SAM BENEDICT: Warner Archive Nov. 22, 2016 (1 Viewer)

[Ian K McLachlan]

I bought this set as I very much like 60s drama. I did not know what to expect from this series. I watched the first episode and really enjoyed it. I had similarities to The Defenders but also many differences. At least with this series I will be definitely able to see all the episodes that were filmed.

 

[Jack P]

Decided to give this a shot and so far after three episodes it's proving to be "eh". On the plus side, I like the fact this was location shot in San Francisco (only show on location there I know if in-between "The Lineup" and "Streets of San Francisco"), and I also applaud the greater realism in showing a high-profile lawyer having to juggle multiple cases at once.

The problem so far is the main character. Edmond O'Brien is a fine actor and does what's expected of him but the problem is so far I don't like the character of Sam Benedict. He is far too gruff, prone to too many moments of sanctimony and arrogance and if the idea is to make him the Superman attorney who is always going to be right every week I have this fear that what I'm going to be seeing is a lawyer version of Jack Klugman's "Quincy". One of the reasons why "Perry Mason" works well even with its predictable format is because Burr's warm persona and likability keeps you from ever wanting to see Perry lose just once. So far, Sam Benedict is looking to me like the kind of guy who needs to get a humble-pie moment now and then.

 

[Neil Brock]

Pretty good assessment. I had seen them all a few years ago and felt that it was an okay show. Decent but nothing great. Some pretty good episodes, some not so good. Still, I would rather watch a mediocre lawyer show from 1962 than a lot of other shows that came later.

 

[Bert Greene]

Decided to give this a shot and so far after three episodes it's proving to be "eh". On the plus side, I like the fact this was location shot in San Francisco (only show on location there I know if in-between "The Lineup" and "Streets of San Francisco"), and I also applaud the greater realism in showing a high-profile lawyer having to juggle multiple cases at once.

The problem so far is the main character. Edmond O'Brien is a fine actor and does what's expected of him but the problem is so far I don't like the character of Sam Benedict. He is far too gruff, prone to too many moments of sanctimony and arrogance and if the idea is to make him the Superman attorney who is always going to be right every week I have this fear that what I'm going to be seeing is a lawyer version of Jack Klugman's "Quincy". One of the reasons why "Perry Mason" works well even with its predictable format is because Burr's warm persona and likability keeps you from ever wanting to see Perry lose just once. So far, Sam Benedict is looking to me like the kind of guy who needs to get a humble-pie moment now and then.

Totally agree with your assessment. Although I've always liked Edmond O'Brien as an actor, his gruffness (albeit quite real and convincing) in this role made it extremely difficult to warm up to the series. Some episodes were really quite good, while others sorely taxed my patience. By the time I was through with the set, I felt worn out. The show often had some decent bits of texture (little moments of realism outside the narrative) which I appreciated, but the whole self-congratulatory tone towards the law profession grew tiresomely unctuous to me. The low point for me was perhaps the book-banning episode with Robert Lansing, which was as calculated and as heavy-handed as one might expect. There was also a light-on-law/romance episode with Diana Hyland which gratingly epitomized the occasional wallowing excesses of the 'character study' approach to dramas of the time. (normally, this is an aspect I like about tv of this era, but it sometimes went too far in terms of psychological-themed self-indulgence... And then it loses me real quick).

The series ends on a good note, with a strong episode guest-starring Paul Lukas. And I have to give Edmond O'Brien credit for his one dual-role outing. In virtually every tv-series where the star actor 'guests' as a different character (all done up in make-up and such), the results are laughably phony. O'Brien genuinely pulls it off, though. Thoroughly amazed me.

But my final verdict? After watching the first-season of "The Defenders" and this "Sam Benedict" release? I feel absolutely no desire to ever watch any more 'lawyer' shows for the rest of my natural life. Give me anything else. Dramas, westerns, comedies, mysteries, sci-fi, jungle adventure, horror, costume dramas, whatever. Anything but lawyer shows.

