David E. Kelly, Frustrated Liberal...

Now many people know the name David E. Kelly and some that do, donÂ’t know why. Kelly is the creator and write of many a TV show where either the setting is a law firm or the issues tackled on the show are legal ones. He first started writing for the show "L.A. Law".

In 1992, he created "Picket Fences", which was one of those shows that doesnÂ’t get phenomenal ratings but attracts a loyal audience and receives critical acclaim. What I like about the show is that it was set in a fictional small town in Wisconsin and every week there was some sort of criminal case of lawsuit that focused on a controversial issue. Now regardless of where you stood - or thought you stood - on that particular issue, Kelly had a knack for allowing both sides to be presented clearly and cogently so the average lay person could understand it. Whether the issue was the death penalty, euthanasia, abortion or some kind of civil liberties conundrum, KellyÂ’s characters argued both ends forcefully and quite convincingly. Frankly, he was fair even if the ultimate result was the one that he wanted. It was a very thought-provoking and enjoyable show.

Unfortunately, what happens to most David E. Kelly TV shows happened here. It got weird. Whether he ran out of ideas or the character development reached a plateau, IÂ’m not really sure. But all of a sudden the characters started to do things that were, well, totally out of character. Not only did the story lines get more improbable, but they seemed to go off on tangents totally unrelated to the core premise of the show. The same thing happened to "Chicago Hope", "Ally McBeal" and "Boston Public" .

Another show that I enjoyed was "The Practice" which was about a small, close-knit firm of lawyers who handled mostly the defense side and had to cope with the fact that their work was noble while knowing that an occasional client really was guilty, and would get off thanks to them. Pretty good premise. But again the characters got weird. For example, one of the partners, Lindsay Dole (also wife to the senior partner Bobby Donnell) was being stalked and she ended up shooting the creep point blank at a moment when he was actually unarmed. Any jury would view this as a "vengeance" slaying so in her defense they tried to argue "Post Traumatic Stress Disorder" despite the fact that the audience knew full well that LindseyÂ’s state of mind was normal. In fact her state of mind seemed to have more to do with her marriage which was falling apart and her inability to juggle motherhood and career.

Ratings began to slide, and the cases got so bizarre and clients were so blatantly guilty that you actually found yourself rooting for the Prosecution most of the time. One particular show that really ticked me off was when this guy comes to one of the attorneys - Lindsay again - and says heÂ’s done something "awful". He says he inadvertently strangled a young girl and her body was hold up in an abandoned building. Lindsay makes the guy take her there and, sure enough, there is a thirteen year old girl dead from strangulation lying in a bed. So what does she do? Nothing. The show was about attorney-client privilege. Too make it worse, somehow the police get wind that Lindsey knows where the body is and they implore her to tell them the location - even just a general direction. They have no idea at this point who her client is, they just want to find the body for the parents. Nope, attorney-client. The parents BEG her to tell just so they can bury their daughter. They already know sheÂ’s dead at this point but they desperately want to find her body. Nope, sorry. Attorney-client, you know. Too important. A judge even throws Lindsay in the slammer until sheÂ’ll talk. But she wonÂ’t.

Now, IÂ’m sorry I certainly understand the importance of the attorney-client relationship but this is absolutely ridiculous. Does this woman have NO soul? Clearly the show no longer did and it was reflected in the continual downward spiral of ratings. It was bleeding out like an ebola victim. Kelly was desperate to save the show. He cut most of the major characters including the lead, Bobby Donnell. At this point in the show, Donnell apparently is going through some crisis of soul-searching, his marriage is in the sh*tter and he decides to "bug-out" of the firm. Now David E. Kelly is an artist and a Hollywood Liberal bitter over the 2000 and 2002 elections (he is also married to Michelle Pfeiffer). IÂ’m sure at this point in the show he was as whacked out as his character Bobby Donnell, pacing around the room, unshaven, talking to himself. HeÂ’s probably wondering why the stupid audience isn't watching his show any more. HeÂ’s probably is also beside himself that George W. Bush is President and he thinks heÂ’s living is some fascist State.

