Today on Blogcritics
Home » TV Review: House’s “Last Resort” An Excellent Meditation on Obsession

TV Review: House’s “Last Resort” An Excellent Meditation on Obsession

Please Share...Print this pageTweet about this on Twitter0Share on Facebook0Share on Google+0Pin on Pinterest0Share on TumblrShare on StumbleUpon0Share on Reddit0Email this to someone

House’s "Last Resort" was a challenging episode, one guaranteed to polarise viewers for a long time to come. I loved it. The plot centered around a disgruntled patient willing to kill to find answers and House’s dawning realisation that he both understands and ultimately does not understand what drives that kind of obsession.

The show was modeled on a “bottle” episode — one where the cast and action are confined to one or two inside locations, so the drama is concentrated on interactions between characters. Such episodes either really work or really don’t, and "Last Resort" really does. The always wonderful Hugh Laurie and guest star Zeljko Ivanek (Jason) are a well-matched pair as they square off, House with his mouth and brain, Jason with his gun and need to know. Between the two of them, the tension builds in the room as the gunman shows that he will kill in his drive to get an answer for what ails him, and House shows that he has more understanding of that than the audience would like him to.

House has never been intended to be a heroic figure. He may be the protagonist of the show, but he’s a protagonist who’s a two-for-one deal — he’s also sometimes the antagonist and it’s not always easy to define what’s driving him: ethics, obsession, self-interest, the desire to teach. We’ve seen him act from any and all these motivations and because there’s usually a mix, House has always inspired heated discussion on whether he has an ethical code and how he interprets it, if so. This episode adds a lot of fuel to that fiery debate.

The hostage drama starts with House clearly differentiated from the gunman. When Jason asks him if he’s never needed to know something (in his case, what illness he has), House shoots back that he’s never shot anyone to find out. While acceding to Jason’s demands in order to keep everyone alive, House does his best to bring the hostage drama to a close by any means possible, including trying to sneak his captor a knock-out drug. House assumes the leadership position among the hostages and he and the would-be patient are antagonists.

But House can never not want to know about people, so he keeps poking at the reason for the gunman’s desire for an answer. He suggests the gunman is using the situation to send a message to an estranged wife or a former employer. But he’s wrong. Jason just needs to know why his body is no longer functioning as it used to. He knows there must be an answer, a truth, to what is happening to him, but despite seeing sixteen doctors, no one has been focused on finding that truth. As the old saying goes, if you don’t have your health, you don’t have anything, and Jason’s life has now been concentrated into finding out why he doesn’t have his health. 

Realising what the gunman’s motivation is changes House’s emotional reaction to the situation. He moves from viewing Jason as the problem that needs to be removed to the problem that needs to be solved. He’s already assumed the hostage leadership role in the room, trying to keep people from getting shot as the patient shows just how serious he is about getting his answer. Now he includes Jason in the group of people who have needs and that shift pushes him into a rather more ambiguous role, as clearly the patient’s needs and the hostages’ needs are oppositional.

The clashing needs are most visible in regard to Thirteen (an excellent Olivia Wilde). Thirteen has been trying to appease the gunman by volunteering to be a guinea pig for his medications, to House’s dismay. He thinks she’s really trying for assisted suicide due to her Huntington’s diagnosis. Thirteen doesn’t deny that she thinks her limited life span makes her the logical choice to risk her life, but still thinks she’s doing what she must to keep the patient from shooting anyone.

All these murky motivations come to a head when House tries to confirm a diagnosis via CT scan, and the gunman can only get a clean scan if he gives up his gun. House believes he has a relationship with Jason, and I think it’s because he thinks he understands not only the patient’s desire to know the truth, an obsession House shares, but he also specifically remembers his own search for a diagnosis during his infarction, when his pain was dismissed as drug seeking behaviour and then misdiagnosed until House’s life was on the line and ultimately affected forever. The episode forces us to compare House and Jason, as House correctly deduces that the patient will hand over his gun to learn the truth, and then in a stunning move, hands back the gun himself when his diagnosis is shown to be wrong.

It’s a bold move on the part of the writers, because House viewers are very invested in trying to understand Gregory House and get a read on his character that goes beyond the surface acerbity and obsession with truth to the more complicated and nobler man inside. To many in the audience, he has a strong sense of ethics, just not necessarily one based on the set of values or, perhaps more accurately, social needs most people have. Seeing House hand back the gun to a man who has shown he will hurt people — one of whom is Thirteen, House’s fellow — is shocking.

