Brooklyn Nine-Nine: Episode Analysis of ‘The Box’ [Season 5 Episode 14]
- Hilary Low
- Jan 29
- 7 min read
by Hilary Low
This particular episode is a ‘Bottle Episode’ (where the episode is written so it only takes place in one set and few cast members), aired on the 1st of April 2018, and is widely considered one of the best episodes in the TV series by fans. An intense overnight interrogation featuring loved characters, Detective Jake Peralta and Captain Raymond Holt, creates an episode that captivates its audience with the specific case, which is almost purely circumstantial because of the lack of evidence, and explores the complexities of the character arcs.
Throughout the episode, they explore Holt’s lack of trust in Peralta because of his immaturity and inherent need to prove himself to Holt. By the end of the episode it is clear both Peralta and Holt have undergone character growth. Peralta’s arc had mostly focused on gaining patience, controlling his impulsive nature, and overcoming his ego. Holt’s growth is less of a focal point, however still extremely relevant. Instead of micromanaging Peralta, he eventually lets go and steps back in order to allow Peralta to pursue new techniques that would benefit their case. Additionally, he expresses his approval of Peralta (the three “Oh Damn”s), which highlights his acknowledgement of Peralta’s growth. The criminal, Philip Davidson, is meticulous and calm, seemingly infallible when faced with Jake and Holt’s tactics to get him to talk. His place of work was a dental office, where he committed the murder by using a dental polymer to create a weapon, leaving no murder weapon as evidence for the cops and basically constructing the ‘perfect crime.’
The opening scene is a key moment that displays Peralta’s interrogation tactics, showcasing his immaturity and how he plans on ‘annoying him into confessing.’ The case itself is highly complicated, as he states they have a “clear means and clear motive” but are facing the DA’s office refusal, as they argue the evidence they currently have is circumstantial. When briefing Holt, his immediate lack of trust in Peralta to complete the high-stakes interrogation by himself is evident when he cancels his plans in order to supervise him under the guise of missing detective work. Holt convinces Peralta that it is a good idea for them to work together, and they discuss the classic interrogation techniques, such as smart cop/dumb cop. The details of the case are that there is no murder weapon and no witnesses. The body was found as a rotting corpse in the pine barrens after weeks. During initial questioning, they discuss the scene of the crime, a surgical suite, and how convenient, or lucky, it was. In the next shot, it is clear Philip was frustrated by this statement, ‘It wasn't luck,’ foreshadowing his character flaws. When Peralta loses dominance in the interrogation, Holt undermines him and takes over the interrogation, essentially forcing or manipulating Peralta into playing the role of the dumb cop.
The pair uses distinct interrogation tactics in this episode. One example is trying to get Philip to accidentally slip up. The use of “fought” by Holt instead of “talked,” which Philip corrects each time, is a technique cops may use to try to trip the criminal up. Their efforts have gone nowhere so far. He has an alibi they cannot prove is untrue. He claims he was at a bar and that no one ‘remembers’ seeing him there, as it was crowded. It is clear he has thought out every aspect of this crime, and he recognizes their tactics. Once Holt realizes he has not faltered at all, the plan is to leave Peralta in the interrogation room to question Philip further once his guard is let down. Quick-fire questions are used by Peralta, who adds a ‘did you kill him’ as bait, which distracts Philip from the purpose of these questions. He supposedly slips up by stating where the body was found; information about where the body was found had not been released to the public. Unfortunately this information doesn't hold up, and the pair are forced to regroup. Peralta considers lying that there was a neighbor who witnessed the crime in order to catch him, but Holt immediately refuses. If Philip catches them in their lie, they would lose their credibility and leverage. The fact that his ideas were rejected so quickly by Holt bruises his ego, and he is desperate to prove himself and that he is capable.
