'Eli Stone': Saving Private Swain

February 14, 09:25 PM

I admit that I've worried that the visions-guiding-the-law career on Eli Stone might end up too cute by half. But I get it now -- and there continues to be more than meets the eye.

We start this week with Eli trying to talk the tow-truck guy into not taking away his beloved Porsche -- his Millenium Falcon, in which, he admits to his assistant, Patti, he made "shooting sounds" when he changed lanes (I totally would too). It turns out his bosses are taking away Eli's perks -- company car, expense account, and, we find out later, his chair ("it was ergonomic") in an attempt to turn him back into the lawyer-shark he used to be. And they're considering ways to try to oust him. So while Patti's doing the heavy lifting planning the engagement party for Eli and his fiancee, Taylor, Eli's taking the bus.

At this week's staff meeting, the battlefield scene and gunfire noises (no George Michael this week, I'm afraid, even though the name of the episode is "Father Figure") that Eli began hearing last week start up again. And he ends up crawling underneath the conference table. "They were all staring at me like I was Carrie at the prom," he complains to Dr. Chen, to whom he runs after the latest disturbing instance. In the episode, one of his comrades in arms mentions a Pvt. Swain, but Eli can't make a connection to a client or company with that name. And at heart, he really just wants to be normal -- the idea that he could be a prophet (a notion that Chen seems to buy into wholeheartedly) just skeeves him out. "You'd rather think of yourself as a dude who's losing his mind rather than a messenger of God," Dr. Chen says.

In the waiting room at Taylor's office, Eli ends up talking to a 12-year-old boy who's reading a newspaper article about troops killed in Baghdad. His mom comes out of the office in her Army dress uniform, and it dawns on Eli: She's Pvt. Swain. Taylor's representing the husband in a custody battle for the boy; the mother, a member of the National Guard serving in Iraq, is divorcing her husband and petitioning for full custody of her son, who's increasingly in crisis during her tour. Eli ends up becoming co-counsel, and then sole counsel to Pvt. Swain, much to Taylor's fury. "IS this some passive-agressive way of ruining our engagement party?" she asks. Really? Is anyone's engagement party all that important?

Meanwhile, in their quest to get around the "can't fire Eli" clause in the autism case settlement, the partners have served Eli with papers to compel him for a full physical. They want a CAT scan and an MRI, he laments to his brother Nate, the doctor -- who won't forge documents stating that Eli is fit as a fiddle.

In court, the case is fleshed out: Pvt. Swain is changed since serving in Iraq -- she wants a separation and a divorce. Brian, their son, is skipping school and his grades are dropping -- he needs a stable, competent parent in his life, she says. Even one suffering from PTSD? Taylor wonders. Eli's client tips him off to a 911 call by her son, and it later comes out in court that the kid is sporting some significant bruises on his abdomen. He blames his father, and a criminal investigation ensues.

During a couple more visits to Dr. Chen, Eli flashes back to an incident with his dad when he was a kid. Stone the elder experienced similar foxhole hallucinations and ended up shooting a hole in the wall. Young Eli took the blame, telling both his mother and the police he was responsible. The a-ha moment! Eli confronts Pvt. Swain, who admits that the case is something she and her husband worked out, staging the court battle as a way to help their son in crisis, knowing that if she won full custody she'd also likely be discharged from duty and not have to return to Iraq.

It all hinges on the summation -- and while Eli won't perpetuate the lie, he focuses on the fact that this is a family in distress, and that the best way to help them is to award sole custody to Pvt. Swain. He wins.

But it makes him think -- about his father's decisions, about how they affected ther family, and about the choices he's able to make now. At home, in the midst of Taylor opening yet another breadmaker wedding present ("What is it about us that says we like bread?"), he tells her that he just can't do the same thing to her -- inflict himself -- that his father did to their family. It's a lovely piece of acting from both Jonny Lee Miller and Natasha Henstridge -- quiet, but with a palpable twist of pain for them both.

What did you think? Did Eli do the right thing? Is the vision-as-career-guide holding up for you from week to week? What do you think the case would be about in an episode titled "Careless Whisper"?

in ABC , Eli Stone

Permalink

Comments (19)

TrackBack (0)

Comments

I found it odd that he broke up with her when just 2 eps ago he convinced her to not leave under the same circumstances.

Rishi | Feb 14, 2008 10:15:03 PM | #

I think he made a mistake in calling off the engagement, but that may not be totally over yet.

What I'm wondering at this point is how long he'll continue to act out responses to his visions. I guess "they" think that his immersing himself into the scene makes it more real to the rest of us. Hopefully they'll let him at least attempt to act normally through some of his visions now that he's becoming more accustomed to getting them. The key word here is attempt - I would think that he would have a lot of facial expression changes even if he stops throwing himself on pastry tables.

Melody | Feb 14, 2008 11:00:09 PM | #

I'm just waiting for the episode where he and his hottie apprentice finally hook up; you know it's gonna happen eventually.

Sean | Feb 15, 2008 2:31:15 AM | #

I was another person who was surprised that the writers broke up Eli and Taylor so soon. I figure that Maggie is a possible love interest for Eli, although Beth seems to be in the picture also.

