(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?

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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!