1x01 Pilot

I always considered CSI to be a terribly written crime show. Only having watched single episodes when I caught them by accident, I remember them for their outrageously illogical crimes, dramatisation of junk science, and suspect arrests based on evidence ranging from circumstantial, to flimsy, to laughable. With that, it commits what I consider the worst offence for crime fiction: not being fair to the audience. I enjoy crime shows when I can get involved in trying to figure out what happened, by following along with the clues. Not having a logical plot or a comprehensible solution makes me feel cheated instead of engaged. Trying to see if the show's writing is as bad as I remember, or if it's been like that from the very beginning, I decided to give the season one Blu-ray of this legendarily successful show an unbiased look.

What's immediately striking from the very first scene is the recognisable production of CSI. The aerial shots of Las Vegas at night, the soundtrack, and especially the moody lighting are an important part of what set this show apart from other police procedurals. From today's perspective, it's difficult to picture how excitingly different and influential it was. I have vague memories of how much more modern and off-beat the show felt in general, and I have to say, that mood holds up quite well even almost twenty years later. To give some context, other shows that premièred in 2000 include Curb Your Enthusiasm, Malcolm in the Middle, Gilmore Girls, and Dark Angel, all of which I think show their age much more obviously than CSI. The pilot episode really looks and sounds like it hasn't aged a day, which is certainly helped by how expensively it was produced.

The pilot also does a great job in introducing the main theme of the show: that this crime procedural will focus on a less commonly aspect of law enforcement, the securing of evidence and forensic analysis. This could not be summarised better than in some of the first words spoken on the show, when CSI arrives at the scene of a crime. Detectives being the stars of the majority of crime shows, one of them comments to the other about the arrival of the forensics team: "Here comes the nerd squad." In retrospect, this should go down as one of the most memorable introductions to any television series.

There is a lot happening in this first episode. The number of characters being introduced will be difficult to absorb for anyone who isn't already familiar with most of them from having watched the show previously. I'm also very glad that the show doesn't spend undue amounts of time showing the investigators' private lives and issues – crime shows tend to increase that percentage a lot in later episodes and seasons, though. CSI is no exception, but I'm curious to see if, or when, it starts going a bit too far for my taste. For now, the focus is squarely on how each of the main characters understands and approaches their job, from professional and proper Gil Grissom (although he does give victims promises he might not be able to keep), to idealistic Catherine Willows, to light-hearted but competitive Nick Stokes, and downright overstepping Warrick Brown. A few scenes trying to show their human sides serve their purpose and don't overstay their welcome.

Similarly, the number of cases handled is impressive for a 45-minute story. Some of them are as neatly tied up as I expected, since I remember CSI as a very episodic show. There's others that are mentioned in passing, mostly as a plot device. But there's also one or two cases that seem to have been set up for being continued in later episodes. I didn't remember the series to have had investigations spanning several episodes, but the mixture between crime-of-the-week and cases left unresolved as cliffhangers works pretty well.

Another major cliffhanger is connected to a recurring theme of investigators behaving unprofessionally, neglecting their duties, or generally doing things that you wouldn't hope their real-life counterparts to be doing. I didn't get a clear stance on this from the show. In some parts, it clearly wants to use the issues caused by this to serve as plot elements. Investigators are humans and make mistakes, they have different opinions that may clash, and they sometimes make wrong judgement calls with potentially devastating consequences. In others, the tone seems to be more comedic, which clashes with the rest of the show. It may be down to how cramped the pilot is, that some of these came across as more light-hearted than they were intended. For example, it seems a bit strange that the quite serious revelation of a judge's corruption almost feels like it was played for a quick laugh. But overall, the show seems more willing to actually address problems of the law enforcement and legal systems, rather than go for a simplistic good versus evil, the end justifies the means path.

The pilot might in general be trying to fit in a few too many troubling, contemporary social problems. If you're going to introduce at least five major characters, and go through at least three cases, this maybe shouldn't be the episode in which you also try to be topical on several fronts. From the top of my head, apart from misconduct by law enforcement professionals, the show also mentions racism, corruption, and child sexual abuse – and the runtime really doesn't allow for more than a superficial reference. It's not done poorly, though, and I thought that especially the scene about child abuse was done as well and empathically as it could've been in the few seconds it was given. What certainly helps is that the child actor in that scene gives an unusually good performance (the one playing Willows' daughter is good as well, although sadly, her best scene – a very believable tantrum – was cut from the episode and can only be seen in the director's cut of the home release). Still, it all felt like a bit too much, and the show would do better to treat these issues one or two at a time. As a pilot, it can be slightly forgiven for trying to tease people about all the things it will have something to say about in the future. And at least for the misconduct, which seems the most relevant issue for this show, it gave clear signals that it wants to deal with it in depth in the future.

