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




Paul Joseph

 

 

Read other reviews:
Michael Asimow
Chris Corcos
Rob Waring
Taunya Lovell Banks
First Monday web site
Internet Movie Database
New York Lawyer
Corpus Christi Caller-Times

CBS press release
Christian Science Monitor
Readers' comments

 

 

Why were the first two shows so painful to watch? Why did I find myself wincing? Why have the reviews, both in the professional press and within the ranks of PJ reviews, been less than enthusiastic? It's the writing, stupid. So far, it hasn't been very good.


Feature article

It's the Writing Stupid

Paul Joseph

The dramatic potential of a trial is obvious. The two sides do battle. Examination and cross-examination, objections and motions and final argument give plenty of opportunities for direct person-on-person conflict. That there are so many trial-based lawyer shows may not only be because Americans are fascinated by the legal system but also because getting drama out of a court trial is so darned easy.

The creators of First Monday deserve credit for attempting something arguably more difficult. The Supreme Court is, of course, the site of momentous legal decisions which have an impact on us all. The results are dramatic, but the procedure often is not.

In an appellate court, there are no witnesses breaking down on the stand. The parties may not even attend the appellate arguments. Written briefs make up the bulk of the legal presentations. Oral arguments are conducted seriatim, one lawyer after another. There are no objections, lawyers do not interrupt each other. Even with questions from the bench, it's fair to say that the dramatic tools inherent in the appellate setting are more limited than those in portrayals of trials.

The challenge, then, is to make not only the cases but the appellate process dramatic in a way that will hold the interest of a mass television audience. First Monday starts with an evenly balanced court. Four liberal and four conservatives (including the Chief Justice, Thomas Brankin, played by James Garner) are battling for the judicial soul of new Justice Joseph Novelli (Joe Mantegna). Added conflict comes from the battles between Novelli's three clerks, one of whom is conservative generally in conflict with the other two, a liberal and a moderate. Flashbacks to the cases get us out of the Supreme Court and we are treated to the Justice and others watching "point/counterpoint" type news shows with cameo appearances by real life issue celebs such as Jerry Falwell and lawyer Gloria Allred.

Actually, these tools are good ones and give promise that the show could be entertaining, exciting and (oh no) educational too. Several of the cast members are long-time favorites capable of turning in excellent performances. So why were the first two shows so painful to watch? Why did I find myself wincing? Why have the reviews, both in the professional press and within the ranks of PJ reviews, been less than enthusiastic? It's the writing, stupid. So far, it hasn't been very good.

It's possible to handle difficult legal and political issues well and still make dramatic television. The West Wing does it week after week. The show has become expert in finding ways to explain complex and difficult issues quickly but with depth, adroitly blending humor and drama while developing rich characters.

So far, First Monday hasn't found its way. The dialogue sounds stagy and cliched and the characters are cartoonish caricatures of their political labels. For some reason, the clerks seem to be playing their parts young-almost like the high school students on Boston Public rather than young lawyers in career-making positions.

I'm always leery about criticizing popular television for taking liberties with the details of law and legal practice. The goal isn't to create a documentary but entertainment television. But an error in the first show bothered me because it seemed unnecessary and because it suggested a failure of the writer's imagination.

In a truly horrendous moment, a Justice directs a question not to the lawyer but to the party, a pre-op transgendered asylum seeker-and then proceeds to ridicule the poor sod. Hearing the confusion of the client wasn't a bad dramatic idea, but couldn't the writer have found a better way to do it than the gross misrepresentation of appellate court procedure for no better reason than to show us that the Justice is a jerk.

It's too soon to write off First Monday. The show may feel that it must establish the broad outlines of character and setting before showing us nuance and depth. But the public won't wait long. The writing must improve or the epitaph of First Monday will not be that the show is bad law, but that it is not very good television.



Chat rooms:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/first_monday/

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/firstmondaytv/

Posted January 22, 2002

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

 Top of page

 Home | Silver Screen | Small Screen | News & Views