You are the most hypocritical ...
Question: You are the most hypocritical so-called television critic I have ever read. Your recent
remark about
Boston Legal straining for cheap shock effect is totally laughable when you practically worship shows that are completely built on cheap shock effect, like
Nip/Tuck and
Desperate Housewives. If you took the cheap shock effect out of those two shows, you would be left with about 10 minutes of show each week. Is
Boston Legal over the top? Of course, but it is not meant to be a serious legal drama that shows us the inner workings of the American judicial system. It is a farcical show about a group of zany lawyers, but for some reason it isn't allowed the leeway and suspension of disbelief you seem to afford all of the completely unrealistic and over-the-top shows that you rave about on a weekly basis.
Answer: And some people wonder why this column sometimes gets defensive. Perhaps a more charitable word for "hypocritical" would be "inconsistent," which at least makes sense given the nature of television. My problem with
Boston Legal isn't that it goes over the top, it's the way it goes about doing it. (The words "straining for effect" may have been a clue.) On
Nip/Tuck, which isn't above criticism (that "Frankenlaura" episode about necrophilia was just sick, and I wish they hadn't gone there), the shock value is embedded in the show's DNA and often adds to the twisted psychodramas of these compelling characters.
Desperate Housewives, though woefully uneven of late, is a heightened parody of soap opera, which relies on improbable and shocking events to move the story along (if only they would). My big problem with
Boston Legal is that it delivers its so-called shock effect with a frat-boy sniggering smirky cloddishness, as if jokes about horny brain-addled old lechers (like Denny Crane) were fresh and inventive. (I will say that some of
James Spader's more perverse moments would be right at home on
Nip/Tuck.) The difference here being that what I find sophomoric on one show I find provocative on another. It's a matter of tone and, of course, personal preference.
To tackle this from a less combative angle, here's a thought from Andy: "To quote from your Oct. 31 column: 'It didn't strain for cheap shock effect the way Boston Legal so often does.' Do you really think this is Boston Legal's fault? I have a feeling ABC wasn't thrilled last season when Legal lost so many viewers from its Desperate Housewives lead-in. So how would one retain those viewers? Try to make it more Desperate Housewives-like. Of course, the network has since shifted the show to follow Commander in Chief, so the old Boston would probably have worked better. I just have a feeling that ABC told David E. Kelley to change the show's format because Season 1 wasn't drawing in the viewers. And even though you're so negative about the show, you have to admit Julie Bowen is a huge step up over the weak Monica Potter."
I'm pretty confident Kelley was more than capable of taking this show way into Ally McBeal territory without ABC's prodding. The intention all along appears to have been to make the show essentially comedic, with occasional detours into actual legal drama so the actors have something for the Emmy reel. Finally, yes yes yes on Julie Bowen. She's an enormous improvement and would be on any show.
[Editor's Note: If you missed Monday's column, you'll find it here.]