However, I found it to be in character, because I think the scene showed us that House is not only to be compared to the gunman, he is also to be contrasted. House understands the obsessive need to know, and he is now fully wrapped up in this case, viewing success not as taking the gunman down but rather in diagnosing him. I think it can be argued that at that point, the similarity of experience and outlook he thinks he shares with the patient is heightened by the extreme danger of the situation. One might have expected that the gun would throw House into post-traumatic stress disorder, considering he’s been shot before, but I think it is consistent with his character that any PTSD he experiences from the situation is related to the infarction and the crippling of his leg instead. He relates to the gunman’s need and thinks they share a common view of the situation, so he makes a grand gesture to show Jason they are working together for that common goal and hands him back the gun.

House thinks that he has established that there is no longer any need for coercion and therefore testing on Thirteen is out of the equation. He assumes he has control over the situation in the room and turns his attention to the SWAT team instead. But what he fails to take into account is that the gunman has never stopped factoring in the SWAT team. He is not as tightly focused on finding his answer as House thinks — instead, he still sees everyone in the room as playing pieces for how to get out of the room. House has been trying his best to bring the situation to a safe conclusion for everyone including Jason. Jason is intent on bringing the situation to his own conclusion and sacrificing anyone that gets in his way. Unlike House, he is not looking at finding the truth as the ultimate goal, but rather at making sure he gets what he wants from the SWAT team. It turns out to be a very large difference with huge consequences.

To House’s shock and horror, Jason decides to use Thirteen again as his guinea pig for the medicine, despite knowing that at this point, it will kill her. House is clearly caught by surprise at this turn of events. When he gave back the gun, he honestly thought he had established a relationship with Jason that precluded this action. But Jason has picked up that Thirteen is not sure she wants to live and may be using the situation as assisted suicide, and he’s willing to live with hastening that end for his own benefit. House is left with the knowledge that his own hubris in thinking he understood and could control the gunman’s actions has now endangered Thirteen.

His response shows his differences from the gunman. Told that he needs to leave (and put himself out of danger), House does not grab at the chance. Instead he argues with Jason about the morality of what he is doing and offers himself as the guinea pig, instead. Despite allowing the hostage situation to continue, House was never so coldly detached from the case he saw Thirteen as an expendable guinea pig. He was, in fact, very attached to this case, so much so it clouded his judgment of how the patient viewed the hostages. And House pays the price for his hubris, as he has to leave Thirteen to her fate and walk to safety himself — a long walk for House, but not as long as the walk back into the room after the SWAT team takes control, as he finds out Thirteen’s fate.

House fully expects to find Thirteen dead, because he’s accepted he misread the gunman and he’s accepted that at heart, Thirteen really wanted to die and took the drugs willingly. He is very happy to find out he was wrong again, on both scores. Jason does not in the end force Thirteen to take the drugs once she shows him she wants to live and that his action would definitely be murder, not assisted suicide. The standoff ends with House still having enough understanding of Jason’s need to know that he confirms his diagnosis for him through gestures across the room. And Thirteen’s ordeal has shown her she has not given up on her life and she needs to take hold of it again.

However, to the viewer, the issue of House’s complicity in the danger to Thirteen is very much still a part of the scenario. Is it to House? Will he struggle with how much he is willing to risk other people for his obsession to know? The situation ultimately gets resolved in a way that shows House was not in the end wrong about how far the gunman would go. But that walk out of the room when it looked like Thirteen would pay the ultimate price for House’s need to know looked like it cost House dearly. And he is a man who values honesty, particularly about ethics.

I think the episode played out beautifully as an exploration of what House values and why. It showed both his dedication to the puzzle and the way he can emotionally bond when something touches him. It showed that his ruthlessness can have severe consequences but also that he perhaps loses most sense of proportion when he responds emotionally, as he did to Jason’s need to know what was happening to his body. Like the gunman, he too can burn people around him with his single-minded vision, but unlike the gunman, he has different limits on how much. During the hostage drama, he didn't understand their differences, only their similarities. And of course, even that makes him complicit more than is comfortable in the end. The House writers pull no punches in keeping House a complicated man who doesn’t draw lines where most of us do. And Hugh Laurie continues never to hit a wrong note as he makes this character as fascinating as he is challenging.

