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