I thought this was a very touching episode, with added suspense arising from Henry's fate. It is a fairly smooth introduction to the Burgess motherhood story thread. And even Voight couldn't indulge in too much scenery-chewing with so many kids around.
I have to agree (*very* slightly!) with the reviewer who is upset by the reference to "17 years old". According to Wikipedia there are 18 US states and territories where the age of consent is 16, and 11 where the age of consent is 13. Of the world's nearly 200 countries, 85 set the unrestricted age of consent at 16 or less. I am not advocating for a change in the age of consent anywhere, (except maybe Washington State, where you apparently have to wait until you are 21 to have an unrestricted cuddle with your boyfriend but can die for your country several years earlier - although Washington apparently does allow restricted sexual activity from 12 onwards), just pointing out that sexual activity is a very grey area, and not one in which the black-and-white of the law is really equipped to meddle (a bit like the area of assisted suicide and mercy killing). People mature at different rates, and are affected by their upbringing, So a twelve-year-old of either sex can actually have greater emotional maturity and a more formed character than someone (of either sex) many years older. Or not - it's not something that can be legislated for. So what am I saying? Simply that "she was 17 years old" is not a motivation for any foaming-at-the-mouth in the script. "She was 17 years old and you were her boss" would have done, or "She was 17 years old and you were her coach", maybe even "She was 17 years old and you were 50"... although I'm not so convinced by that one - I've met a lot of 50-year-olds who are nowhere near as mature as some 17-year-olds I've met. So, I'm afraid that to the international market this comes across as an outburst of American Puritanism - the sort that gets really offended if someone's bra slips on a TV broadcast, which doesn't bother much of the world in the least and the sort that caused the Pilgrim Fathers to flee to America, having found that nowhere in Britain or Europe was prepared to support their extreme ideas.
However, what often irritates me about other reviews is people who don't seem to have watched the show. Here we have a review which is taken up entirely by a diatribe against the fact that an insulin injector was used in the plot. (And a reference to "natcon": I think you mean "Narcan", a trade name for Naloxone.) It was made clear in the script that Burgess was in possession of the injector the baddie had just purchased, and Voight explicitly instructed the purchase of more injectors to ensure that anyone who found Henry would be able to administer a dose. I am an Engineer - I don't get upset when blueprints appear in a script (although I haven't seen them used in 50 years!) Neither should that reviewer be upset that some details of the diabetic treatment procedure were cut from the script - this is TV entertainment, not a medical documentary, and the audience is not interested.
I have to agree (*very* slightly!) with the reviewer who is upset by the reference to "17 years old". According to Wikipedia there are 18 US states and territories where the age of consent is 16, and 11 where the age of consent is 13. Of the world's nearly 200 countries, 85 set the unrestricted age of consent at 16 or less. I am not advocating for a change in the age of consent anywhere, (except maybe Washington State, where you apparently have to wait until you are 21 to have an unrestricted cuddle with your boyfriend but can die for your country several years earlier - although Washington apparently does allow restricted sexual activity from 12 onwards), just pointing out that sexual activity is a very grey area, and not one in which the black-and-white of the law is really equipped to meddle (a bit like the area of assisted suicide and mercy killing). People mature at different rates, and are affected by their upbringing, So a twelve-year-old of either sex can actually have greater emotional maturity and a more formed character than someone (of either sex) many years older. Or not - it's not something that can be legislated for. So what am I saying? Simply that "she was 17 years old" is not a motivation for any foaming-at-the-mouth in the script. "She was 17 years old and you were her boss" would have done, or "She was 17 years old and you were her coach", maybe even "She was 17 years old and you were 50"... although I'm not so convinced by that one - I've met a lot of 50-year-olds who are nowhere near as mature as some 17-year-olds I've met. So, I'm afraid that to the international market this comes across as an outburst of American Puritanism - the sort that gets really offended if someone's bra slips on a TV broadcast, which doesn't bother much of the world in the least and the sort that caused the Pilgrim Fathers to flee to America, having found that nowhere in Britain or Europe was prepared to support their extreme ideas.
However, what often irritates me about other reviews is people who don't seem to have watched the show. Here we have a review which is taken up entirely by a diatribe against the fact that an insulin injector was used in the plot. (And a reference to "natcon": I think you mean "Narcan", a trade name for Naloxone.) It was made clear in the script that Burgess was in possession of the injector the baddie had just purchased, and Voight explicitly instructed the purchase of more injectors to ensure that anyone who found Henry would be able to administer a dose. I am an Engineer - I don't get upset when blueprints appear in a script (although I haven't seen them used in 50 years!) Neither should that reviewer be upset that some details of the diabetic treatment procedure were cut from the script - this is TV entertainment, not a medical documentary, and the audience is not interested.