Powered by

About Gerry Weaver

  • Grace

    Sorry, and no offense to you at all, but where is
    Barbara???
    I SO disagree with you about this episode. It had enough holes in it to be called, SWISS CHEESE. I was VERY disappointed.
    But, THANK YOU very much for your review.

  • Robin

    I liked the episode and I agree with your review. One point I didn’t think about is House seeing their similarities but not the differences. That is so true. About 13, when House had the gun ALL of them had a chance to flee. It was her choice to stay, which should make her also responsible for her fate.

  • Sue

    After House got the patient to take a breath at the end, House gave an acknowledgment to the gunman that he understood why he did what he did. With that look, House told the gunman that he forgave him, understanding that desperation led him to take the hostages.

  • http://blogcritics.org/archives/2008/11/29/191843.php jim

    Gerry, Your entire third paragraph could be a

    “Guide to Watching House MD”

    starting with “House has never been intended to be a heroic figure”, and especially “…it’s not always easy to define what’s driving him: ethics, obsession, self-interest, the desire to teach.” “…there’s usually a mix…”

    It might not be always easy to define House’s motivations, but you have done an excellent job here in a clear-eyed, yet empathetic fashion.

    And if I had to guess, I would imagine that you are a valued colleague of Barbara and have her full blessing for this review.

  • Gerry

    “Sorry, and no offense to you at all, but where is
    Barbara???”

    Barbara’s excellent review has been up since November 26th. This is a separate review from her column.

    “I SO disagree with you about this episode. It had enough holes in it to be called, SWISS CHEESE. I was VERY disappointed.”

    We each have our own lenses for the show. I thought the writers did an excellent job of bringing to the fore both House’s obsessiveness and his ability to relate to the gunman’s needs, and show that perhaps it is his ability to relate that actually causes the most damage–as House has always suspected. Thanks for reading!

  • Gerry

    “Gerry, Your entire third paragraph could be a

    “Guide to Watching House MD””

    Thank you jim, that’s very kind. I do think that the writers intend the audience to have an uneasy relationship to House’s choices and we the audience try very hard to make him fit what we’re comfortable with. It’s not surprising that on various occasions, the show makes some of us uneasy when our personal canons are violated. As long as show canon isn’t violated, I think the writers are doing their job.

    “And if I had to guess, I would imagine that you are a valued colleague of Barbara and have her full blessing for this review.”

    We are all colleagues here on Blogcritics and able to write on whatever we want. I’ve published on House before when something really strikes me and yes, Barbara knows and is fine with that. I also read her excellent reviews in her weekly column!

  • Burned Out on 13

    The words “excellent” and “Olivia Wilde” do not belong in the same sentence. She gets praise because she showed something other than a wooden quality after a year and a half of killing the show? You’re far too kind.

    While I disagreed with much of what you had to say, I think it’s great that you published something. There’s room for more than one blogcritic to discuss House.

  • Barbara Barnett

    Hey Gerry,

    Nicely done article. As you say…always room for more than one blogcritic. I think you said something very important vis a vis House and his motivations. At the point he returns the gun, House has misread Jason, thinking that the standoff is more or less over and that they are no longer in danger.

    Something else occurred to me that reflects back on the bus discussion back in Wilson’s Heart. House has not given up. He has come back (time and again) from the brink of despair. That he has been able to do that has reflected on his interactions with 13, with the emancipated girl, with the blind architect in “Not Cancer” and with Jason.

    As you say, there’s always room for much opinion on House, and right here on BC.

  • Barbara Barnett

    House has never been intended to be a heroic figure. …it’s not always easy to define what’s driving him: ethics, obsession, self-interest, the desire to teach. We’ve seen him act from any and all these motivations and because there’s usually a mix, House has always inspired heated discussion on whether he has an ethical code and how he interprets it, if so. This episode adds a lot of fuel to that fiery debate.

    I have to disagree with you slightly here (and it’s where we always tend to disagree, Gerry). I do think House is intended as (anti)heroic. He is a “force for good.” And without that, he’s simply be a tool. Yes, he’s motivated by his need to know, by his curiosity and how those things affect his self-interest. But he’s too often gone way above and beyond that.

    He distances himself out of fear, out of a sort of cowardice to face rejection (and himself)–and he distances himself to keep his edge and keep himself objective. We’ve seen what happens when he’s not objective. It’s a character facet (his objectivity) that really sets him apart, makes him non-judgmental able to see through the subterfuge. And he has flaws and weaknesses abound. But none of those detract from his heroism. I think he has a very classic Byronic heroism. He’s not a classic TV or movie hero by any stretch, however. But then he wouldn’t be House :)

  • Gerry

    Barbara, how lovely to have you drop by! Nice to have you here and thanks for all your comments.

