|
Post by raybar on Feb 13, 2018 19:48:10 GMT -5
Byrnes and Connor already knew that "outsiders" were investigating, but now they're certain who those outsiders are.
Willem may be a red herring. He is far too obvious a suspect. When a murder mystery leads the audience in a particular direction early in the story, it's often a distraction. Here, former New York Chief of Detectives Byrnes visits the van Bergen home twice, and talks to Captain Connor about Willem and how his mother might cause problems. Willem must be doing something that needs to be kept quiet, but it may or may not be murdering boys. Maybe he is the killer, but maybe not.
We have learned, through John's visit to his dentist, that teeth can become silver colored by mercury salts. Mercury, in various forms, was used for a long time to treat syphilis. This is an explanation of the man with the silver smile, a man who one (or some) of the prostitutes talked about - an angel with a silver smile who might take you to paradise (or heaven or whatever he said). And we met him at the end of the episode. And he is the killer.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 13, 2018 23:37:25 GMT -5
Oh, intriguing. So you really think he's the killer. That's interesting because didn't he appear at Moore's dentist? I'll have to look at that again, but I think it was. So, what does that mean? The dentist should be contacting Moore to tell him about this strange guy with the teeth right after Moore asked him if the dentist encountered such a silver smile. And why has this silver smile guy appeared at that particular dentist? We know that the dentist said he never encountered such a person. Does this mean that the killer--if he is--has been following Moore around, and likely also the Kriezler and Sara? Was he the one that called the group together at the restaurant pretending it was Kreizler that did the calling? So how did this silver smile killer find out that Kreizler and Moore was investigating this case? He must be the son or connected to someone in the know. Conner? Who knows. But getting warmer now.
|
|
|
Post by raybar on Feb 14, 2018 1:18:23 GMT -5
The information about teeth being colored by mercury came from the dentist's patient. The dentist had to "translate" the patient's garble speech. This scene is just a way for Moore to learn a clue. I doubt that we will see either the dentist or the patient again.
The restaurant scene, as Kreizler said out loud, indicates that the killer is, and has been, watching them. The killer is now toying with them, playing a game with them, as is frequently the case in stories like this. How many movies have you seen where the psychotic villain is taunting a particular cop for some reason? I think it's clear that Mr. Silver Smile is the killer. Who he is, however, is not clear at all.
A detail a costume professional (might have been Molly) couldn't miss - - while Kreizler is walking to the restaurant, a man wearing an Inverness style overcoat bumps into him on the street. Later, we see Mr Silver Smile wearing an Inverness coat when he is trying to pick up a boy. Same man?
If I were to speculate, based on nothing but having seen 800 million movies, I would guess that the killer is a former patient of Kreizler.
|
|
|
Post by faskew on Feb 14, 2018 9:01:48 GMT -5
Syphilis back in those days was sort of like AIDS in the 1980s. Everyone knew that it existed, that it was fatal, that it was incurable, but they continued to do stupid things like go to prostitutes. And not just the poor and stupid. Winston Churchill's father died of syphilis. And it was common for wealthy-men to bring the disease into their homes and infect their wives. One of many reasons why, after producing the required number of children for their arranged marriage, many upper-class women refused to have sex with their husbands any more. The "good old days" - hah! 8-<
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 14, 2018 14:58:51 GMT -5
The information about teeth being colored by mercury came from the dentist's patient. The dentist had to "translate" the patient's garble speech. This scene is just a way for Moore to learn a clue. I doubt that we will see either the dentist or the patient again. The restaurant scene, as Kreizler said out loud, indicates that the killer is, and has been, watching them. The killer is now toying with them, playing a game with them, as is frequently the case in stories like this. How many movies have you seen where the psychotic villain is taunting a particular cop for some reason? I think it's clear that Mr. Silver Smile is the killer. Who he is, however, is not clear at all. A detail a costume professional (might have been Molly) couldn't miss - - while Kreizler is walking to the restaurant, a man wearing an Inverness style overcoat bumps into him on the street. Later, we see Mr Silver Smile wearing an Inverness coat when he is trying to pick up a boy. Same man? If I were to speculate, based on nothing but having seen 800 million movies, I would guess that the killer is a former patient of Kreizler. I must have been multi-tasking at that point where the silver smile guy appeared --which is why I don't like watching this kind of stuff on TV. I looked at it online, and I see now that the guy didn't appear at the dentist. I think I just saw the very last part where he was smiling. So, there goes my ideas. That was a good observation about the coat. And I do remember thinking about when Kreizler was bumped into by that man, the first thing I thought was his wallet was maybe stolen. But, yes, it's possible that the killer was a patient of the doctor's. But wouldn't you think that a past patient would have occurred to Kriezler, especially someone as weird as that? I don't know, I'm getting nowhere with this.
