(no subject)

[3pipeproblem]

Warning: tl;dr. And probably squee-harshing. For the record, I really did enjoy last week's ep, and the ep the week before.



Last year, I saw a case argued before the Supreme Court as part of my Constitutional Law and Free Enterprise class. We were originally going to see an employment discrimination case (because it, well, had something to do with free enterprise), but it was dismissed or settled or something, so we ended up watching oral arguments for Panetti v. Quarterman, a death penalty case. Basically, the Panetti understood that he'd committed a crime. He understood, moreover, that he was going to be executed, but he couldn't make the connection between the two--he thought he was going to be killed for preaching the gospel. Our professor distributed some background materials (ahahaha, which we passed around in the van on the way there), and it was pretty clear to me that the guy was mental ill. I don't remember much of it, but I do recall that in his original trial, he represented himself and tried to call JFK and the pope as witnesses.

But, compelling as that fact was, it was mentioned only in passing, because the Supreme Court's mandate is to decide constitutional law. A lot of time was spent arguing over whether the Court had jurisdiction at all.

I just...ugh. Yes, it's television. Yes, it's Boston Legal, and I can write off Denny making eyes at Ginsberg and so forth, but Alan would never have been able to get away with lecturing the members of the Supreme Court on their duty to the country, on their duty to society, on how children react to rape, on how many executions he's witnessed...it's simply not relevant. And he went uninterrupted for a good five minutes, which, unless he'd appalled everyone into silence, never would've happened. The members of the Court are extremely intelligent people. I don't necessarily admire Scalia, but the guy is really fucking smart. He would've torn Alan to pieces. After season after season of buffoonish judges, Boston Legal finally had a chance to showcase a compelling legal debate (not that that's what most viewers are interested in, but whatever), and instead Alan's self-righteousness trumped all.

I can understand Alan trying to personalize the case rather than argue the constitutional basis for it. That's who he is, and he didn't have a lot of time to prepare, and he was nervous. But to then be--unanimously--applauded for it? To be called noble and a credit to the profession? He lost the case, as far as I'm concerned. A man's life was in the balance and rather than do everything in his power to save him, Alan decided to go on an ethical tear before the Supreme Court.

It's exactly the opposite of what Alan Shore would've done on The Practice.

The Clarence Thomas bit was good, though. And Denny was adorable throughout.

Comments

[elgoose.livejournal.com]

So do you think the change in Alan's character from then to now is just pandering to the audience?

[3pipeproblem.livejournal.com]

Nah, I think that's too simplistic. Alan on The Practice was a destructive (and self-destructive) character, and you can't really have someone like that as the "hero" of their own show (ahahaha, which reminds me, originally, the spinoff was going to be about Alan pursuing a profession other than law after he was disbarred). And there has been some legitimate character development--most of it involving Denny--over the course of the series, no doubt about it.

But this struck me as blatant wish-fulfillment on DEK's part. Alan did the same thing in the Texas case (back in season one), but it was as a last resort. He'd exhausted all the rational arguments, so he turned to emotion and felt embarrassed about it afterwards (and ultimately lost the case--after attempting to employ unconventional tactics as well). Here he does it almost immediately and is rewarded by everyone around him.

EDIT: Now with 70% fewer "really"s!

Really!

[elgoose.livejournal.com]

The blatant wish-fulfillment (which I see in Alan every episode) means that Alan is becoming a worse lawyer as the series progresses. It's interesting, because there is a history of unsympathetic characters being softened and made more sympathetic over the course of a series but all the examples that spring to mind right now are dated and don't do more than show my age. At any rate, that's what the audience demands, making characters nicer (there are no rat bastards at CP&S. How credible is that? They always nicen up as the season progresses.). So it might be simplistic, but I don't think it can be entirely written off, particularly if we accept that Alan is so obviously DEK's mouthpiece. Can't have him be hated, not when the boss identifies with him on top of everything else.

I wanted more from this episode. And not just having Ginsberg take a nap, either. BL is letting me down more often than not these days, with only little sparks here and there that remind me why I got interested in the first place.

Sorry for the inarticulateness. I need to sleep.

YA RLY

[3pipeproblem.livejournal.com]

No, I see it, too, but most of the time I can bear it, because Alan does fuck up (though not usually in court, I have to admit). I would've had no problem with Alan taking the Supreme Court to task tonight if it'd ended with the realization that he'd done so at the expense of a man's life. (I do reeeeally miss Alan from The Practice, though.)

I didn't hate this episode (despite what it may sound like). I think I'm just irritated because they had a really ambitious idea with a lot of potential and they managed to turn it into the same old same old. I wish the writers had taken more time to develop it, maybe done it over two eps (the Scott Little trial lasted at least six episodes!) or developed the storyline throughout the season.

Re: YA RLY

[elgoose.livejournal.com]

Cheer up. Maybe he'll lose!

It would have been much better developed over a long time, you're right. I honestly thought this was the last ep of the season, and it got tacked on in such a way that I wondered if it was the last ep of the series.

