way or say something and all I see is Josh Lyman.
I - don't know. And I think that was what they were going for, the confusion. The idea that it wasn't a 'clear' answer. I fear that what we get early on in the season is the question of whether he was - and if he was, did Jane do it in self defense?
The team is already fractures; Van Pelt is going to be a basket case with her boyfriend not only dead but 'bad', their leader is shot, Cho and Rigsby are guilty for not being there - yeah, it's going to be a mess. And Jane is going to be right in the middle of it politically.
And whitford was just in In Plain Sight last week, as a character who was having some, um, brain dissonance . . .
I can see them definitely going for the confusion. I guess my take is that the Red John is so intrinsically bound up with the very core of The Mentalist that I guessed it would be the driving theme of the entire show for as long as it was on the air - I hadn't imagined they'd end it by the third season. And I still can't really convince myself that it is over; it seemed too easy, you know?
And to my mind there's a lot more dramatic potential if Bradley's character wasn't Red John, but another one of his devoted followers, and Jane has to deal with the fact that Red John really was two steps ahead of him the whole time, and he's killed a...well, not an innocent man, but not one guilty of what Jane had imagined.
. . . Jane has to deal with the fact that Red John really was two steps ahead of him the whole time, and he's killed a...well, not an innocent man, but not one guilty of what Jane had imagined.
yeah, that could be very interesting. I admit to being behind in my viewing (I missed much of season one) but have we seen Jane handle guilt at all?
Well, arguably Jane's been dealing with guilt through the entire show - the guilt of his actions leading Red John to murder his family. You're not telling me that sleeping on a mattress under the bloody smiley face left in his daughter's bedroom isn't some kind of penance. Hell, Jane's entire life is a form of penance, I think.
Comments 7
Reply
Reply
The team is already fractures; Van Pelt is going to be a basket case with her boyfriend not only dead but 'bad', their leader is shot, Cho and Rigsby are guilty for not being there - yeah, it's going to be a mess. And Jane is going to be right in the middle of it politically.
And whitford was just in In Plain Sight last week, as a character who was having some, um, brain dissonance . . .
Reply
And to my mind there's a lot more dramatic potential if Bradley's character wasn't Red John, but another one of his devoted followers, and Jane has to deal with the fact that Red John really was two steps ahead of him the whole time, and he's killed a...well, not an innocent man, but not one guilty of what Jane had imagined.
Reply
yeah, that could be very interesting. I admit to being behind in my viewing (I missed much of season one) but have we seen Jane handle guilt at all?
Reply
Reply
Leave a comment