|
|
|
Post by raybar on Feb 14, 2018 17:04:45 GMT -5
Yeah, when "whoever it was" bumped into Kreizler on the street, I immediately thought "pick pocket," although they often work in teams - one person bumps into the victim as a distraction, a second person preforms the actual theft, then quickly passes the loot to a third person. That way, the first person has just accidentally bumped into the victim and hasn't committed a crime and the actual thief gets rid of the stolen goods before the victim can even react. Hard to catch them. But this bump in The Alienist doesn't seem to be a theft. It just connects Kreizler and the killer - - if you notice his distinctive coat. I may watch the restaurant scene again and try to spot that coat after Kreizler says the killer is watching them.
If you are not getting anywhere with this, then the writers have done their job. Subtle clues, like a coat you might notice, are there for the observant and knowledgeable, but they don't want you to get too far ahead of the story. A mystery that can be solved less than half way through the story is a really lousy mystery.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 14, 2018 18:29:40 GMT -5
So, the coat that the man with the silver teeth was wearing at the end, that's the same coat you're talking about?
|
|
|
Post by raybar on Feb 14, 2018 19:08:21 GMT -5
Yes, that's the coat. The half-cape over the coat is the defining detail.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 14, 2018 21:20:57 GMT -5
I looked at parts of this latest episode and I found where the guy with the cape bumped into someone. But it was Moore he bumped into, not Kreizler. I wonder if this means anything. I did try to find the caped man in the restaurant scene, but didn't see him.
|
|
joan
Member
Posts: 1,407
|
Post by joan on Feb 15, 2018 8:46:12 GMT -5
Very good, raybar. I agree with all your conclusions.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 15, 2018 19:50:41 GMT -5
Anybody still breathing here?
|
|
|
Post by raybar on Feb 15, 2018 22:00:34 GMT -5
Thank you, Joan. But of course we will have to wait and see if my guesses - I mean my analysis - is right or wrong.
No, Lily, I'm not breathing. I plan to hold my breath until Monday's episodes begins.
|
|
|
Post by debutante on Feb 19, 2018 22:48:11 GMT -5
2/19/2018
Tonight's Episode --WARNING SPOILERS
It was, as my husband put it -- skipping all over the place. So I can't say that there was very much in terms of plot advancement -- except in the sense that certain themes were touched upon which could be applied to the overall framework of the story.
The basic discovery items included the fact that the murders all took place on "Holy Days" of the church. And that the killer is "known" to upper level society politicians (as represented by the mayor, and presumably others of his caliber) and being protected by them. Roosevelt (the police commissioner) is told to look the other way (in not so many words). He does not intend to follow this directive. However, he is betrayed by the police chief in a "raid" which he hopes will net the suspect -- a wealthy young man who had some ties to a religious institution. (These ties were discovered by sleuthing on the part of the secretary).
Oddly....although the psychologist turned over the name of this "suspect" to Roosevelt, he said he didn't think he did it. (This part, I found confusing -- as if his theory about the killings occurring on church Holy Days is true -- it would seem more likely someone who has ties to the church would be a more likely suspect). The doctor, however, dismisses this on the basis of social class being an important factor. I did not grasp his reasoning here.
In other areas --- I began to wonder if the doctor is a little off his rocker himself. He had an over the top reaction when the secretary suggests a mother angle to the killer's motivations. It made me wonder if the doctor himself has "mother issues" by the vehemence with which he replied.
Meanwhile the fellow with the silver teeth (who I am sure will ultimately turn out to be the killer) is shown cavorting with a transvestite young boy. At the approximate same time as the police "raid" on the "wrong" location (Roosevelt presumably falsely led there on purpose by a compromised police chief)the fellow with the silver teeth is interrupted in his "play" by his mother and a man who spirits away the transvestite leaving the guy with the silver teeth to talk to his mother.
His mother tells him he has to go away for awhile --- but does it in a rather creepy (and far too intimate manner for a proper mother/son relationship). The young man jumps off the bed where they have been sitting and protests (one gets the impression it's both at the subject matter and the inappropriate touching).
