'Boston Legal' shows its spunky side
Tonight, Boston Legal began just like the start of a bad joke -- an attractive woman walks into Crane, Poole, and Schmidt (it's kind of like "a man walks into a bar"). I think in its last season the show should try to do a complete joke episode, an episode that is filled with nothing but stale lines from old jokes. However, that wasn't what tonight's episode was.
As the woman explained to both Carl and Denny, she had a case about a man on Death Row in Virginia whose lethal injection hadn't gone according to plan. The drugs to knock him unconscious didn't work and when the dose was upped the man started to thrash about wildly. One of the officers present, Preston Holt, seeing that things were going badly, went into the room and shot the criminal once, ending his life. Holt was now being tried for murder and had refused to take the lesser sentence the D.A. offered, he was convinced he was innocent.
I'm not quite sure why, but to me it felt like an awfully serious topic, far more serious than what the show usually handles, and the show handles stuff like abortion and murder on a fairly regularly basis. My feeling of levity wasn't even increased when Sack couldn't make it through his first cross-examination in the case without blowing his top. He had been trying to show that the way in which Virginia applies the death penalty is less humane than other states (like Kentucky). After an upheld objection, he began ranting and raving and it took Denny firing a shot into the ceiling to get everyone to quiet down again. Denny was taken into custody which he absolutely didn't understand, what with his only having fired a blank and being in Virginia, but Carl wasn't amused and let Denny stew behind bars for a little while.
Rather than attempting to defend his client, with his next witness, Sack continued to put the lethal injection law on trial. It wasn't Sack's smartest move ever. I get that the man has strong opinions on the issues, but he definitely wasn't putting his client's interests above his own. It seemed out of character for this one-time bastion of sanity at Crane, Poole, and Schmidt.
The D.A. was arguing the case correctly however. Apparently, in the case of a family member, Holt had come down squarely against using morphine to hasten death (kind of like assisted suicide, though technically not the same thing). The D.A. made the argument that Holt's helping the prisoner die was in direct opposition to his opinions on the issue as stated in the case of his family member. He wasn't saying that Holt's opinions on assisted death changed, just that he had committed murder.
It actually took a pep talk from Denny to rein in Carl's crazy and to get him to deliver a fantastic closing. Sack argued that the D.A., in prosecuting Holt for murder, had shown that he, the D.A., was in fact against the death penalty. Sack went on, stating that Holt was carrying out the state's determination that the criminal should be put to death. He then pointed out all the problems with the death penalty and argued that the D.A. clearly knew all those things and that's why he was against it. Genius! Pure genius! But, what did I expect, the plan came from Denny, of course it was genius. Carl won the case.
Alan got to appear in the show too (oh come on, you knew he was going to)! He was visited by a woman he knew way back when (isn't that always the case), Martha Headley. She was recently fired from her job and thought it was because she voted for John McCain. Her boss claimed that he himself had voted for McCain and that Martha was fired for being stupid. He may have been right, she claimed to have voted for McCain because she found Palin "spunky."
With Denny out of town, Shirley was working the case with Alan, and they got to go up against the famed Alan Ruck. That would be the actor, not the character, the character was named Wayne Davidson. Ruck was awesome. With Headley on the stand, he questioned her in a manner carefully calculated to make her seem stupid. Mission accomplished! Headley couldn't answer relatively easy questions about the differing positions of the candidates and even admitted to really liking Palin's spunk and intimated that it was a large reason she voted for McCain. I have to tell you, that's not how we should be electing anyone to any office.
After Headley's boss took the stand, Headley completely lost it. She was incredibly perturbed that her boss dared speak against her intelligence in open court. She felt it was sexism and that Shirley was a part of it. Shirley had to explain Headley that not only was there nothing to object to in the testimony, but that Headley kind of was an idiot. Shirley wasn't wrong, Martha Headley was not the brightest character the show has ever created.
Of course, Alan pointed out in his closing that the Founding Fathers didn't create a meritocracy, they created a democracy (I like to think of us as a republic), so it didn't matter if people were wise with their votes, they still had the right to make them. Alan actually lost. He lost the case. He deserved to. Even so, he had already planned a celebratory dinner at the Ritz with Shirley and tried to cajole her into going with him. She knew that he was looking for some loving, and she actually agreed to the dinner with Alan... if Denny consented.
