ABC's "Boston Legal": a great show occasionally marred by David Kelley's moralizing

For the most part, I really enjoy "Boston Legal" -- probably even more than I liked "The Practice."  The combination of James Spader and William Shatner can't be beat, and Candace Bergin looks to be a terrific addition to the cast, especially since it means the departure of Lake Bell.   Last night's episode had some terrific lines:

Denny Crane (Shatner): You left me.  For a secretary.
Shirley Schmidt (Bergin): He was the Secretary of Defense!

Crane to Alan Shore (Spader): Just between you and me, she's too much woman for me.
Shore: Between you and me, we'll take her down.

I also thought it was hilarious how Schmidt would whisper "Denny Crane" in Crane's ear to intimidate/arouse him, and both times, Crane twitched.

. . . On the other hand, I could have done without the entire suing the U.S. for the atrocities committed in Sudan storyline.  The tort liability theory (there's no duty to rescue, but if you start, you have to finish) was clever, but there was the insurmountable problem of sovereign immunity.  The United States can only be sued on its terms, and when it comes to tort theory, those terms are set forth in the Federal Tort Claims Act, 28 U.S.C. s 2679.  The Sudan case doesn't come close to qualifying, and the case should have been tossed out and the lawyers sanctioned under Rule 11.  Instead, Kelley's script has the district judge pontificating about how the United States should care about the genocide in Sudan, etc.

I won't disagree that the U.S. should care about the genocide, but it's dangerous for a mainstream TV show to depict federal judges deciding cases on such grounds.  It's just ridiculous sermonizing that weakens the quality of the show.

Since the point of the lawsuit was to generate publicity about the suffering, the same result could have been reached if the judge had tossed the suit, with the press then covering the outcome, speeches by the would-be plaintiff, and perhaps (since he was so rich he could afford to hire Crane's law firm) the setting up of some foundation to do some real work.

Comments

[Matt]

Yeah, the Sudan thing was little more than an excuse for political bloviating, but it's bloviating I generally agree with, Kelley writes bloviating well, and Bergen bloviates well, so I'll forgive it.

And how can you resist the "objects in the mirror may be smaller than they appear" gag?

(Fightening thought--allegedly, Scott Foley turned down the Spader part. I can't imagine the part without Spader.)

[tom]

Yes, I'd heard that Scott Foley had turned down the part, too. But I've also seen Kelley say that he wrote the part for Spader, so who knows. Probably a little revisionism-for-self-promotion by Kelley, I would guess.

[Georgia]

I will watch one more time to identify the sponsors. I really liked the show until Candice Bergan came aboard. I never liked her, still don't. She seems to bring politics to her shows, and is already muttering about Bush...I also did not like the story line about Sudan. Again, I dislike politics/personal opinions being aired as part of a tv show. It was fine before Candice, and I can't blame her for the Sudan thing, but hope the writers will take heed.

[Zethula]

I enjoy the show, particularly Spader, Shatner, and now Candice Bergen. But what is the fascination with hands? Cut to hands, pan up to CU actor. It's bad editing (or bad direction). Tonight they varied it slightly once by cutting to a reflection of Spader in a shiny desk and then panning up to him. It's very distracting and annoying.

The idea of this episode was fine but lacked its usual depth. The Constitution does not say refrain from promoting 'one religion over another', as was the show's premise in the court scene, it says "...with respect to religion". Therefore, per the Constitution, the only Constitutional-ruling would have been to allow creationism to be taught in a religious-studies class but NOT a science class. By this episode's reasoning, a science class should now have to offer ALL theories of creation by any or all religions, why limit religious-theory taught in science classes to just be that of the christian religion!

[david]

Yeah, I'm a bit put off by the "hot off the presses" subplots involving Sudan and now the creationism debate...and I really didn't like Bergen/Schmitt's jab at the "evolve from monkeys" crack re: the Pres debates...but it's TV, and it's greatly entertaining, and as noted above, Crain & Shore are *perfect* in their respective roles. Kelley has finally hit it out of the park, by integrating the best parts of Ally McBeal and The Practice into a great show.

[jan]

Replacing Lake Bell with 2 old hags is a BAD move. I loved the show, but will probably abandon it now. Who wants to watch a couple of old ladies, one of them a liberal Bush basher, take the place of a colorful character like Sally?

[Jessica Brown]

I am crazy about Denny Crain and Alan Shore. I look forward to seeing their perspectives in the story lines. On the other hand, the supporting characters like Brad and Lori and even Tara need a lot more development. They do not grab the viewer. Developing the characters seems to be a better idea than adding new people, even if they are more famous stars. Adding new characters every few episodes is a little unsettling because it appears a little desperate. This is only constructive criticism. I really love the show!!!

[PAT MILLER]

My husband and I love Boston Legal and James Spader is the best, as far as we are concerned he makes the show. We enjoy Betty White and William Shatner also. But we don't think you need to keep adding people the ones you have seems enough. The Show is better than any other show you have on TV, Get rid of all reality shows we are tired of them.
Thanks.