I'm thinking there is some weird incestuous thing going on between the silver teeth guy and his mom -- or rather there has been in the past that's really screwed this guy's head up. So I think the secretary's guess about a mother angle might be correct.
in addition --- at one point the doctor makes the remark he might not know as much as he thinks he does. This comes after visiting a convict who he once interviewed (also a murderer of children).
Overall -- the episode was geared toward setting tone rather than advancing plot.
--Debutante
|
|
|
Post by raybar on Feb 20, 2018 11:09:46 GMT -5
We now know that the Silver Smile man is Willem van Berger, which I thought was not the case. We know that he has a history with young boys which the family wants kept quiet. But that history is vaguely defined. Exactly what he did with or to the boys has not been revealed.
However, while the police (former Detective Byrnes and Captain Connor) and Mayor William Lafayette Strong (another real historical character) have attempted to keep the van Berger name out of the case, and while Sara's file search turned up several complaints against Willem, and while we have seen Willem "entertaining" a boy, I still think he is a false lead. The comment from Connor in an earlier episode about Willem "cutting them up" could just mean that Connor suspected Willem based on the previous complaints, not that he had any real evidence that Willem is the killer in the current case..
Most obviously, the real killer has made a bloody mess of his victims, and is known to prefer high and fairly isolated locations. Willem is entertaining the boy in his own home. If he killed the boy there, how would he clean up the mess and dispose of the body? Also, the priest tells Kreizler that whatever Willem did "was taken the wrong way." Of course, priests can be just as corrupte as anyone else, but as a first guess I will say that he is probably telling the truth, at least as far as he knows it. and that the complaints against Willem were not as serious as murder.
Kerizler has found a connection between the murders and the liturgical calendar. Most critically, the Ascension is in a few days, and the obvious fear is that another murder will happen then. But Mrs. van Berger is about to take Willem away from New York. If there is another killing while Willem is out of town, he will be ruled out as a suspect.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 23, 2018 23:21:10 GMT -5
I'll have to watch the episode again before I report my thoughts on it. I've been doing everything on the fly this week and I need to refresh my memory.
|
|
|
Post by raybar on Feb 24, 2018 12:33:20 GMT -5
Another detail from the last episode - -
Kreizler visited a church in a wealthy area (where he spoke to the priest about Willem), and then saw people coming out a church in a poor area. Quite a contrast. Then he told Roosevelt that Willem is not the killer, and that the killer is choosing victims that remind him of his own upbringing. Kreizler thinks the killer had a childhood of poverty, and that Willem and the killer share some personality traits. Of course, being born into poverty doesn't mean he's still poor.
If Kreizler is correct, the killer could be anyone who had a poor childhood. Who is he? - probably, but not necessarily, male - one of the adults or an older boy from the brothel - one of the police officers, or a relative of an officer - someone connected to the Church, since the killings are following the Liturgical calendar
Anyway, we are half way through the series, so the investigation needs to start making real progress soon, and produce some reasonable suspects, if the case is to be solved by the end.
|
|
|
Post by raybar on Feb 27, 2018 13:55:50 GMT -5
Last night's show, Episode 6: "Ascension," completes the subplot about Willem van Berger. He is not the killer, and has himself been killed and dumped off of the scaffolding at the Williamsburg Bridge construction site into the East River by (former) Captain Connor and his son. Willem's body might wash up somewhere and be found, but it could be gone forever "without a trace."
A man who is seen only from behind enters the brothel, speaks with Stevie who is playing the role of the bait, and then moves off. The implication is that this is the killer, but it could be another false lead. Isaacson chases the man, and shoots at him several time, but he escapes. A confusing scene occurs next on the roof across the street from the brothel. Cyrus is found unconscious, presumably attacked by the man who escaped from Isaacson. Moore gets an insight from this, and they look across the street at the brothel building where they see Stevie and Sara in one room and an open window in the next room. Does this mean anything at all? Do they think the killer was in the next room? Do they think he entered or left through a third (fourth?) floor window with no fire escape?
There are maps at alienist.com which specify various locations in the show. The brothel is located at 6th Avenue and 3rd street.
At the end of the episode another murdered boy is shown at the Statue of Liberty, which is on an island about 1.6 miles southwest of the southern tip of Manhattan at Battery Park, and was accessible only by boat in 1896. (Today it's boat or helicopter.) This indicates that the killer owns, or has the use of, or could steal a boat that he can use without being seen. Is he a sailor? A dock worker? The southern edge of Manhattan is about 2.2 miles from the brothel (measured along streets, not in a straight line). So, if the killer picked up this latest victim at the brothel, he had to move him at least 3.8 miles over both land and water (shortest route), killing him somewhere along the way. Not impossible, but not easy. Maybe the killer found this boy not at the brothel, but at the docks on the Hudson River or near the Battery, which would let him get out on the water quickly, where there would be no witnesses.
