It's a weird episode where I wasn't rooting for either side. Anyway, weak plot with so much back and forth, I lost interest. The only good thing about this episode is that it is fully of witty one-liners. That scary lawyer, Rita Calhoun, is actually very entertaining. I wish we get to see more of her.
Law & Order: Special Victims Unit (TV Series)
A Misunderstanding (2016)
User Reviews
Review this title8 Reviews
Subtle familiar story but still relevant for larger discussion
tommieadamsphoto11 October 2021
I noticed over time that on average viewers prefer more action packed tense story lines. I enjoy those and these types of stories as well. And though this was a she said/he said story line it touched on several relevant topical cultural mores of today as it relates to privileged, out of date perception in the face of the pressures of social media world, with the combination of the impacts of social pressures and bullying in school. How does one protect their child in a world that exposes them to everything everywhere on top of social pressures to fit in, driving their children's decision making at the cost of their future. And for the subject of rape how do we start to educate our children on what that means or having those difficut discussion with them as well as in our educational institutions. I thought it was a quite a provoking episode.
Romeo and Juliet: Something Happened or Nothing Happened
yazguloner8 January 2022
Barba is the triangle of court and dark gray lawsuits. He turns into great geometry with Rita Calhoun (Elizabeth Marvel) and John Buchanan (Delaney Williams). Math addition with Olivia and the Svu squad.
The innocence of the two young people is crushed by the opportunism of the hunters and the rules of the elders.
Mathematical result: "The world is changing, the rules must change too It should be clear" Olivia Benson.
The innocence of the two young people is crushed by the opportunism of the hunters and the rules of the elders.
Mathematical result: "The world is changing, the rules must change too It should be clear" Olivia Benson.
Wish his daughter would have a misunderstanding
melanie-7352226 July 2021
The defense attorney often attacks the women in these episodes, it seems. Since it's fiction, I've kind of wished one or more of these situations would hit his own home...see if he considers it okay or a misunderstanding then.
Miscommunication
TheLittleSongbird26 September 2022
Am really not a fan of the "she said, he said" sort of stories overall. Especially when a show like 'Law and Order: Special Victims Unit' does them in most of its seasons (especially the later ones) and to such variable effect. Some are hard hitting and powerful, like "Burned". Others are sleazy and one sided, like too many in the later seasons. So expectations were not high on first watch of "A Misunderstanding". Was not impressed with it on the whole on first watch.
Sadly, "A Misunderstanding" also wasn't much better on rewatch and epitomises why this sort of story is not a favourite. With it having all the reasons as to why the later seasons "she said, he said" cases don't do it for me and to a distasteful degree. Season 17 was an inconsistent season but not an awful one, and this is very easily down there among the worst episodes of the season. Not unspeakably awful, but the aftertaste it leaves is quite a bitter one.
It has things that redeem it a little. On a visual level, the episode is solid and the intimacy of the photography doesn't get static or too filmed play-like. The music when used is not too over-emphatic and has a melancholic edge that is quite haunting.
There are some nice one-liners from especially Barba and Calbourne. The Romeo and Juliet references were interesting. The acting is very good considering the material, the best performance coming from Raul Esparza.
However, absolutely nothing new is done with the type of story this is, most of what happens is what has been seen quite a number of times. It has a very flimsy case with too much circumstantial evidence and very slight. There is no suspense, with the urgency already drained early on from the overlong opening scene, and it is dully paced and overstretched, this could easily have been done in half the time.
Olivia comes over as self righteous and biased, really don't when she jumps to conclusions with little evidence and where she judges on her gut instinct and doesn't consider any alternative. The ending left more questions than answers, the truth seemed vague to me. The writing is very preachy, especially in regard to the discussion about a sexual engagement law and affirmative consent, and just didn't care enough for anybody involved.
Concluding, underwhelming. 4/10.
Sadly, "A Misunderstanding" also wasn't much better on rewatch and epitomises why this sort of story is not a favourite. With it having all the reasons as to why the later seasons "she said, he said" cases don't do it for me and to a distasteful degree. Season 17 was an inconsistent season but not an awful one, and this is very easily down there among the worst episodes of the season. Not unspeakably awful, but the aftertaste it leaves is quite a bitter one.
It has things that redeem it a little. On a visual level, the episode is solid and the intimacy of the photography doesn't get static or too filmed play-like. The music when used is not too over-emphatic and has a melancholic edge that is quite haunting.
There are some nice one-liners from especially Barba and Calbourne. The Romeo and Juliet references were interesting. The acting is very good considering the material, the best performance coming from Raul Esparza.
However, absolutely nothing new is done with the type of story this is, most of what happens is what has been seen quite a number of times. It has a very flimsy case with too much circumstantial evidence and very slight. There is no suspense, with the urgency already drained early on from the overlong opening scene, and it is dully paced and overstretched, this could easily have been done in half the time.
Olivia comes over as self righteous and biased, really don't when she jumps to conclusions with little evidence and where she judges on her gut instinct and doesn't consider any alternative. The ending left more questions than answers, the truth seemed vague to me. The writing is very preachy, especially in regard to the discussion about a sexual engagement law and affirmative consent, and just didn't care enough for anybody involved.
Concluding, underwhelming. 4/10.
Disappointing
KiLeAk-124 August 2020
He said she said is so out of date and such a shallow storyline. Regardless of the outcome of the trial what about highlighting that the boy and girl are both victims of the behaviour of their friends who encourage this and the culture surrounding those students.
Flimsy and grandstanding plot line; two key characters rendered uncharacteristically unsympathetic.
siobhan-1115716 June 2017
This is one the very very few episodes where I rooted for the defence lawyer. Based on the portrayal of the date rape scene, the decision to prosecute was bizarre.
Benson's aside to Barba at the end where she states that California has introduced an 'affirmative consent' law betrays the motive behind this episode - 'preaching' about spreading such a law. That may all be fine, but clearly the outcome in court lacked plausibility and this is one of the few (maybe only) where the Barba and Benson characters get on the viewers' nerves by ramroading a pathetic case.
Benson's aside to Barba at the end where she states that California has introduced an 'affirmative consent' law betrays the motive behind this episode - 'preaching' about spreading such a law. That may all be fine, but clearly the outcome in court lacked plausibility and this is one of the few (maybe only) where the Barba and Benson characters get on the viewers' nerves by ramroading a pathetic case.
WITHDRAWN!
aboethius4 October 2023
Warning: Spoilers
The big defense attorney objecting for badgering is too much hypocrisy to take. That's all he ever does. That's all the "lawyers" in this show ever do in court, but now they've taken it too far. Lawyers aren't even supposed to enter the box. This show is not doing anything to help anyone, making court into something scarier than it really is. Fifteen times Rafael objects that the defense needs to ask a question, and then all Rafeal does is give a speech himself in what is supposed to be a cross. These cheap writers just don't care about the law anymore... it is constant badgering of witnesses. The last straw is the big ugly defense lawyer all in the victims's and the viewer's face acting like he is impatiently waiting for an answer even though he just said "withdrawn". They aren't even trying to make the court room stuff make sense anymore. Just stop saying the stupid overused "withdrawn" thing too. This show should be WITHDRAWN.
See also
Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews
