Episode 4: Queen of Snark
By: Carlos Uribe
Harry's Law is a
show about a lawyer Harry and her shoe store/law firm.
Spoiler Alert!
Harry's Law can be
a good show when it wants to be. Sometimes, it's not. Sometimes it
becomes a soapbox for the writers, where they can write their
opinions. It doesn't matter if their right or not. The show leaves
little room for any other opinion, presenting it's opinion as either
above everyone else's or as the only valid opinion. This episode was
the kind that forced it's viewpoint down your throat, quality be
damned.
This girl decided
to open a blog that was mean to some students. This cyber-bully
picked on some closeted lesbian, and the poor girl couldn't take it
and killed herself. Now the cyber-bully is being sued for
unintentional homicide. The show managed to deal with the case rather
decently, but it suffocated in an attempt to advance it's message in
the closing arguments. The closing arguments are usually a place
where Harry either successfully convinces the jury to side with her
with an actual argument, or a place where Harry spouts of political
opinions to get the jury on her side. Sadly, this week the episode
had Harry saying her opinion and therefore leaves no real room for
your opinion, whatever it may be. Good TV makes you think, it doesn't
decide for you.
The show also
forces it's opinion on the side-plot. Tommy Jefferson accepts a guy's
life insurance as payment and this appalls everyone else on the show
but him. They spend the whole episode trying to convince him that
he's wrong, even taking him to court (and losing). Tommy does get to
defend his point, but it's drowned out by the side the show is
taking. In other words, instead of leaving it in a grey area like the
Good Wife would have done the show kept it black and white-and din't
let you decide what was white or what was black.
This episode
wasn't a total waste. Jenna announces she's leaving and at first
every cast member from the first season simply denies it. And then
the show does something that could have been great: it uses Adam as
the voice of the audience. He's scared of all the change the firm is
coming and is afraid the show is changing. Here's the thing-we're
four episodes in. I'm down with the change, so this should have
happened in the first or second episode. It would have been great to
do that there. Talk about squandered potential. Still, the scene
where Jenna says goodbye to everyone was a scene that pulled the
heartstrings. Such a well done scene, and the final send-off to the
season one show.
After an exciting
season premiere trilogy, this episode was a letdown. It didn't leave
any room for grey, it didn't make you think. All it did was try to
leave you with an opinion, hoping that it had managed to convince
you. I prefer it when Harry is good enough to actually defend her
client, rather than depending on political ramblings to let her
client off the hook. This episode was not such an episode. Honestly
Harry's Law: let me make up my own mind.
Dual-posted to Facebook, but you seem to be on here more.
ReplyDelete---
Hey Carlos,
I read your blog from time to time to see what you're thinking of new shows. I'm particularly disconcerted by your assertion that S2E4 of Harry's Law was left-leaning and ideologically divisive. It was an episode against bullying, harassment, and the cultural acceptance of cruelty. Harry's closing argument railed against liberals even more than she did conservatives -- how is that being politically liberal? It was a call to arms against hatred of all kinds. Unless you think the GOP is the only hateful party, then it was equal-opportunity society-bashing.
You have a history of saying particularly hateful things, Carlos. You say them in jest, or without realizing that they're hateful, and for a long time I've just let it go. In the time that I knew you, you insulted my weight, my politics, and my sexual orientation on numerous occasions. Now you took offense at an episode of Harry's Law dedicated to those who are bullied? You of all people should be cognizant of the pain bullying could cause. I called out a number of people over the past year who attacked you for your idiosyncrasies. Bullying is hurtful, no matter how it's directed, or at whom. And until we start to accept our differences, and most of all to fight for those who are marginalized by not being a member of the majority, we are failing not only as Americans but as compassionate human beings.
Now I like you Carlos, but I think you need to do some reflection. You have a lot of really strong beliefs that I don't think you've ever truly thought about. Start to consider not only how you may have been bullied, but those instances where you've been the bully. I think you'll realize that, for a David E. Kelly show, this was one of the least political episodes they've run. Sure, there were snipes at Ann Coulter and Sarah Palin. But there were
I didn't mind the anti-bullying message, but rather the reason why the girl lost the case. Whether or not society is to blame, should she have lost the case? I think so.
ReplyDeleteThe episode was rather a defense of hatred by the individual in an effort to attack the hatred by society as a whole. Which would be fine, except I think that it should have let us question who is to blame: society or the individual, but the show lay little blame with the bully and nearly all the blame on society.
Or that's how I felt after watching that episode.