Four episodes to go, and still no suspect identified.
|
|
|
Post by debutante on Feb 27, 2018 17:18:36 GMT -5
To add to Raybar's synopsis, we also found out the doc to has been lying about his "congenital" arm injury. The secretary found a newspaper article describing a piano recital he performed of a Mozart piece requiring two hands.
So it seems the doctor has secrets...
--Debutante
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 27, 2018 17:44:57 GMT -5
Another detail from the last episode - - Kreizler visited a church in a wealthy area (where he spoke to the priest about Willem), and then saw people coming out a church in a poor area. Quite a contrast. Then he told Roosevelt that Willem is not the killer, and that the killer is choosing victims that remind him of his own upbringing. Kreizler thinks the killer had a childhood of poverty, and that Willem and the killer share some personality traits. Of course, being born into poverty doesn't mean he's still poor. If Kreizler is correct, the killer could be anyone who had a poor childhood. Who is he? - probably, but not necessarily, male - one of the adults or an older boy from the brothel - one of the police officers, or a relative of an officer - someone connected to the Church, since the killings are following the Liturgical calendar Anyway, we are half way through the series, so the investigation needs to start making real progress soon, and produce some reasonable suspects, if the case is to be solved by the end. I never quite understood what Kreizler meant about why the killer could not be Willem. It just buzzed by me too fast.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 27, 2018 17:49:35 GMT -5
Last night's show, Episode 6: "Ascension," completes the subplot about Willem van Berger. He is not the killer, and has himself been killed and dumped off of the scaffolding at the Williamsburg Bridge construction site into the East River by (former) Captain Connor and his son. Willem's body might wash up somewhere and be found, but it could be gone forever "without a trace." A man who is seen only from behind enters the brothel, speaks with Stevie who is playing the role of the bait, and then moves off. The implication is that this is the killer, but it could be another false lead. Isaacson chases the man, and shoots at him several time, but he escapes. A confusing scene occurs next on the roof across the street from the brothel. Cyrus is found unconscious, presumably attacked by the man who escaped from Isaacson. Moore gets an insight from this, and they look across the street at the brothel building where they see Stevie and Sara in one room and an open window in the next room. Does this mean anything at all? Do they think the killer was in the next room? Do they think he entered or left through a third (fourth?) floor window with no fire escape? There are maps at alienist.com which specify various locations in the show. The brothel is located at 6th Avenue and 3rd street. At the end of the episode another murdered boy is shown at the Statue of Liberty, which is on an island about 1.6 miles southwest of the southern tip of Manhattan at Battery Park, and was accessible only by boat in 1896. (Today it's boat or helicopter.) This indicates that the killer owns, or has the use of, or could steal a boat that he can use without being seen. Is he a sailor? A dock worker? The southern edge of Manhattan is about 2.2 miles from the brothel (measured along streets, not in a straight line). So, if the killer picked up this latest victim at the brothel, he had to move him at least 3.8 miles over both land and water (shortest route), killing him somewhere along the way. Not impossible, but not easy. Maybe the killer found this boy not at the brothel, but at the docks on the Hudson River or near the Battery, which would let him get out on the water quickly, where there would be no witnesses. Four episodes to go, and still no suspect identified. Well, the suspect is at least not very young. He appears at least middle age.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 27, 2018 17:53:03 GMT -5
To add to Raybar's synopsis, we also found out the doc to has been lying about his "congenital" arm injury. The secretary found a newspaper article describing a piano recital he performed of a Mozart piece requiring two hands. So it seems the doctor has secrets... --Debutante Yeah, isn't that interesting. And it does seem as if he hates his mother. I wonder if Doctor Kreizler really didn't really like playing the piano, and felt forced to continue by his mother. Maybe they got into an altercation and he his arm got injured. Or perhaps, he might have done it to himself so that he could get out from under his mother's control. This is finally getting quite exciting. And next week's previews seem to show it will be getting even more so.
|
|
|
Post by faskew on Feb 28, 2018 8:48:16 GMT -5
The classic murder-mystery trope is for the killer to be revealed as one of the characters introduced early on. No fair to drag in some stranger in the last scene. And the killer should also be the least likely person in the story.
So in this series, it seems very clear to me that Roosevelt is the killer!