It usually takes a TV show one season before I call it quits, but after this latest episode, I'm just going to check out the future musical numbers. There were just too many things that bothered me in this episode. So far, I've been ignoring all the nitpicking about the Law that other viewers have mentioned.

However, this episode was the final straw that made me too upset. I understand that we were supposed to sympathize with Swain's family because she wanted to stay home, but the Army would not release her. First of all, the mother VOLUNTEERED to join the National Guard, knowing full well that there has been a war in Iraq for the last FOUR YEARS, and she already had a child at home. It's not like she was drafted by the US Government, it was HER choice to join!

According to the Dept. of Defense, there are over 300,000 dependents of National Guard members. As tough as it is for families at home, NOT ALL of them go through an elaborate scheme to get their parents home before their tour of duty is completed. If Pvt. Swain was so desperate to come home, (since the courts and Congress refused her requests to leave), then she should have come up with a plan to be DISCHARGED from the Army. It sure beats having your 12 year old son commit perjury, plus brandishing your husband as a child abuser.

Pvt. Swain could have been discharged LEGALLY if she had an injury, found to be mentally ill, gotten pregnant while on leave, etc. I know that she would not be able to receive her benefits if she were dishonorably discharged, but I can't see how going through
the process of divorce, custody hearings, and a possible criminal investigation against her husband is any better for her family's pyschological welfare.

I'm sorry to rant about a TV show, but it really left a bitter taste in my mouth.:-( Eli did not exactly approve of the perjury, but it's not like he dropped her case either. I guess the message is that the ends justify the means. According to the writers, if any other children want to see their parents come home from Iraq early, just tell them to concoct a scheme where they accuse an innocent person of abuse, which unnecessarily ties up the courts, lawyers and judges. Because hey, it's not like our legal system has any REAL criminals to prosecute!

Sorry, but this show has lost me as a viewer. I don't need to see a completely accurate portrayal of the law on a TV show, but I DO NOT agree with the 'message' in this particular episode. I was hoping to enjoy this show because I adore the actors-- Victor Garber and Tom Amandes especially.

Paige | Feb 15, 2008 8:31:03 AM | #

um..paige..its a show. an hour to take us away from out every day lives..yes it may have been inaccurate, but what show is? it was a good twist that i sure didnt expect, and i think they did a good job with it. I dont think u should just stop watching it because of a little inaccuracy.

But anyway, i thought the episode was well written/acted. When he realized what she did, i was very caught off guard..yeah, i felt bad for the dad, but it was his decision, so cant lament on that too much. And as for him breakin off the engagement..first, not cool...only the 3rd ep...second,um, her father isnt gonna be very happy about this..

cant wait till next ep

Will | Feb 15, 2008 9:40:11 AM | #

As I stated in my previous post, I do not look for complete accuracy in TV shows. I have overlooked the legal mistakes in the earlier episodes because I know that this is just a fictional/supernatural show. However, I don't think the message of PERJURY (committed by a 12 year old child, nonetheless) is exactly what this show should have chosen. It seems to me the MOST COMPLICATED PLAN to get someone out of their military duty. The mother had regrets after leaving her family behind, but was going through a divorce and accusing your husband of child abuse an EASIER way to get out of the Army? Come on, Taylor must have been charging the husband a fortune to represent him in the custody hearing. How many people would rather have others know that you were discharged from the Army (honorably or dishonorably) than have your friends, co-workers, etc. think that your husband is a child abuser? If you try to deny he is an abuser, they would only think that you were covering up for him! :-(

Paige | Feb 15, 2008 10:06:54 AM | #

Willing suspension of disbelief.

John | Feb 15, 2008 10:20:01 AM | #

Although, I'm not sure how much of a fan of the show I am, this episode isn't why I'd stop watching. There's only so much of the acting out in response to the visions that I can take and I think it's getting old fast. Especially since everyone around Eli sees him acting crazy, and thinks he's . . . well, crazy.

Also, FYI, Taylor said in the episode that she took the case pro bono. Apparently Eli didn't since the Pvt. Swain fired her original attorney, in part, b/c she couldn't afford to pay 2 attorneys.

Erika | Feb 15, 2008 10:40:27 AM | #

Also, FYI, Taylor said in the episode that she took the case pro bono. Apparently Eli didn't since the Pvt. Swain fired her original attorney, in part, b/c she couldn't afford to pay 2 attorneys.

Erika | Feb 15, 2008 10:40:50 AM | #

Eli Stone ends. Next image --local news coverage of ceremony honoring returning soldiers and footage of them reuniting with their families. Lots of little children. Smiling wives. Guess what. No SNIVELING. We are a military town, we see these ceremonies often. For Guard and Reservists as well as regular Army. Eli Stone has so lost me as a viewer. The Guard, Reservists and regular Army are PROUD to serve. Despite what leftist Hollywood thinks. They are definding our country and our rights including Free Speech. Too bad a little truth is not required from those they are protecting.

