Comments on: Boston Legal

By: Gary Wiram

Gary Wiram — Fri, 09 May 2008 18:43:00 +0000

You may want to check out my posting on Boston Legal, in general - http://afewdayswithfiggins.blogspot.com/2008/05/moveonbostonlegalorg.html.

Ironically, in a recent episode, entitled “Tabloid Nation”, Boston Legal, itself, addresses my very concern. In that episode, during one of his much ballyhooed “arguments”, James Spader, as Attorney Alan Shore says, “… today you can switch back and forth between the right-wing news and the left-wing news. Whatever happened to Huntley? Brinkley? John Chancellor? To news that was just the news? Now we have partisan junk appealing to the lowest common denominator …” I want to ask something very similar … Whatever happened to Seinfeld? Frasier? Tony Soprano? To brilliant entertainment that was just brilliant entertainment?

Now, it’s Boston Legal that gives us one-sided “… partisan junk appealing to the lowest common denominator …” Worse yet, its cloaked in the pretense that it’s still really just entertainment.

By: Ahistoricality

Ahistoricality — Fri, 25 Apr 2008 00:12:23 +0000

And this, ladies and gentlemen, is why the Supreme Court doesn’t want cameras…..

By: joanne

joanne — Thu, 24 Apr 2008 18:08:21 +0000

Actually, stuff like this does happen in real courtrooms. My father argued 5 cases before the Supreme Court (when Burger was chief justice) and it was contentious. Scalia is notoriously rude and obnoxious, interrupts constantly, and we all know the 5-4 majority are all political hacks in black robes, put there by right-winger presidents and go along Dems. So the show is not that far off. There are few lawyers willing to be Alan Shore these days, but it does occasionally happen.

By: Mike

Mike — Thu, 24 Apr 2008 16:55:40 +0000

This week’s episode will go down as one of my favorites and we buy the DVDs each year. What the Alan character said to the Supremes was amazing. The right wing of the bench have gravely deminished our trust in this vital third branch of our governement…what Shore said was speaking truth to power…Amen…long overdue.

By: karen marie

karen marie — Thu, 24 Apr 2008 16:50:02 +0000

there is just no way any attorney would make these kind of remarks in any court — personally attacking a judge — the attorney would be shut down immediately. it’s a nice fantasy, however, and it’s really nice to hear these words in the air.

By: Macjazz

Macjazz — Thu, 24 Apr 2008 05:16:46 +0000

“Alan” was in rare form, calling out individual Justices for their various idiosynchratic foibles (congratulating Scalia for not getting shot while hunting with Cheney, and for not recusing himself in related cases … telling Clarence Thomas to :at least put down the magazine and pretend to pay attention …).

It was fun, it was a hoot! Vintage Alan Shore. The show always has a bit of a tongue in cheek attitude, and Spader’s character was very cheeky indeed!

By: Phylise

Phylise — Thu, 24 Apr 2008 04:57:23 +0000

Henry: No - it’s not easy to be eloquent even alone, in an empty room. Of course, we know that this would never happen (more’s the pity) in real life, but I think that’s why they call it a TV show! The character Alan Shore was interrupted, several times and, resoundingly put down by the Chief Justice. I found it to be dramatic, powerful and terribly, terribly sad.

By: Henry

Henry — Thu, 24 Apr 2008 03:38:54 +0000

Easy to be eloquent (and seem superior) when no one argues against you (or even interrupts). Count me as underwhelmed with this as either drama or speechifying–even though I agree with just about everything he said.