I've Officially Given Up On "Boston Legal"

About two months ago, I wrote a post about what TV shows I planned to watch this season. This is what I wrote about ABC's "Boston Legal":

I've watched this show going back to the days when it was "The Practice". Back then, it was a compelling, intelligent show about criminal law. It's creator, David Kelley is an ex-lawyer and a big Hollywood Liberal, who unfortunately seems to use every episode in some way to take potshots at President Bush, his Justice Department, his Adminstration in general, the Patriot Act or Iraq. It's starting to get on my nerves. And the only reasons I still watch it are 1) my wife loves the show and 2) the outstanding performances by James Spader and William Shatner. They make the show worth watching. (UPDATE: And BTW, they both just won Emmy Awards) But I'm keeping it on a short leash this season and if the gratuitous Bush-bashing becomes to much to tolerate than the wife will be watching this one alone too - after Gilmore Girls.

Well, guess what folks? I have been a patient man since then but the November 1 episode was the straw that broke the camel's back. Based on the promo at the end of the prior week's episode, I knew that I'd had it with this show. The premise? A woman was suing the Federal Government because her 18-year old brother, serving in the National Guard, was killed in Iraq. Okay, now put aside the fact that such a lawsuit would be laughed out of court in the real world. The premise itself is ridiculous.

Now what I saw in the promo was enough of a reason for me not to watch the episode. And up until now, I have withheld comment for that reason. But Frank J at IMAO did see it and he and I are on the same page on this one. His post is a serious and thoughful one that I highly recommend it being read in full. But here's his take on this episode:

It had a few things inserted very clumsily for balance: one lawyer at the firm was angry about the whole case as he was a veteran of the first Gulf War and found it insulting, the parents were against the case though never appeared in the show, and Denny Crane, the rightwing buffoon - though a sympathetic rightwing buffoon that the audience is supposed to like despite his rightwing buffoonery - says a few incoherent rightwing things as usual. It still basically accepted the Michael Moore version of things as fact and the main conclusion was that not enough bad things about the war are being presented by the media.

Yes, that was really the main conclusion.

It then had the audacity to end pretending it had a neutral discussion of the issue which just furthers either its dishonesty or ignorance.

Aside from the fact that the writers are promoting their agenda in this episode with all the subtlety of a baseball bat to the back of the head, it begs the question: do they even know how to present a balanced look at any given issue? Frank points out that shows like "House" have done it, but "Boston Legal" probably can't.

The problem with shows like Boston Legal is they have talented liberal writers who probably assume they know conservatives well enough to write them when, in reality, they to conservatives are like those monkeys to the black obelisk in 2001: A Space Odyssey. And it's disappointing because of the talent involved, but there's a limit to how much my intelligence can be insulted and I still enjoy a show.

I have my own theories about the show's creator David E. Kelley and discussed them in this post from way back in February.

One of the techniques that particularly irks me is when the lawyers on the show spout off a whole bunch of statistics without any reference to their sources. No doubt the writers get them from studies or reports that suit them, and they probably even take them out of context and "sex them up". They might even pull them out of thin air for all I know. I'm sure that a lot of viewers, however, just accept them as true and accurate. Why should they question them? Many times people just assume that fictional shows are prohibited from making up such numbers or advancing certain claims. They're not. It's fiction for crying out loud. They can say whatever they want.

But the bottom line is that the show's ability to annoy and even piss me off outweighs any enjoyment I get from it. So I'm exercising my freedom of choice and, like Frank J, I'm choosing not to watch anymore. It wouldn't surprise me if more people did the same thing.

Posted by: Gary at 11:52 AM | Comments (3) | Add Comment
Post contains 815 words, total size 5 kb.