 

[Jack P]

I can tell I'm *really* in for a rough ride with the rest of this show after episode #4 "Nothing Equals Nothing." First off, this episode is shot in color, no doubt the result of the same one-shot experiment that also saw one episode of "Dr. Kildare" this season. But boy did they really pick a loser of a script for this. For a show that presumes to be the anti-Perry Mason, this show resorts to the most idiotic climactic witness stand break-down in the history of television whereby Edmond O'Brien proves his client is insane because she goes bonkers over (are you ready for this?) the uttering of the name "Oliver Wendell Holmes" because (1) her father, a great judge she spent decades working for loved and admired Holmes and (2) she hated her father, so ergo any mention of Holmes reminded her of her father whom she hated and (3) that's why when editing a book about her father when she had to read about Holmes she went into rage and murdered her husband when he happened to walk in at that moment.

Probably fitting that in the course of setting up this unbelievably STUPID plot that they couldn't even get the most basic detail about Holmes right when Benedict refers to him as "Chief Justice Holmes." Oliver Wendell Holmes was NEVER Chief Justice of the Supreme Court.

I am in general not averse to legal shows, but more and more I have to come to the conclusion that from a format standpoint, "Law And Order" was the best and about 60% of the time a "Law And Order" episode is solid viewing for me. If the format for "Law And Order" had been designed in the 50s-60s we would have really had a winning show ("Arrest And Trial" blew it by making the co-star a defense attorney rather than the prosecutor)

And since I already know for a fact that the former producer of "Sam Benedict" gave his blessing to Paul Monash to steal old Benedict scripts for "Judd For The Defense" I certainly have no reason to ever subject myself to that show!

 

[Bert Greene]

Ha! I remember that conclusion to that 4th episode. Beyond ludicrous!

But, no, the series doesn't really go in that direction. It finds some other, quite different, annoying avenues to venture into. Also, it gradually shifts away from those breathlessly chaotic, multi-storyline efforts, which was one of its unique elements... to neither its benefit nor detriment.

 

[Jack P]

That's too bad they got away from the multi-storyline thing because the benefit of that is that it helped keep one story from being an "issue of the week" kind of thing as a certain other show was noted for.

Good thing the defendant in that episode didn't wander into Hooterville or Oliver Wendell Douglas (named for you know who!) would have been a dead-man!

 

[Jack P]

One other thing I have just learned. "Judd" is not the only lawyer show to recycle "Sam Benedict" scripts. So too does the pilot movie for "Petrocelli" which by sheer coincidence I also picked up and just started to watch. A scene where Petrocelli's client Stefanie Powers is up for arraignment recycles VERBATIM the arraignment scene in the color episode I just ripped to shreds earlier today!! In addition, the name of Stefanie "Hannigan" is lifted from the pilot episode of "Benedict".

 

[Neil Brock]

But my final verdict? After watching the first-season of "The Defenders" and this "Sam Benedict" release? I feel absolutely no desire to ever watch any more 'lawyer' shows for the rest of my natural life. Give me anything else. Dramas, westerns, comedies, mysteries, sci-fi, jungle adventure, horror, costume dramas, whatever. Anything but lawyer shows.

I feel the exact opposite. You can keep all of those other genres, except for dramas, and give me more lawyer shows (and teacher shows and newspaper reporter shows).

 

[Jack P]

The one legal show I would like to see emerge but which is unfortunately probably "lost" is "The D.A". An "Adam-12" story finished on it, plus this is the earliest show I know of that focused specifically on the prosecutor as a protagonist ("For The People" does not count with me because a show about prosecutors should not have them tanking their cases to cave-in to a recycled defense argument from another show)

 

[FanCollector]

What about Mr. District Attorney?

 

[Jack P]

Not familiar with that one, but looking it up, an early 50s show isn't usually the kind of era I like to go through or shows TV storytelling at its best IMO. A show from the late 50s, 60s and 70s is my preferred era.

 

[Bert Greene]

What about Mr. District Attorney?