It seems like the writer's strike has thrown the series off stride and it's never quite gotten back.

The episode's direction seemed quite uninspired to me, too. I was sort of bugged by the Supreme Court justice lookalike actors. That attempt at verisimilitude is always a mistake.

Re: YA RLY

[3pipeproblem.livejournal.com]

Some of the best cases on TP were the ones he lost, just because you could see how much he cared about his clients.

Mmm, I wouldn't chalk it all up to the strike. BL always gets off to a rocky (or at least uneven--I liked the beginning of season 2) start because of the rotating cast. I think the strike did lead to some lousy episodes and it did interrupt the few larger storylines the writers had going on, but one of the major problems is the fact that so few of the characters on the show have story arcs at all. I love Denny and Alan's friendship, but there's only so much you can do with it. And I think Jerry has been utterly wasted this season and whatever potential Katie had has been squandered, which is a shame. I did like the scene at the beginning of this ep where Katie and Alan were talking with Jerry in his office--it was like an extremely bizarre version of a mom-dad-kid chat. I wish they mixed up the interaction a little more.

I didn't mind them too much, and if they hadn't been shown, it would've seemed gimmicky. Maybe Aaron Sorkin could've figured out a way to not show oral arguments at all without diminishing the emotional impact of the case (which would've been awesome, imho), but (to state the obvious) DEK isn't Aaron Sorkin.

SCOTUS hits primetime . . .

[elgoose.livejournal.com]

http://www.slate.com/blogs/blogs/convictions/archive/2008/04/23/scotus-hits-primetime.aspx

Re: SCOTUS hits primetime . . .

[3pipeproblem.livejournal.com]

TV Guide's reviewer seemed to like it (well, he liked the SC storyline, anyway), too. Maybe I (we) have higher standards for the show? Or maybe because we watch it regularly, we could tell that a lot of it was old hat? I really only watch BL, and I'm sure in comparison to those of other shows out there *cough*CSIMiami*cough* this storyline was phenomenal.

It's funny--at one point I think there was a TV show in production about Supreme Court clerks. Dunno what happened to that.

Re: SCOTUS hits primetime . . .

[elgoose.livejournal.com]

Well, the woman who wrote this article is a law reporter, I guess is what you'd call it. Her beat is the law. Yes, that phrase cracks me up. What I thought was interesting was her take on the way it introduces viewers to the SC, and in what she perceives is a reasonably realistic manner.

I certainly have higher standards for tv than most people do (except maybe reality television). But I think you're right about needing to be familiar with BL to really put this in context. This was the latest in a series of Alan-rants, just in a stranger set of circumstances.

It would be interesting to evaluate BL based on only seeing one episode ever. I wonder what Dahlia Lithwick would think of a normal episode of BL. I expect she would be much less approving.

Re: SCOTUS hits primetime . . .

[3pipeproblem.livejournal.com]

Yeah, I don't know about that. I want to say she's underestimating the intelligence of the American public, but since that's basically impossible...I suspect that people who don't understand the workings of the SC aren't likely to watch BL to begin with. Maybe if they had Scalia on American Idol...

Someone left a comment that was right on the money about Alan just continually ignoring anything resembling a legal issue and instead arguing about moral principles. ARGH ARGH ARGH. There are cases that call for that and cases that emphatically do not.

[dj-jonny-flash.livejournal.com]

I agree on most points, particularly on your other comment about it seeming rushed. For the big "Supreme Court" case it should have been a big moment, something with some development and nice ressonance. Not a one off episode that ends with Alan making the same kind of rant that he always makes. I do hate it when the legal drama gets pushed aside in favor of DEK monologuing on the ills of the world in a vaguely connected way to the story.

The Thomas bit was great though. If it had been a real trial with that thrown in for good measure, then it might have been a great story arc.

[3pipeproblem.livejournal.com]

Ugh, I hate it, too. Sometimes there's a legitimate connection between Alan/DEK's pet cause and the case, but other times...he goes off on these huge tangents that have nothing to do with his client or the issue at hand. He was so unbelievably arrogant (and not in a good way), telling the SC what role they should be playing.

Hahahahaha, yes. When I went, we made a bet about Thomas speaking, too, but it was for like...ten cents.

Alan and Denny in DC deserved at least two episodes. They got two episodes in LA!

[watergal.livejournal.com]

I hated it from the time Alan stood up until almost the end. I hated that a person's life depended upon his actions, and Alan went off on his own personal agenda anyway like it was cool.

I hated that it was so preposterous (In RL he would have been cut off in three seconds) especially after last week's argument and the fairly realistic S1 season ender.

I did, however, love the hotel room fight, Denny's suit , Denny's fart, the judge look-alikes and Denny being willing to flirt with Ginsberg for the cause.

