|
QUEENS SUPREME
by Christine Corcos
CBS has launched yet another
legal drama, Queens Supreme, set in New York City's trial
court system. The title derives from the borough (Queens) and
the name of the court involved (in New York State trial courts
are called "supreme" courts.) Like the short lived
First Monday and The Court, Queens Supreme
revolves around the lives and work of judges-unlike the two former
series, which simply could not make interesting drama out of
the talking heads that populate Appellate Court Land, this new
show presents us with trial judges and trial courts, that offer
much more in the way of legal conflict likely to seem relevant
to the average television viewer.
 Is Queens Supreme more
successful in its presentation of the law and its effects? So
far, I give the show a qualified yes. The acting is very, very
good. The ensemble cast keeps the sparks flying. As liberal,
quirky, off the wall Jack Moran, Oliver Platt (Married to
the Mob, Flatliners, Working Girl) presents us with a convincing
picture of a power-obsessed, principle-obsessed jurist. Kristen
Johnson (3d Rock from the Sun) made a striking guest
appearance in the premiere episode as his estranged wife, prowling
the corridors looking for him, or rather his signature, on divorce
papers. L. Scott Caldwell is efficient and cranky as Judge Rose
Barnea, concerned about her colleagues' problems but more about
their likely effect on the trial docket. Robert Loggia, a veteran
film actor, is on hand as Judge Thomas O'Neill. Carmen Hui and
James Madio as judicial clerks suggest the combination of loyalty
and dissatisfaction that afflicts capable but overworked and
underappreciated aides. The first episode features a stressed-out
juror tired of the deadlock over a verdict and desperate for
a smoke who takes over the courtroom until his fellow jurors
and the judge give him 1) a cigarette and 2) a verdict. Does
his admittedly extreme reaction represent the unhappiness that
jurors may feel over the seemingly endless dance that the legal
system engages in? Yes. Is it realistic? No, but who watches
television for realism?
Well, to some extent, I do, and here I part company with the
show's writers. Queens Supreme serves up a number of
unappetizing stereotypes that reflect but also exaggerate reality.
Both Moran and Barnea are overbearing and bossy folks whose intense
interest in their own positions suggests that justice takes a
back seat to ego. The clerks are so incredibly competent that
we don't understand why they haven't moved on to better paying,
higher status positions in the legal world (maybe the writers
will let us know as the series goes on). And the second episode,
which was actually the show's pilot, and introducing Annabella
Sciorra as new judge Kim Vicidomini (whose name no one can pronounce)
also introduces that age-old cat fight scenario between women
lawyers, in this case Vicidomini and Barnea. Vicidomini seems
to have gotten her position through political connections; Barnea
resents this and says so, both behind Vicidomini's back and to
her face. Realistic? Possibly, although I find it difficult to
believe that sitting judges would welcome a new colleague by
telling her they consider her incompetent. Barnea makes clear
that no sisterhood exists, particularly since Vicidomini is (gasp)
a Republican. But Moran, the left winger, immediately takes to
Vicidomini, setting up, we assume, more drama to come. In addition,
Vicidomini seems to be far more politically savvy than most of
the young lawyers I know-but maybe that's why she got her appointment.
Further, in both of the first two episodes, Moran's penchant
for "packing heat" is a major part of the plot. This
liberal carries a gun into his courtroom, although he doesn't
use it until the second show. He does, however, show it to the
angry juror in the first episode, a relevation that one would
have expected would lead to a resolution of the standoff long
before police finally storm the courtroom. It's somewhat disturbing
to consider that the drama in the first two episodes centers
on whether one of the major characters is going to spray a courtroom
with bullets, especially when he is supposed to represent the
rule of law.
Another recurring plot dynamic is the use of the "judges'
bathroom" in which the judges can spy on their juries. Ever
since the unisex room in Ally McBeal, bathroom humor has
achieved new status. Clips from the new comedy A.U.S.A.
also demonstrate "bathroom humor": apparently in one
episode a young lawyer accidentally gets water on a certain part
of his trousers and is caught by a judge as he tries to dry his
garment using one of those handy blow dryers. Another preview
clip shows the new attorneys learning about weaponry. Are bathrooms
and guns now to be permanent fixtures in lawyer dramas?
Most of the judges I know refuse to watch any of the "judge
shows" on television, on the grounds that such shows are
necessarily unrepresentative of what jurists actually do. It's
quite understandable.
Whether or not Queens Supreme lasts the rest of the season,
and I doubt it will make it much past the third or fourth episode,
lawyer shows will not be in short supply. In fact, NBC plans
to launch a new comedy, also set in New York, A. U. S. A.,
(for Assistant United States Attorneys) in February. Hope,
and lawyers, spring eternal.
Posted February 7, 2003
|