Ooh, I love Ziv's "Mr. District Attorney!". I caught about a dozen or more episodes back when the Nostalgia Channel reran it. Never really think of it as a "legal" show in the sense of others we've been discussing. More of a crime drama. I don't remember a single courtroom scene in any of the episodes. I mostly remember seeing Joe Besser in a straight role in one of them, playing a parking-lot attendent. There was also a color episode shown, in which some neighborhood men go vigilante on some innocent teen they think has been breaking into their cars. Gosh, I'd go wild for a DVD-set of the series.

I also recall that Nostalgia Channel airing, years later, that James Whitmore show, "The Law and Mr.Jones.". That one was pretty palatable, all things considered. I'd perhaps break my anti-legal drama pledge for that one. Maybe "Lock Up" as well, especially as it is apparently slated to come out.

 

[mark-edk]

I recently watched an episode of Diagnosis: Murder that pretty much lifted its entire plot and bits of dialogue (along with a few character names as well) from a Remington Steele episode.

Oh, and I loved The Law and Mr Jones from when it originally ran on ABC. That and Perry Mason were major influences that led me to become a lawyer.

 

[Jack P]

I will say in fairness that episodes #6-10 have been better. Not outstanding TV but decent as with the exception of Episode #9's climax there's been a little less of Benedict's outrageous courtroom theatrics (the show at times seemed to try to have it both ways. Try to be the anti-Perry Mason but then give us an over-the-top Mason style finale). And I'll note that episode #8 is the kind of episode that in tradition with some of the best episodes of "Dr. Kildare" is a strong faith-affirming episode (this is one issue where the tone of a certain other producer I know will never intrude into the proceedings).

O'Brien is a little more toned down in these episodes. The problem though is that even when he starts to show a little more of the human warmth that we'd see from Raymond Massey on "Dr. Kildare" the bad first impression of those first episodes where he is WAY over-the-top gruff (we also learn nothing about his personal background. Is he a widower? A perpetual bachelor? ) lingers too much.

 

[Gary OS]

Not familiar with that one, but looking it up, an early 50s show isn't usually the kind of era I like to go through or shows TV storytelling at its best IMO. A show from the late 50s, 60s and 70s is my preferred era.

While I think there's a very general point that can be made that scripts got a tad more "sophisticated" (for lack of a better word) as the 50's progressed, I still prefer the 50's and early 60's to any other portion of TV history. Certainly there are late 60's and a few 70's series I enjoy, but I'd have to say give me the 50's over any other specific decade. Then I'm at my most satisfied. My sensibilities and outlook on life overall is best exemplified by that decade of TV as opposed to the others that followed, so it's easily my favorite.

As for genres, I'm with Bert. Other than Mason (which was as much a mystery as a lawyer show), I'd say courtroom dramas are at the bottom of the barrel for me as well. To absolutely no one's shock, my tastes are the polar opposite of our good friend Neil Brock's.


Gary "we really need more 50's comedies, and more ZIV shows, released" O.

 

[Jack P]

To me, early to mid-50s TV shows a storytelling format that's still too wet behind the ears IMO. I recently got the set of nearly all the episodes of "Mr. And Mrs. North" and the first three episodes reveal a show that is giving us radio scripts on TV. This was also IMO the flaw of 50s "Dragnet" where the scripts that had been used first on radio played much better there than they did on TV. I've also tended to find the early live dramas to be overly clunky and stagy. By the late 50s, I see with more filmed programs script-writing that shows a more mature grasp of the TV storytelling format.

Back to "Benedict." Episode #11 was pretty good up until its last minute when out of left-field (I'm not using that term politically) an outburst from Benedict ruined the secondary story. Episode #12 may also win first prize for being unintentionally hilarious and retroactively disturbing. The main storyline gives us Burgess Meredith, who already played a nutty eccentric that same year on "The Eleventh Hour" playing one AGAIN and facing a sanity hearing (only this time he's playing an eccentric millionaire who goes around wearing a toga in public and wants to burn all his money). Did Meredith get signed to a two episode "play an eccentric nut" deal by MGM?