So he makes one more attempt to save the show. Renaming the show "Boston Legal", Kelly keeps one character named Alan Shore, played by James Spader, and spins him off to another law firm whose senior partner is played by William Shatner. OK, he seemed to be onto something. Spader and Shatner are terrific with their characters. I think this is some of ShatnerÂ’s finest acting since...well, maybe ever. (Love ya Bill, but sorry youÂ’re no thespian). So whatÂ’s the problem? Well, now David E. Kelly the creator of enjoyable and thought-provoking television has been taken over by David E. Kelly, frustrated liberal. It seems he just canÂ’t resist using the show to take gratuitous shots at George W. Bush and his administration.

Last night, I watched a tape of the most recent show and it had two cases being tried. Both were interesting but they also included some unsolicited preaching on behalf of Kelly. He always manages to hook you into the story and then sucker-punch you. Now Alan Shore is in a bar with his honey (as associate of the firm played by Rhona Mitra) and some big guy starts hitting on her. Shore steps in and acts cocky to the guy who proceeds to smash him in the face. So Shore goes over to another bar patron and pays him $300 to go punch the big guy, and he accepts. Soon the big guyÂ’s buddies get involved so Shore pays an additional $100 to other bar patrons to go to his guyÂ’s defense. A full-blown brawl ensues. Where am I going with this? Stick with me here.

Shore is arrested for inciting violence and at trial he is defending himself. In his closing statement tries to connect with the jury. Now here it comes. He says his first instinct - which is primordial - was to hit back but he was afraid, so he payed the first guy to fight for him and things got unintentionally out of control. Then, with a voice and countenance full of emotion, he goes on and on about how awful it is that some people are driven to anger and puff up their chests and send other people to do their fighting for them in a fight that was totally unnecessary. You see the point?

Basically, Shore being on the receiving end of a cheap shot to the face was the result of his arrogance - like U.S. foreign policy - and he essentially "asked for it". Then he goes off and continues to act cocky, paying people to do his fighting for him while he stands on the sidelines while what he should have done was to have just walked away. This is exactly the way the moonbat left sees AmericaÂ’s War on Terror. They just.donÂ’t.get it. As for the other case, it was this big brouhaha where witnesses testified to a big conspiracy theory that the Beef lobby is in bed with the U.S.D.A. and the U.S. Dept. of Agriculture to cover up incidences of potential "Mad-Cow Disease" in the U.S. I kid you not. And even the witnesses had to admit that they have no proof. They actually cite Bush Administration officials - though not by name - as being corrupted by the Beef industry. This is the kind of black-helicopter sighting, tin-foil hat wearing kind of stuff you run across at the "DU"mmy website (Democratic Underground). Can you see why this is frustrating? Kelly takes an otherwise good show and uses it as a vehicle to lash out in the face of his partyÂ’s political impotence.

Kelly writes ShatnerÂ’s character, an eccentric legal eagle who goes around saying his name - Denny Crane - as a conservative Republican. But in this respect, Crane comes off as a caricature at best. The reason is that Kelly doesnÂ’t know how to write a conservative character. He doesnÂ’t know any conservatives, so he relies on all the sterotypes he has buried in his left-wing psyche. There are countless other examples of this kind of crap, but IÂ’ll only mention one other. A Somalian man living in American wants to sue the U.S. government for doing nothing to stop the genocide of the people of his native country. You see where this is going, donÂ’t you. Of course, America claims it wants to "liberate" Iraq and ignores Somalia because thereÂ’s no oil there. They actually argued that in court. CÂ’mon. Are they serious? Again, they just.donÂ’t.get it.

I have no idea what the future holds for "Boston Legal" but unless "Desperate Housewives" is a strong enough lead in for it, I donÂ’t know if it will go beyond this season. I keep watching because my wife likes the show and I DO like the characters. But if it dies, it dies. I notice that Kelly has a new show in production for the fall called "The Law Firm". Very original. I know right now, however, that I wonÂ’t be watching.

Posted by: Gary at 12:09 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 1686 words, total size 11 kb.