(no subject)
Apr. 22nd, 2008 10:03 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
3pipeproblemWarning: 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.
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.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
Re: YA RLY
Date: 2008-04-23 05:02 am (UTC)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
Date: 2008-04-23 02:57 pm (UTC)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 . . .
Date: 2008-04-24 06:43 pm (UTC)Re: SCOTUS hits primetime . . .
Date: 2008-04-24 11:24 pm (UTC)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 . . .
Date: 2008-04-24 11:43 pm (UTC)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 . . .
Date: 2008-04-24 11:56 pm (UTC)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.