(Season 7, Episodes 13-14)
After almost seven seasons and close to 150 episodes, it comes down to this: when taken as a legal dramedy, The Practice no longer holds water. Which isn’t to say that it’s no longer good, but both legal and drama are stretches for this old-timer.
But taken as a sitcom? I found myself laughing a lot throughout these two episodes. I don’t think that was the writers intention, but they had me going!
7.13 “Character Evidence”
The case of Brenda Miller (Rosanna Arquette), an old friend of Jimmy’s who “ran over some guy with a gun that was in her garage” was absurd. I enjoyed seeing Mark Pellegrino, here as $100,000 extorter Herrick Smoltz, but the entire incident was lowbrow comedy. And not just because my guess is Brenda actually shot the guy herself. Rather, it was Jimmy’s buffoonery in trying to get Brenda to like him that had me laughing. He made some ridiculous speech to Bobby about how he was willing to facilitate the extortion deal for Brenda because “Guys like me never get girls like her” … which had what to do with anything? Did she say, “Get me out of this jam and I’ll sleep with you?” (No, by the way.)
Brenda didn’t even need to make up an excuse to wiggle free of Jimmy after all was said and done. But her lame attempt at a reason for not wanting to be with him, telling him he’d been “dishonest” by involving the police behind her back — after she’d lied to the cops and to him in the first place — was hilarious. And transparent. And he still didn’t see that she was using him!
Meanwhile Eugene had a guy hire him who’d tried on his secretary’s bra at work, gone home, forgotten he was wearing the bra (how?) and taken off his shirt, and was being sued for sexual harassment by the secretary. Great speech at the end by Eugene to the secretary, but did you just read the summary of the case?
I didn’t think of it myself, but if anyone’s a perfect partner for the convict it’s someone like “Little Grey,” AKA Chyler Leigh (playing Claire Wyatt), who sued a town for sponsoring soccer and needed a place to hang her shingle for the duration. No merits to the case, which means a likely record-setting settlement. If you can’t beat ‘em, laugh with them all the way to the bank!
7.14 “The Making of a Trial Attorney”
Enter opposing counsel on the soccer case, and a $35,000 settlement offer, which of course was passed on because “How can those barbarians sponsor something like soccer?!?” There was a lot of comedy to behold in the case making it past summary judgment, even if Claire’s stupid freezing up wasn’t one of the funny, or even enjoyable, parts.
But her seeking help from Jimmy certainly was. And like an idiot he told her to settle … not that settling wouldn’t be the luckiest thing in the world for her to do, but his advice for how to overcome her paralyzing fear in court was, “Settle the case.” He’s a genius.
The only thing that could make Claire’s sudden appearance interesting is if she has some ulterior motive to be there, like she gave birth to Bobby’s love child years ago and is laying a trap for him. Or if one of the convict’s old clients had some relation to Claire, and Claire was out to slit the convict’s throat. I don’t know why else she’d be around.
For the first time in a long time, Bobby actually had an interesting case. Not that I cared much to watch him try it, because it became yet another of his obsessions, but it is interesting to wonder what an attorney would do when faced with an old client who’d gone to prison for a crime he didn’t commit. I also thought the verdict interesting, with a finding of guilt on the part of the state and compensatory damages awarded to the plaintiff, but no punitive damages. This wasn’t a frame-up job; this was an honest mistake (we hope), and the fact that the jury was wise enough to comprehend the two disparate issues was nice to behold.
But Bobby’s guilt? The dramatic music during his closing? His calling himself an idealistic attorney? Get over yourself.
One other interesting issue brought up was the need for a parole applicant to admit their guilt before being granted parole. The ignored distinction between showing remorse and an admission of guilt aside, why isn’t it only the former that’s required? Should prisoners have to admit to crimes, even falsely, to be granted parole? Shouldn’t their rehabilitation speak for itself? At the same time, should an admission of guilt be a magic key for release?
Clacked by Aryeh S.
on Aug 12, 2010 @ 13:00 EST5EDT