    “We’ve seen what happens when he’s not objective. It’s a character facet (his objectivity) that really sets him apart, makes him non-judgmental able to see through the subterfuge. And he has flaws and weaknesses abound. But none of those detract from his heroism. I think he has a very classic Byronic heroism. He’s not a classic TV or movie hero by any stretch, however.:

    Yes, we’ve had a few discussions on how closely House fits the heroic mould! However, I think in this case, we’re reading him very similarly in that it was his lack of objectivity that allowed him to mis-read the gunman, not a detachment from caring about what would happen to Thirteen. Overall, I’m not sure House looks at every situation as a way to do good, but I do think he ends up being a force for good because he does have a sense of ethics and a set of abilities to help people most people don’t have. But his obsession with knowing the answer is a bit value-neutral in that if he follows it to the exclusion of other considerations, he can hurt people. And he struggles with knowing where the line is.

    I agree, though, that he has many hallmarks of the Romantic hero. And he does care about people and ethics more than he likes to let on.

    “The words “excellent” and “Olivia Wilde” do not belong in the same sentence. She gets praise because she showed something other than a wooden quality after a year and a half of killing the show? You’re far too kind.”

    I praised Olivia Wilde for the job I saw her doing in this episode, which I think was excellent. I thought this episode gave us a very good pay off for the focus on her storyline, which beautifully into the main narrative. That said, I think the writers have focused a bit too much on her arc, which is a common failing of theirs–they focused too much on Foreman in the last half of season three, too, and early late season one and early season three had a bit too much Cameron. At this point, I’m fine with focus shifting to Taub and most of all Kutner, whom I’m really intrigued with. But that doesn’t negate that Olivia Wilde did an excellent job in this episode.

    “About 13, when House had the gun ALL of them had a chance to flee. It was her choice to stay, which should make her also responsible for her fate.”

    Thank you Robin, for your comments. I agree that Thirteen had a share of responsibility in allowing the gunman to think that killing her would be assisted suicide and not murder, but I think House still has to shoulder the responsibility for allowing the situation to continue when there were other people than just him and the gunman affected. The writers did do a great job of having the three people involved have conflicting motivations not just from each other but within themselves.

  • Gerry

    Sorry, I posted a bit too fast, without error-checking! This part of my post should be addessed to burned out on 13 and it was missing a few key words I’ve added in:

    I thought this episode gave us a very good pay off for the focus on her storyline, which “fit” beautifully into the main narrative. That said, I think the writers have focused a bit too much on her arc, which is a common failing of theirs–they focused too much on Foreman in the last half of season three, too, and “late” season one and early season three had a bit too much Cameron.”

  • Habitusa

    Wonderful review, Gerry! Thank you so much for posting!

    “House has never been intended to be a heroic figure. He may be the protagonist of the show, but he’s a protagonist who’s a two-for-one deal — he’s also sometimes the antagonist and it’s not always easy to define what’s driving him: ethics, obsession, self-interest, the desire to teach.”

    Lovely description and so very accurate. I can not begin to tell how happy it makes me feel when I see people debating the ethics of some “horrible thing” that House has done again. We are invested into this character, and it upsets us when we can’t find a “noble” excuse for House’s behaviour, forgetting that this show is not about “the right thing to do” – it’s about “what House would do”, with all the compexities and contradictions that follow from his personality.

    “The hostage drama starts with House clearly differentiated from the gunman. When Jason asks him if he’s never needed to know something (in his case, what illness he has), House shoots back that he’s never shot anyone to find out.”

    I would go further in this analysis and remind the audience that by the end of the episode House is not contrasted with the gunman anymore – now he has indeed almost “shot” someone to find out the truth (by giving the gun back he almost got 13 killed). Even more than that, I think House and Jason trade places at the end – with House endangering a life of an innocent person and Jason not being able to go through with testing the last drug on 13, which would undoubtably kill her. How’s that for a “mirror” reference?

    “Now he includes Jason in the group of people who have needs and that shift pushes him into a rather more ambiguous role, as clearly the patient’s needs and the hostages’ needs are oppositional.”

