Picturing Justice, the On-Line Journal of Law and Popular Culture



Paul Joseph

 

Read other reviews:

Christine Corcos
Michael Asimow
Taunya Lovell Banks
J. Howard Sundermann
Lev Ginsburg

The Court homepage
Reader's comments
 

 

The device of the cynical and hungry investigative reporter gets us out of the Court and allows a second dramatic stream, a continuing "outsider" commentary and critique of the Court, its people, the cases and the political institutions of government.


Feature article

Home Court Advantage

by Paul Joseph

There are a number of similarities between the new ABC Supreme Court show, The Court, and its competition, First Monday. Both focus on a new Justice appointed to an evenly divided (liberal/conservative) Supreme Court. Both purport to take us "behind the scenes" to watch the Court's inner workings. Both focus on the interpersonal relations between the Justices and between the Justices and their clerks. Both move us out of the courtroom to address the human side of the cases. Both use the device of news and commentary television as a sort of Greek chorus, commenting on the action.

Despite these structural similarities, the programs are dramatically different. While First Monday quickly sunk into self-parody, clownish characterizations and downright embarrassing portrayals of court personnel and procedure, The Court, with its intelligent writing and careful plot-crafting, delivers a classy adult drama.

Sally Field, as newly appointed Justice without ideology Kate Nolan, heads an experienced cast of players who, even in the first show, deliver convincing and interesting portrayals. When, at the end of the program, reporter Harlan Brandt (Craig Bierko) tells us that Nolan, like the inmate in a case before the Court, has also been given a kind of "life sentence," our response is that we want to come back and watch as it unfolds. We have the sense that not only Kate Nolan but all the principal characters have lives with depths not yet obvious and that there is plenty of room for the emotional landscape to deepen with time.

The device of the cynical and hungry investigative reporter gets us out of the Court and allows a second dramatic stream, a continuing "outsider" commentary and critique of the Court, its people, the cases and the political institutions of government. We shouldn't see anything on The Court as devastatingly bad as the scene in First Monday where the Justice asked questions of the party (rather than the lawyer), a heavy-handed attempt by less adept writers to pump up the drama. The Court is smarter than that and in the hands of veteran writer/producer Carol Flint, it is easy to trust that sufficient tools exist to make such embarrassing stuff unnecessary.

If there is one (muted) criticism of The Court in its first episode, it is that the explanation of the legal issues surrounding the "three strikes" case before the Court was a bit murky. I doubt whether viewers came away with a clear understanding of the issue. Yet, the episode had so much to do-establishing setting, character and conflict-that this lapse is forgivable. West Wing has found it possible to explain political issues of complexity and depth in a few simple sentences and The Court seems headed in the same direction. If it takes a few episodes to reach nirvana, I'm willing to wait.

The Court is what First Monday was not--a well written, carefully crafted drama with winning adult characters about whom we care. It's good television and has the potential to be very good legal television, too. The Court is now in session. Call the next case!

Posted March 28, 2002

Would you like to comment on this article? Please submit your comments here.

 Top of page

 Home | Silver Screen | Small Screen | News & Views