[3pipeproblem.livejournal.com]

Alan and Denny fighting while Alan undresses: A++

Yeah, it was such a jarring shift in tone from last week's ep. Hahahaha, based on spoilers, I was expecting Alan to go, be nervous and do his usual thing, doom the client, and then fight with Denny about it (and then somehow end up in jail, though that whole subplot was cut). In all honesty, I would've preferred that, and the changes do make me wonder whether DEK's written the show off as canceled.

[yes-itsme-again.livejournal.com]

I watched the episode (and last week's) having the feeling it was a "wish list" (for lack of better phrase)episode. It felt like DEK sat down during the break and wrote down arcs to wrap up before the series ends.

Unless this episode was the beginning for a longer arc (which I highly doubt) it was a culmination of Alan's death penalty stand by letting im argue it as far as it could go. Yes, letting him rant on was obvious dramatic license, but Alan's rants are an integral part of the show's formula. To leave it out would have left all those remote twitchy-fingered couch potatoes saying "Wha?"

Personally, I think it would have made a bigger political impact but having them cut Alan off immediately, but I think this is a case of playing it safe. I think if this were second or even third season DEK would have had Alan cut off. It would have caused a buzz. Now, I think more watercooler talk about the show would have to do with Denny and Alan talkinng about moving to Weds. Night.

[3pipeproblem.livejournal.com]

Oh, definitely, though I think the Alzheimer's plot was well timed and he did build up to it throughout the season (sometimes very subtly--Denny started consistently misusing/misremembering words sometime around the first few episodes). I enjoyed that ep quite a bit.

Yeah, you're right--this was the pinnacle of something, which is maybe one of the reasons I'm so critical about it (and it makes me wonder whether DEK knows something we don't about the show's fate). What can Alan strive for professionally, now that he's bested the Supreme Court? Hahahaha, I really, really would've liked for him to lose, I think. (Because while he might've lost the case, he met with so much approbation that it might as well have been a win.) I've been watching some West Wing lately (they were selling entire seasons for $20 at Best Buy), which may also have something to do with my discontent. I mean, it's another show that takes place in liberal fantasyland, but the Republicans are portrayed as intelligent and as people. It would've been nice for Alan to have engaged with the members of the SC, rather than just railing at them.

too freaking lazy to resign in

[trust-issue.livejournal.com]

I'm floored by the Alzheimer's plot. It's beyond a perfect depiction of dealing with a terminal disease while not making Denny a poster child. They are not having the characters walking around on eggshells with it and making it very human in saying that life needs to go on and be as fulfilling as possible but not trying to cram a second lifetime of memories into what time is left. That's been so over killed in TV, movies, and books.

and it makes me wonder whether DEK knows something we don't about the show's fate

I'm saying yes he does...but not in a negative way. I think he wants to have an endgame that fits with the quality of the show and if that means "quitting" before he's "fired". I believe that he is gearing up for next season to be the last. I believe he already has a good idea about next season's order and he's putting the pieces in place to play it out. At least I hope this is what's happening I know I've been out spoken about CJ's unceremonious cancellation....but that has nothing to do with the actual episodes and everything to do with Hollywood deal making. CJ was a true procedural with a few lingering arcs. BL is a arc driven show with a few procedural elements tossed in there. It and the audience deserve a proper ending.

[zebra363.livejournal.com]

I watched this episode the other day and thought the same, though I don't have your knowledge of law.

The reason I never got interested in the show until very recently is that I thought it was too unrealistic and silly. I've since realised that Alan and Denny's relationship trumps that for me, but I definitely didn't enjoy watching Alan harangue the judges in either this episode or the finale!

[3pipeproblem.livejournal.com]

It's difficult for me to (re)watch any of the Supreme Court stuff, because it's so clearly wish fulfillment on DEK's part. Alan argues a similar case in season one with the same sort of impassioned desperation, but the outcome is completely different (and much more realistic).

Yeah, it's not a perfect show by any means, which is why I wasn't ever upset when it failed to win Best Drama at the Emmys. Some of the silliness and ridiculousness I liked, but what really gets me is the preachiness. As the series went on, Alan got more and more self-righteous and given to grandstanding until it became his trademark. I dunno, Spader does a magnificent job with the closings, but they can and do get on my nerves. (Especially when they have nothing to do with the case! Why?)

I wish I could hook you up with season 8 of TP--Alan's much darker and more destructive in it (though he still has that compassionate streak). There's an ep where he conceals evidence, hacks opposing counsel's email, and then proceeds to blackmail the guy into a settlement with the fruits of said hacking.

[zebra363.livejournal.com]

I've watched the clips from The Practice on boston-legal.org! I was disappointed when I learned it wasn't out on DVD, but at least I've been able to see some of the highlights.

[3pipeproblem.livejournal.com]

Yeah, it should be out on DVD eventually, since they've already released the first two (?) seasons. Back in the day, I managed to pick up a sketchy bootleg copy off a site that seems to have disappeared.

Oooh, and certain copies of BL season one came with an extra DVD containing the last 4 eps of TP--you might be able to get ahold of that if you poked around on ebay.