    And to complicate the matters, there are also 13’s needs (who is ready and willing to die in the process) and House’s own needs (to diagnose). I think at some point House simply loses a sense of reality. In that CT room, with almost all the hostages already freed (and the last one staying on his own accord), House stops seeing any dilemma. The SWAT team is “invisible” and removed from the situation, and everybody left in the room seems to have a common goal, albeit with different motivations: Jason needs to get the final diangosis because he wants to find out the truth, House needs to solve his puzzle, 13 needs to die, and the remaining hostage needs to see how it will all end because of his curiosity. In House’s mind, there is no conflict any more… and he gives the gun back to Jason.

    “And House pays the price for his hubris, as he has to leave Thirteen to her fate and walk to safety himself — a long walk for House, but not as long as the walk back into the room after the SWAT team takes control, as he finds out Thirteen’s fate.”

    And it’s not the first time House has to pay for his hubris (love another reference to the tragic hero aspect of House!). Just like his own pride almost got him killed during the infarction (when he was insisting on being right about the bypass), it now almost killed another person. It is so similar, yet so different this time – we have seen many times that House was ready to risk his own life or career for an answer, or risk a patient’s life for a chance of a cure; but in “Last Resort” House did something entirely different – he risked a life of an innocent bystander to satisfy his own needs. I don’t think this is something he will find easy to live with and I am endlessly fascinated to see how he will handle his own decision.

    “The House writers pull no punches in keeping House a complicated man who doesn’t draw lines where most of us do. And Hugh Laurie continues never to hit a wrong note as he makes this character as fascinating as he is challenging.”

    This can not be said enough! Thank you so much again for this very intelligent review!

  • http://blogcritics.org/archives/2008/11/29/191843.php jim

    Habitusa, Interesting point of view and one which, it seems, Cuddy would mostly agree with as she holds House responsible for Jason’s actions.

    You wrote, “And it’s not the first time House has to pay for his hubris (love another reference to the tragic hero aspect of House!)”

    I’m so glad the writers did not let 13 or the ‘innocent boy’ die because then House would have been pushed over the edge into the tragic hero category. I like House just where he is, a new invention somewhere between the traditional anti-hero and the tragic hero.

  • KT

    It’s interesting to get another view of a House episode.

    I agree that it was a polarizing episode but not in terms of House himself. In fact, I thought there was too little of in-depth exploration of House and the detrimental effects his actions have on those around him, as Wilson told him in Not Cancer. Except at the very end House seemed unaware of any consequences his actions might have, either to himself or to others.

    House himself seemed remarkably unconcerned about the danger, as did Wilson, who a few episodes ago had said that what he was most afraid of was losing House, Chase and Foreman both of whom walked away when they should have been worried, Cameron, who we have been told has feelings at least of affection for House, Kutner and Taub. None of them really seemed to care about the danger House and the hostages were in. Maybe they were burned out from all the drama around House and Thirteen these days.

    The only people who seemed concerned were Cuddy, busy lying that she didn’t have feelings for House while wringing her hands over him, and Thirteen for whom this episode seems to have been written to advance her Huntington’s story. Everyone else, even House himself to some extent, was either badly written or expendable.

    “House thinks that he has established that there is no longer any need for coercion and therefore testing on Thirteen is out of the equation. He assumes he has control over the situation in the room and turns his attention to the SWAT team instead. But what he fails to take into account is that the gunman has never stopped factoring in the SWAT team….To House’s shock and horror, Jason decides to use Thirteen again as his guinea pig for the medicine, despite knowing that at this point, it will kill her”

    Thus making the gunman not only smarter than House but more obsessed and more ruthless about getting his answer. House may be an anti-hero but it only works if he is the smartest, most obsessed person in the room. When he’s written second to the gunman, or third after the gunman and Thirteen, it doesn’t work.

  • Gerry

    Thank you, Habitusa, for such a wonderful response. This episode has brought out wonderful thoughtful discussions, which I think was its point.

    “I would go further in this analysis and remind the audience that by the end of the episode House is not contrasted with the gunman anymore – now he has indeed almost “shot” someone to find out the truth (by giving the gun back he almost got 13 killed). Even more than that, I think House and Jason trade places at the end – with House endangering a life of an innocent person and Jason not being able to go through with testing the last drug on 13, which would undoubtably kill her. How’s that for a “mirror” reference?”