Both Holt and Peralta then go back into ‘the box’ and use more tactics, such as trying to catch him in the midst of a multitude of detail and getting up close and personal. However, this backfires once Philip ridicules Peralta, and they both begin getting riled up by Philip. Peralta suggests lying again but is immediately shut down by Holt, building up his frustration so he acts irrationally later on. Diverting their tactics, they try making Philip confront his victim, which doesn't work. Getting desperate, Peralta resorts to ridiculous approaches, which further undermines his authority in the interrogation. Philip is able to aggravate them, ‘get under their skin,’ and guess their techniques, reversing the interrogation. He highlights the flaws in their relationship, where it is obvious that Holt is leading the two of them and is the decision maker. Philip twists their dynamic into one that reflects a superior who doesn't feel comfortable placing his trust in an untrustworthy subordinate. This provokes Peralta into making a rash decision and moving forward with the technique of lying, despite the previous rejection of Holt. However, there is solid evidence of the neighbor not being a witness to the crime, as he is deceased. Once Peralta presents circumstantial evidence by lying to Philip, it allows Philip to summon his lawyer, who states that they have held Philip for 10 hours and 45 minutes. He is then set a 15-minute time limit for the interrogation; if they held him for any longer, it meant they could file a harassment suit, as the lawyer claims. From an outsider’s perspective, it looks as though he lied in order to frame the criminal, Philip, making it invalid.
In discussing the way Peralta wanted to be ‘the one that got him’ and how he wanted Holt to know he was competent and capable, he has a revelation. Peralta goes into ‘the box’ with 8 minutes to spare and paints a picture of Philip being an addict who impulsively lashed out and lost control, bludgeoning his boss to death once he found out about him stealing meds. “You got lucky.” A phrase he repeats throughout his ‘monologue’ as he had realized Philip’s flaw. Philip has a physical reaction to this phrase as he gets increasingly bothered that he may not be recognized for his brilliance. He rejects the idea of Peralta’s claim it was luck ("you're wrong," "that's not true," "no," "no," "no," "it wasn't luck!"). Philip’s lawyer advises him, ‘Don't say anything more,’ as without the confession, the detectives have essentially nothing and have not progressed in terms of revealing the nature of the crime. He finally snaps at “you got lucky at every turn,” confessing and laying out the details of his crime as he wanted them to know how meticulously he had planned this “perfect crime.” “He needed (them) to know how smart he was” basically sums up Philip’s mentality.
Finally Peralta receives the recognition he craves. Holt’s three “Oh Damn”s is both a segue to humour and also a reaction to Peralta’s well-played and brilliant tactical move. The episode ends with them going back into work and satisfied with the conclusion. Throughout the episode, they maintain a sense of humor while keeping the intensity of the interrogation itself, making it clear why the episode is so well liked.
Now that we’ve broken down the episode we can analyse the specific details of this episode and how it related to both psychology and law. Although I had briefly touched on some of these, I will break it down in bullet points to summarise!!
Legal aspects:
The lack of solid evidence (such as them not having a murder weapon or any withnesses) causes the DA to refuse to make the charge.
Even though police are technically allowed to lie to a suspect, the confession can be deemed coerced and it can be suppressed in court.
When Peralta decides to lie and is proven wrong, Philip’s lawyer is called (the right to counsel - where the defendant is allowed to request legal assistance through lawyers)
Philip’s lawyer arrives, the clock begins to run out. She acts to his best interests and tries her best to prevent self-incrimination, protecting his rights.
Through the Sixth Amendment, the right of the criminal is protected and they have the right to impartiality and a fair trial.
Philip confesses, blind with rage when accused of being ‘sloppy’.
This confession is of free-will, which makes it admissible in court.
Psychological aspects:
As a tactic to get Philip to confess, the detectives attempt to overwhelm his executive function with “quick-fire questions” in hopes that he will mess up.
A liar has to maintain a mental ‘map’ of their story and have a strong cognitive load management to keep up with their lie. In hopes of getting Philip to trip up, the detectives use this technique but fail.
The criminal is a narcissist, perceiving himself as a genius.
Throughout the episode the only time he loses composure is when accused of being lucky.
He wants them to view him as he views himself and experiences ‘reactance’ an intense urge to reclaim this image, which leads to him confessing just to prove himself (a reflection of Peralta’s character).
They ego-trap Philip. Instead of attacking his morality, they attack his competence (which he finds unbearable).
The power dynamic of Holt and Peralta I within the interrogation is a study of Attachment Theory.
Peralta’s actions are defined by his need for Holt's validation.
Resources:
Comments