Liberty | Feb 15, 2008 10:50:55 AM | #

What irked me most last evening was the fact that the writers didn't have enough faith in their audience's pop IQ to leave the "They were all staring at me like I was Carrie at the prom" line alone and not "sell it" with the "pig's blood" continuation.

I'll give it another viewing or two… who knows someone else like Tonye Patano from WEEDS may show up!

Dean Speir | Feb 15, 2008 11:53:25 AM | #

Well, I'm one viewer who likes "Eli Stone" more and more with each episode - I don't dissect every minute of every show but sit back and enjoy, which is why it's "entertainment."

And I get the whole support the troops slant that's been mentioned and I do support them - my youngest sister is a nurse in the Navy and has been overseas, so I am a family member who knows about fearing for her safety. It's just that they shouldn't be over there at all, except we have a president who doesn't care that he's directly responsible for the injury, mental health issues and death of each and every member of the enlisted forces.

Ginni | Feb 15, 2008 1:25:29 PM | #

Leaving aside the whole military aspect (and I was troubled by that, too. There are lots of families in crisis because one or both parents are fighting a war without end. It really, really sucks, but why does that make it okay to lie?) my real issue was with letting a child tell a lie that will quite possibly land his father in jail for some extended period of time.

One would think that sending one's parent to jail under false pretenses is going to haunt that kid for the rest of his life and leave some pretty severe emotional scaring. In fact, I'd think it'd make his crisis even worse. There's no way Dad goes to jail and doesn't come out a very changed man.

Not cool.

And while I've been overlooking a lot of the law stuff on this show (do they not have any legal advisers?)I'm pretty sure that Eli had a duty to tell the court that both parties were lying to the court. And if he's so worried about losing his license because he can't get insurance, one would think he'd be equally concerned about having his license suspended or revoked because he violated the RPCs.

Cynthia | Feb 15, 2008 1:54:36 PM | #

I find the show charming. I didn't like the Army/legal story, though I liked the way Eli figured it out.

I think they'll find out that it was a big mistake - I really didn't like the mother. She DID sign up knowing what was going on in Iraq - maybe it was one of those messages ABC is always trying to get across in shows like Boston Legal. I think it was in bad taste, but it doesn't make me like the show any less, just the writers.

I think that perhaps they broke Eli and Taylor up to free HIM up for broader story lines.

Actually my most UNFAVORITE person on the show is Loretta Devine - she's a little too cutesy for me.

But I really LIKE him. Hopefully there will be time for this show to get ground under its feet, cause it beats the HECK out of Lipstick Jungle and Cashmere Mafia.

Jan | Feb 15, 2008 4:07:34 PM | #

I'm a paralegal in a law firm that handles family law issues, and the presentation of the court case was absurd and ridiculous and so far "off-base" it wasn't even remotely acceptable. And I work for a former JAG Colonel in the Army, so we get a lot of military divorce cases. There's not a single soldier or servicemember who I've worked with that would EVER do something as dishonorable as what this woman did. I can't believe the producers expect us to swallow this hook, line, and sinker and still view Eli as a hero or prophet.

I watched the show for Victor Garber only, but I guess I have my Alias DVDs for that.

Amy | Feb 15, 2008 6:18:29 PM | #

I'm not sure they DO expect us to swallow it, any more than they expect us to believe George Michael was on the coffee table.

I think it was a bad choice, but people make bad choices on TV all the time. I've been channel changing and come across Nip/Tuck and been completely flabbergasted by what I've seen. Most of the stuff on MTV is completely disgusting.

There's a difference between a bad choice in writing and the really perverted things we see on TV every day.

I didn't like the story either, but I'm not willing to give up the show because of it.

I think they'll get a lot of flack for this and it could be that we see a follow-up show that DOES punish them for doing the wrong thing.

Jan | Feb 16, 2008 7:45:19 AM | #

well i liked teh story........loved teh ep during the strike it has become my 2nd fav show after lost!!

zac | Feb 16, 2008 8:02:20 AM | #

"Really? Is anyone's engagement party all that important?"

Oh, Lisa. You and I don't live in that world, but yes! Remember, this thing was a "gala."

I think we can all agree that this week's legal case s*cked and was VERY questionable ethically. I do appreciate that they were trying to tie it in with Eli's own experiences, but still...

Overall, though, I like the performers on this show and am still sufficiently intrigued by the situation to give it some more time. I agree that it would be nice if Eli could learn some coping techniques for "viewing" his visions and not acting them out so much. I wouldn't be sending him for a physical if I were a muckety-muck in the firm; I'd be getting him a psychiatric evaluation.

Yep, it's a mistake for Eli to split with his fiancee. He's worried about doing to her... and eventual children...what his father did to them. There's one huge difference, though. No one knew what his father's problem was. All grist for the plot mill, though.

meggins | Feb 16, 2008 10:14:03 AM | #

Actually, Eli is precluded from informing ANYONE of what his client told him b/c of attorney-client privilege. However, he could not have knowingly allowed his client to testify falsely b/c that would be supborning (sp?) perjury which is an ethical violation.

Erika | Feb 17, 2008 11:25:15 AM | #