On the balcony Alan did his best to get Denny's permission. It was a valiant effort, he suggested to Denny that the Mad Cow might take away all of Denny's memories and that he Alan should make love to Shirley once so that he could tell Denny all about it should Denny ever lose his mind. Yeah, Denny didn't buy it. He knew where Alan was heading and then tortured his friend by drawing some verbal images of his times with Shirley.
Thoughts and questions:
- In the middle of the show, Alan had a great conversation on the balcony with Shirley, it was definitely filmed after the election and discussed the notion of who "real Americans" are (they came to the conclusion that the election proved that the group of "real Americans" is larger than simply the group of white rural people).
- What do you think, should we actually be a meritocracy? Would we be better off?
The TV and Film Guy's Reviews - we've got merit, yes we do we've got merit, how about you!
I was impressed that they could get this episode on so quick after the election.
David E. Kelley is an f-n putz, all that damn putz does is bash people with morals, aka as conservatives, and kiss liberal *** all day. You wouldn't think a guy married to michelle pfeiffer would be so bitter about America and life, but that's a leftist for you. And those liberal phonies at Boston Legal bash the elderly,treat the women like sex objects, bash the military, governent ;basically seem to support anarchy, yet they are supposed to represent an open- mindedness. As most conservatives and any liberal with a half a brain , I disagree with the show on just about every ideological level, yet still enjoy the writing on this show. In creator Kelley's warped mind, he probally blames a right-wing conspiracy for his show being cancelled, ala hillary Clinton, but just as she's gone so will Boston Legal be gone in a few weeks. Kelley, don't let the door hit you on the way out, and if the American culture is so rotten, move to weaselly France they'll love you there.
Wow anger much? This is a TV show. That is all. A very good albeit insane TV show. Get some help for your anger issues.
"Like to think of us as a republic" . . . funny, the Founding Fathers thought the same exact thing when they created the Constitution. Public education is so effective . . . at promoting the liberal agenda.
As a product of public schooling, I was taught it was a republic as well. Heck, we said it every morning in the pledge of allegiance.
Get over it Mike if you don't like it why are you watching it??? Cause it is a well rounded show not like the other junk on TV such as reality crap and dancing with so called star's albeit old ones. This is funny and TV should be funny not trying to have people live other peoples lives or sic doing it publicly for all to see. 90% of TV is junk right now or stupid sports where really stupid people make ton's of money while lots of children go hungry doesn't make sense to me. But this show bashes everything to make a joke not to be your teacher DUH!
My anger is the costant belittlement and disparagement in the way Kelley views anybody, who doesn't buy into his liberal agenda. Most other shows have a liberal point of view, but his pontification on the way the world should be. The guy goes after moral agenda, without representing any solution. The show is anti-marriage,anti-south,anti-medicine (pharmaceuticals).Kelley, like a typical liberal presents all these questions, without a solution. I guess he would have no problem with some random guy squeezing Michelle Pfeiffer's backside or objectifying her.
My anger is the constant belittlement and disparagement in the way Kelley views anybody, who doesn't buy into his liberal agenda. Most other shows have a liberal point of view, but his show is his pontification on the way the world should be. The guy goes after anyone with a moral agenda. The show is anti-marriage,anti-south,anti-medicine (pharmaceuticals)anti-common sense.Kelley, like a typical liberal presents all these questions, without any solution. I guess he would have no problem with some random guy squeezing Michelle Pfeiffer's backside or objectifying her,that's the way every women is treated on the show.
Mike, Seriously calm down and stop watching the show. You say the show has great writing, but yet you can't stand the show. Why do you subject yourself to this TV show?...just to make you angry? There are very good anger management groups out there that can help you work through these issues.
I for one don't mind the constant stream of liberal propaganda emanating from the show. However, when you start calling people who do not agree with you idiots in the show, it crosses a line. They have no arguments so they resort to ad hominem attacks? Genius. Great writing! Mr. Kelly, you are not some great evolved intellectual because you have liberal views. And accusing PUMAs of being sexist or idiots because they voted Hillary and then McCain is just plain dumb. Perhaps they did not think that Obama's 143 days in the Senate qualified him enough to be President. Playing your idiotic game, what about the African Americans? Are you going to accuse black people of being racist because they voted for Obama by a 95%-5% margin? Are you going to accuse young people of being ageists because they voted for Obama (25 years younger than McCain) by a 2 to 1 margin. Probably not, because they share the same warped political views as yourself. Resorting to ad hominem attacks is beneath you Mr. Kelly.