BOSTON LEGAL Takes on the Supreme Court
April 27, 2008 by Kath Skerry
BOSTON LEGAL is one of those shows which I rarely ever watch. It’s never really been on my radar. Despite the pleading of my father (who might be the show’s biggest fan), I never make it a priority. But at the same time, I must admit that whenever I have seen an episode (on the occasion that my parents saved it on their DVR in hopes I would give it a shot and talk about here on GMMR), I have thoroughly enjoyed it. The writing, the acting – different yet very good.
I first saw this clip of James Spader’s character, Alan Shore, addressing the Supreme Court the other day when visiting my friend’s site – SeriouslyOMG.com. Since then I’ve had over 15 readers send me the link as a reason why I should be watching the show. And they might have just convinced me.
Like it or not, this is some brilliant stuff.
Related Posts
Filed under TV News
[…] reading this post by: Give Me My Remote For more… RSS […]
This is so ridiculous in so many ways. Honestly, I used to watch (this is one I didn’t get back to after the strike, thankfully so now…) Boston Legal because it had good writing. I laughed off the liberal stuff because those few moments at the end of each show when Spader & Shatner riffed out on the balcony was actually good, original TV. But come on.
This is amateur hour. This preys on people’s ignorance. The big bad court put Bush in office, so it makes for great fodder. The ultimate irony is that Spader’s fictional character mocks the fictional court for their ignorance when in fact so many viewers buy this garbage as non-fictional fact hook, line and sinker without so much as watching an oral argument, reading an opinion or getting any sort of clue outside of their narrow CNN, Hollywood-induced, Huffington Report world views.
That said, GMMR, I’ll laugh off this post because those moments of Office Thursday, “what to watch,” and other postings are actually good, original blogging.
[NOTE: I WOULD LIKE TO STAY AWAY FROM PERSONAL POLITICS IN THE COMMENTS]
That being said, I wanted to clarify WHY I posted this. If you noticed I didn’t make a comment on the political nature of the video, and that was on purpose. I simply said that I found the writing and the acting to be good. Spader’s Alan Shore could have been arguing a complete right side point of view for all that mattered. I thought his speech was impassioned and convincing – and as an actor he did a great job.
Again, whether you or I agree with the content of his speech is not relevant honestly. But from a television writing standpoint I thought the set up and delivery was very convincing.
Read the post above. With all due respect, you chose to take something political out of it and put that on me. That wasn’t my doing.
But appreciate you taking the time to comment.
Wow. I think I’m a little bit in love. I never thought a show could be so bold as to go there. If only I had time for another tv show…
Wow. His acting was amazing in the clip there is no denying that.
Question: Did they over turn the guys death sentence?
Huh… only criticizing the conservative judges.
No agenda there.
You couldn’t be far from wrong Jim. Everything stated in Shore’s argument is based on very real facts and figures. Although the actual situation is improbable, a rant such as his would have him hauled out of court, his statements are drenched in truth. All of his statements directed at the supreme court are accurate if you do your research. This entire episode is based off of Kennedy v. Louisiana and if anything this is an appropriate commentary about the Supreme Court and its decisions thus far. The Legal Times even did a commentary on this episode discussing the legal accuracy and attention to detail. A blurb from the article:
Even Stanford Law School professor Jeffrey Fisher, who argued the real child rape case on April 16, has seen and was impressed by the episode-though he distanced himself from the more outrageous aspects. Fisher also argued in the Exxon Valdez case. “It was striking how closely the episode hewed to the real facts in Kennedy, down to the most minute detail, and (certain rants aside) to the real legal arguments the parties are advancing,” Fisher said in an e-mail. “The producers obviously had studied our briefing quite closely-same for the quick blurb about Exxon.”
Although this show strays from reality at times, the ignorant public needs to be exposed to some sort of truth.
I’m a law student at SMU and we studied this clip in class. Maybe you should do your research.
I have to get across my appreciation for your kindness giving support to individuals that really need help with this concept. Your private commitment to obtaining the solution across had become really effective and has continuously produced some individuals like me to realize their desired goals. Your personal insightful advice denotes this considerably to me and somewhat more to my office workers. Several thanks; from all of us.
I do agree with all the concepts you’ve introduced on your post. They are really convincing and will certainly work. Still, the posts are very brief for novices. May you please prolong them a little from next time? Thanks for the post.
My husband and i were so comfortable when Chris managed to carry out his researching by way of the precious recommendations he had through your weblog. It’s not at all simplistic to just possibly be making a gift of secrets which often other people have been selling. And we realize we now have the blog owner to be grateful to for that. The specific illustrations you have made, the simple web site navigation, the relationships you can assist to create – it is everything excellent, and it is helping our son and us know that that theme is thrilling, and that is quite pressing. Thanks for everything!
Wonderful! This blog looks just like my old one! It is on a entirely different topic but it has pretty significantly the same layout and design. Excellent choice of colors!