More disturbing though is the secondary story where the young associate Richard Rust is defending piano bar musician Joby Baker on an attempted rape charge of a 15 year old girl who he insists he didn't know was so young when he invited her to his place after she showed up in the bar all dressed up and made-up etc. In the more "realistic" world of Benedict, the stars never get clients who we know are sleazy they're always going to be people who if not necessarily 100% innocent will still come out as the more sinned against than sinner. So the confrontation moment is when the girl comes in to face questioning from Rust. In an episode that already has Meredith in one storyline, you can only imagine the unintentional hilarity when playing the supposedly 15 year old is Yvonne Craig! (who was 25 at the time). Rust in the end breaks her down by showing how she snuck out to a bar, ordered drinks, wore makeup, dressed provacatively etc. and in the end we get a classic case of how it's all the girl's fault for fooling our poor noble at heart Joby Baker (who it is established is the son of a fine upstanding old-world immigrant. One suspects if his character had been a son of a rich businessman he wouldn't have been depicted this way) and how they were engaging in what was basically consensual stuff that hadn't gone to the ultimate point when the police showed up and she panicked and made a false attempted rape charge. Even in the pre-feminist era this story doesn't sit well and adding to it being juxtaposed with the Meredith storyline and then having Batgirl show up as the victim makes it even more unintentionally bizarre with hindsight.

Oh, and the teaser of another episode revealed another courtroom exchange that E. Jack Neumann recycled into the "Petrocelli" pilot as well!

 

[Bert Greene]

That episode with Joby Baker again pointed to why I find these kind of message-oriented' social-conscience shows so tiresome (and even a bit offensive at times). They're so predictable in the way they stack their decks. Like in that book-banning episode, you just KNOW it's going to be some crone-ish, sexually-repressed lady in a small town who tries to have the local library throw out an "indecent" book. And she'll reveal her mental imbalance on the stand before the grilling of our hero lawyer. What was even more predictable was the reading of the racy passages in the book, which were about as laughably mild as to be from a story in a mid-1920s issue of "Breezy Stories" pulp magazine. No, it couldn't be something genuinely vile or pornographic. Or even remotely untoward. Nope, we get a crazy biddy and an innocuous book for our free-speech warrior Sam Benedict to boldly stand up against. Just add the usual doofus townsfolk, a progressive teacher, and some protesting schoolkids. Which it did! Sheesh.

A recipe for what I call preachy, stacked-deck "anti-entertainment."

 

[Jack P]

I will remember to bypass that episode! Not to mention the next-to-last one, which deals with Benedict defending someone accused of being a communist. Do I need to guess how THAT one is going to unfold?

The episode that pleasantly surprised me was "Hear The Mellow Wedding Bells." In that one, the fault line between these MGM shows and Brodkin shows was revealed on the matter of dealing with faith. If that had been a Brodkin show, then Larry Blyden would have been the hero in that one and Zohra Lampert would have been depicted as "intolerant".

In general, it would have shown FAR more guts for Benedict to get stuck in one episode with the most vile of defendants who only gets represented because he's simply entitled to representation and fairness. That would have been a legal lesson well worth exploring.

 

[smithbrad]

To me, early to mid-50s TV shows a storytelling format that's still too wet behind the ears IMO. I recently got the set of nearly all the episodes of "Mr. And Mrs. North" and the first three episodes reveal a show that is giving us radio scripts on TV. This was also IMO the flaw of 50s "Dragnet" where the scripts that had been used first on radio played much better there than they did on TV.

Curious, dd you feel the same with Gunsmoke? This was also heavily done with Gunsmoke as well. One of the issues I had with enjoying the first season was that I felt I had seen them all before, even though i never actually had. This all because I had listened to the radio programs before seeing the TV show. Now they did tweak a few of the stories here and there but not enough that they all weren't familiar.