No, wait, that can’t be right. OK, then it has to be the doctor, the artist reporter, or the secretary. Yeah, that’s the ticket. 8->
Guess we could always get the book and skip to the end to find out. LOL
BTW, this is one of the many reasons I don’t want to see the new film, MURDER ON THE ORIENT EXPRESS. I read the book long ago and I’ve seen all the various film versions over the years. Been there, done that.
|
|
|
Post by raybar on Feb 28, 2018 11:24:50 GMT -5
Actually, Fred, the reason you don't want to see "Murder . . ." is because it's a really bad movie. All talk and no action. And don't get me started on what's wrong with the sets or the preposterous way the locomotive is put back on the track after it derails.
==========
We have now seen 6 out of 10 episodes of "The Alienist" - - 60% of the story - - and I am wondering if we have met the killer yet. As you said, the killer in mysteries is typically introduced early, and is revealed as the killer toward the end. This is usually a secondary character, but one who is seen enough to be noticed and remembered by the audience. I don't see any such character in "Alienist."
- One of the policemen? The only cop we really know is Captain Connor. Unlikely. - Someone at the brothel? We haven't really met anyone except the boys. - Someone wealthy? Well, it's not Willem, and we haven't really met any fictitious rich people. None of the historical characters are candidates.
Alternately, the killer is sometimes a major character "hiding in plain view." Here, the main characters are Kreizler and team, all of whom (SPOILER ALERT) appear in the second Kreizler novel, "The Angel of Darkness," which rules them out. Captain Connor? I don't think so. Who else is there?
I will be very annoyed if the killer is only introduced in the last episode.
|
|
|
Post by faskew on Feb 28, 2018 14:21:47 GMT -5
Related topic - Have any of you watched Netflix's "The Frankenstein Chronicles"? The 1st two seasons are up on NF, so you could binge and see them all, if so inclined. I watched the first ep the other day and it's actually a murder mystery with several parallels with "The Alienist". Set in 1827 London. Dark, gloomy sets. Children are being murdered. Even has mercury being used as a treatment for syphilis.
SPOILER ALERT
Bodies are found made up of several different kids sown together. The protagonist is a cop assigned to investigate. Some magic (fake SF) involved, as it seems that the patchwork kids may not be really dead, just mostly.
|
|
|
Post by raybar on Feb 28, 2018 17:46:14 GMT -5
Yeah, "The Frankenstein Chronicles," featuring Mary Shell herself and starring Boromir of Gondor - - I mean Eddard Stark of Winterfell - - I mean Sean Bean as John Marlott, a reanimated corpse of a policeman.
Far too many daydreams or nightmares or hallucinations, or whatever they are supposed to be, as Marlot learns what it's like to be the new undead version of himself. Unsatisfactory. But at least the villain gets what he deserves at the end.
|
|
|
Post by faskew on Feb 28, 2018 18:11:38 GMT -5
All of these Victorian period pieces sort of merge into each other: "Penny Dreadful", "Ripper Street", "The Frankenstein Chronicles", "The Alienist". Three in London and one in New York. Both cities quite horrible, if you weren't rich. Even without vampires, murderers and other monsters.
|
|
joan
Member
Posts: 1,407
|
Post by joan on Mar 1, 2018 9:28:51 GMT -5
Frankenstein Chronicles is next on my Netflix list after I watch the last episode of the first season of American Horror Story.
eta--looking forward to new Gotham tonight. Love that show.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 1, 2018 15:51:09 GMT -5
Any predictions for whom Sara will end up with--Moore or Kreizler? Or neither?
|
|
|
Post by debutante on Mar 2, 2018 10:13:13 GMT -5
Lily,
I'll say neither. The docs got some bats in his belfry and there's some weird undefined relationship with his housekeeper [Panty sniffing in her room? Sure, buddy, and all the while looking at other people like they're the ones with all the problems? Right!]
So I'm guessing that the doc has too much pathology to overcome.
The artist? I don't think she sees him as enough of a challenge.
So this will end I think with her perpetually pining for what she can't have [The doc] as being that she seems a stubborn sort.
That would make more sense too if this is taken from a series of books. You could drag unrequited love on indefinitely as she tries to overcome aspects of his "tortured" soul.
The artist is just not screwed up enough to intrigue her.
-- Debutante
|
|
joan
Member
Posts: 1,407
|
Post by joan on Mar 2, 2018 10:52:46 GMT -5
His "tortured" soul smacked her face. Found that most disturbing.
|
|