One topical issue that the show famously doesn't challenge is, of course, junk science in criminal forensics. Featured prominently in this episode: blood spatter analysis, fingerprint matching, and puzzling together pieces of a broken toenail based on striations – where's DNA analysis when it would make sense? CSI is famous for its depiction of forensic methods as far more scientific and reliable than they really are. I would go as far as saying that the majority of methods shown are probably pretty useless in reality. This case of Hollywood dramatisation was initially just something for science nerds to obsess and debate over, but in the years following CSI's success has shown to have some quite serious real-world consequences in what has been called the "CSI effect", describing how juries, experts, lawyers, and even judges in real court cases can be manipulated into giving undue importance to evidence based on scientifically unsound methods, because shows such as CSI made them believe that they actually work. That failure to see a work of fiction for what it is isn't why I criticise the show, though. I criticise it because as soon as you know a little bit about real forensic methods and their (lack of) scientific validation, a lot of the conclusions in the show turn from impressively looking scenes of lab analysis, to unintentionally funny and ridiculous reaches, destroying the believability of the plot, and that's a shame.

There are regularly other moments that also make me raise my eyebrows. I'm not sure that crime scene investigators should once again ask witnesses what happened. After all, the show is based around the concept that these are not that kind of police officers. I do see the temptation to have these expositions given by other characters, rather than what I would assume is the more realistic way of reading them in a report or having a detective relate the statements, but it still sits wrong. Given how much the show talks about being objective and letting the evidence speak, I wonder why these investigators are even allowed to be in the same room as any victims, suspects, or witnesses. I'm almost certain that mass spectrometry doesn't give results as shown, and why in the world would blood spatter reenactments be performed with real, human blood? How can a grown man fail to flush toenail clippings down the toilet without spreading them all across the bathroom floor, especially after he must have realised that they might be incriminating? (Actually, my girlfriend pointed out that he might have simply, and disgustingly, clipped his nails in the bathroom not caring where the clippings spread, and making up the toilet story in the hopes CSI wouldn't look for them – I'm convinced enough.) Also, why would half a dozen squad cars and a helicopter be dispatched to the scene of a suicide?

In these instants, I remember how CSI episodes I've seen back in the day seemed to be a sequence of alternating head-scratching and face-palming moments. It's not nearly as bad in this pilot episode, but it's enough to break the suspension of disbelief and take me out of the story and the dark mood of the show. I readily admit that I'm not very good at noticing plot holes and non-sequiturs in film and television. Often, someone else first has to point out that something made absolutely no sense, for me to see it myself. I don't have that problem in CSI, and I have a feeling that it's either becuase the level of illogicality is just absurd in this show, or that it just does a much poorer job than others at glossing it over. However, it's more difficult for me to believe the second option, given how polished and well-produced the show is. It keeps hinting at why one of the most frequent criticisms of the show has always been that it's "style over substance", because a lot of things just don't make a lot of sense.

Finally, I have to mention one of my favourite things about watching this series première: the character of Jim Brass. I did not remember him to be this moody and confrontational, but it sure works well and gives the show a positive injection of excitement and energy. Shows around "hero cops" can get tiring very quickly, so it's refreshing and intriguing to have this agent of pushback in the show. A balancing force that keeps the investigators in line, is very no-nonsense but also a bit of a wild card. Paul Guilfoyle's character is definitely the star of the show, and I would've liked the pilot episode considerably less had he not been in it. Out of all the main characters, he's the one that feels least like you could've seen him before, in some other crime procedural.

All the actors do well with what they're given, though, and I'm usually pretty quick to find fault with a performance. It helps make the episode feel like a simply very well-rounded production, optimised for maximum viewer ratings. There are a few editing problems that must come from the challenge of – it has to be mentioned again – how compressed this episode is. An example that comes to mind is that there's an intern of some sorts ("Boe") that seems either like an afterthought, or a character that was only incompletely edited out. He serves no plot purpose, and I doubt he'll show up again. I suspect he's only there because the episode was already in the can, and there were some crucial bits of information that were only revealed in dialogues with him, so he couldn't be removed completely once it was determined that the show has no time to spend on him.

Would I have chosen to keep watching if I had seen this pilot back when it aired? Almost certainly yes. It's good fun for any crime show fan. The set of characters is varied and interesting. I often find a lot of hateable characters in these shows, but so far, not here. The show feels fresh and exciting and very stylish. At least this time around, I intend to keep watching, and I'll be curious to see when it starts jumping the shark to become the poorly-written mess I remember – if at all.