    I too thought that remark came back to haunt House. I don’t think, from House’s response when Jason involved Thirteen, that House actually was comfortable with the thought of endangering Thirteen–I think he really thought Jason was focused only on knowing the answer, as he was. But he did get a good look in the mirror, because, as you say, he can no longer make that clear distinction between them.

  • Gerry

    “House himself seemed remarkably unconcerned about the danger, as did Wilson, who a few episodes ago had said that what he was most afraid of was losing House, Chase and Foreman both of whom walked away when they should have been worried, Cameron, who we have been told has feelings at least of affection for House, Kutner and Taub. None of them really seemed to care about the danger House and the hostages were in. Maybe they were burned out from all the drama around House and Thirteen these days.”

    As is often the case with House, I saw those situations differently. I thought House took the situation very seriously indeed, and his wisecracking wasn’t an indication that he didn’t. His body language every time the gun swung toward him or another hostage was not of indifference–he noticeably flinched.

    I also did not think Wilson looked unconcerned. In his opening shot, he was shown in the same position the new and old team members were in–doing their jobs, but knowing House is in danger. When House calls Wilson, his response is concern. But House cuts him off abruptly, because he knows he is talking on borrowed time and Jason will cut off the call at his whim. He’s not in control of how long he has. So House gets right down to business and communicates his urgency. Wilson hears the urgency and responds. I’m not sure what else one would have wanted from him. It’s not the time for losing control.

    “Thus making the gunman not only smarter than House but more obsessed and more ruthless about getting his answer. House may be an anti-hero but it only works if he is the smartest, most obsessed person in the room.”

    I don’t think that final decision by Jason or House had anything to do with smartness. It was about what they were prepared to do to get what they wanted, and ultimately, what exactly it was they wanted. I don’t need House to be more ruthless than Jason to be fascinated by the character, though as Habitusa pointed out, some may read that he actually was. I don’t read it that way, because I think House’s action was predicated on thinking he read Jason right, and in the end, he did. I think House had a mirror held up to himself and he was not pleased with his own ruthlessness, whether it was more or less than Jason’s. I will be interested to see what the fallout of this episode will be. I expect we’ll see that over the course of the season.

    And its the same deal for the new and old team. Cameron is clearly concerned and she’s working on the case. She can best help House by staying focused on the DDX–that’s what will end the stand off. House’s calls are under the gunman’s control and can be made public whenever he likes. What is she supposed to be saying, other than working the case?

    I didn’t get the impression that we were being told that these people did not care for House, but rather than the episode was not going to focus on outside characters’ reactions. They had them, but we didn’t follow that strand. It was a bottle episode.

    The exception was Cuddy, because she was the logical person to be interacting with the SWAT team and because we are in the middle of an arc where these two are deciding how they feel about each other. The writers can’t tell everyone’s story all at once. Wilson has had a lot of exploration lately. This episode the focus was on Cuddy.

  • http://blogcritics.org/archives/2008/11/29/191843.php jim

    Gerry, you wrote, “I think House had a mirror held to himself and he was not pleased with his own ruthlessness, whether it was more or less than Jason’s. I will be interested to see what the fallout of this episode will be. I expect we’ll see that over the course of the season.”

    Yes, I look forward to how the writers will show us House accepting the truth and consequences of his ruthlessness and arrogance. At the appointed time, he will do it with naked honesty and without an ounce of rationalization.

    But during his last scene with Cuddy, House’s arrogance was still on full display when he said, “Let’s try it again, without me”.

    That is obviously a double entendre bit of arrogance, as the scene began with a close-up of a beautiful bronze art deco figure of a woman masturbating that Cuddy had placed on her desk. But, as you said, the writers will see to it that House reconciles himself with the truth he was shown in this episode rather than ignoring it.

  • Gerry

    Hi jim! That’s an interesting way of looking at House’s comment. I do think by the end of the season we’ll see fallout from this episode, but I’m not sure that comment for me encapsulates what he needs to see. House has always been willing to take big risks to get answers and this episode took that to an extreme. He has confidence to the point of arrogance in his ability to read other people’s lives and motivations.

    But that doesn’t hold true for emotional relationships he’s invested in, where he has much less confidence. I think that last comment is actually House taking an emotional risk, talking about things that he said he would never talk about with Cuddy and just run away from instead.
    I don’t think it’s arrogance at this point to say that Cuddy cares about him. It is typically House to say that in a way that isn’t respectful of the situation that just happened, but I have to say I am doubtful we will ever see a politically correct House who won’t say things like that.

%d bloggers like this: