Ceci M.
The latest C.S.I. episode, “Unfriendly Skies”, really tackles an important question that doesn’t pull any punches. Here’s the premise: what would you do if there was a disruptive passenger who jeopardized your safety 30,000 feet in the air? How the episode expertly deals with this starts out as a typical crime scene in an atypical place: on an airplane. Although the pieces that Gil Grissom (William L. Petersen) finds are rather circumstantial, he and his crew doggedly try to work through the night to find the answer to the mystery before the F.B.I. comes and takes over the crime scene.
As Catherine Willows (Marg Helgenberger) and Jim Brass (Paul Guilfoyle) try to question passengers in true Rashomon (1950) style, Gil patiently tries to sort out the pieces of an intricate puzzle. The passenger was agitated. The others in first class were trying to cover up what truly happened. And when it came down to removing the shoes of the remaining patrons of the plane, then there was a conspiracy afoot—to the point of covering up a heinous act that coincides with mob rules.
The most disturbing fact about this episode is that ordinary, upstanding people who would have thought such an action of kicking a man to death uncivilized turned into brutes who took matters into their own hands. If you would have met any one of those other passengers on the street, there wouldn’t be any thought that they would be prone to any lethal actions whatsoever. This also echoes regarding the people who are supposed to be intermediaries for the comfort of the passengers while traveling to their destination.
Unfortunately, the stewardess as well as the pilot--used to “air rage” and put-upon by the overbearing people in their daily travails--helped to put an end to the matter only because they knew that they had to act quickly without even asking the agitated passenger if anything was wrong. This angle makes the victim’s demise more tragic and unnecessary.
No one ever realized the victim was suffering. He was infected with encephalitis. If one person stepped in to help him, he would have survived. The true shame about this matter is that a surgeon was among the other passengers in first class and she also participated in the brutalizing treatment of the victim without any true remorse. The only thing to cover herself was the fact that she had to “protect” her daughter. In the same vein, the others participated within a strange sense of the “honor code”, trying to hide the truth from coming to light. This item adds to the awareness that justice is cruel and compassion is thrown out the window. Each of the passengers are found innocent on the matter. They are allowed to go free, not even considering that a man was killed as a result of their need for safety.
The worst part about this subject-matter is that human nature is torn between helping a fellow man and attacking him on the basis of assumption. This was especially telling in the last part of the show when the C.S.I. crew had a debate about whether they would have done the same thing if they were in the same situation. Sara professed that she wouldn’t have the heart to kill anyone as Warrick advocated the opposite. Catherine, being a single mother, also vowed that she would save her child in the midst of an air emergency.
Yet, the dominoes fell when it came down to Grissom’s opinion. Throughout the series, the forensic scientist’s obsessiveness about doing meticulous work often over-shadows the fact that he is sensitive and caring about the victims. This case isn’t any exception. He steps in to put his two cents into the discussion and discounts the others’ tendencies for self-preservation by taking the victim’s side in the matter.
By advocating victim’s rights within this episode, the climax doesn’t really have a pat conclusion. Instead, an open-ended question is left for viewers to ponder. What would you do? This inquiry echoes throughout the entire panorama of the show because it is a life and death situation. No one knows exactly how they would act within a mob situation. But, it really puts character to the test. Would someone have had the strength not to follow the crowd—even if their lives depended on it? Would someone have had the courage to stand up to the others and denounce their actions? Even more despicable was the actions of those supposed to make the skies “friendly”. If the stewardess knew that the situation was going out of control and resorted towards murder, wouldn’t she have done something to protect the victim?
It only comes down to one thing. Human nature dictates the need to be counted and part of a larger social order. Society is compromised on “fitting in” even when the premise is warped and insane. The problem of wanting acceptance is that a person’s welfare was ignored due to the heightened awareness of “air rage”. Because stories come out in the press of passengers attacking the plane’s flight workers as well as disrupting peace and serenity, it is easy to assume that when placed in a perilous situation to act fast. However, assumptions don’t truly get to the heart of the matter. None of the passengers ever went past their own superficial needs. Instead, they thought that they had to work with the others to make sure that the victim would not be a problem again.
But, at what price?
“A Case of Mob Psychology”©2000 by Ceci M.
If you have any questions or comments regarding this essay, please e-mail: cecim999@yahoo.com.