What's new

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

Jack P

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Apr 15, 2006
Messages
5,593
Real Name
Jack
I had not heard the radio episodes of Gunsmoke before but I have felt by and large that from the outset Gunsmoke took scripts that even while radio originally at least knew how to use the film medium properly and make them TV stories. I could tell the "Boot Hill" intros that were part of the early seasons were clearly a radio holdover, but they made it properly cinematic I felt and transcended that. It helped that "Gunsmoke" debuted in 1955 which is when the medium I think was maturing more. Had it debuted in 52-53 it might not have been as strong.
 

GMBurns

Supporting Actor
Joined
Oct 14, 2011
Messages
693
Location
Plainville, CT
Real Name
Glenn
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.

I agree that the storytelling became more mature in the mid-50's, but to me that is exactly why I have really enjoyed things like Mr. and Mrs. North. After a day at work with all the human drama of an office, after hearing about politicians yelling at each other rather than working together, after getting the latest college bill with yet another tuition increase, 25 minutes of a world like the one that Jerry and Pam inhabit is a welcome bit of suspension of disbelief. I also enjoy the more developed stories from later in the decade. Primarily I watch TV to disengage my brain and relax, so I'm fine with Pam finding her neighbor murdered and solving the mystery in less than half an hour, all the while dragging along her flustered husband.
 

Jack P

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Apr 15, 2006
Messages
5,593
Real Name
Jack
Episode #14-A pretentious backdoor anti-death penalty episode. By backdoor I mean one where they pick a case that bears ZERO resemblance to the reality of what a real death penalty case would be like to give us all the pompous sermons about how evil and injuman the idea of capital punishment is. The thing though is that these kind of shows back in the day could never be blunt about the kind of horrific murders and crimes that would lend credence to the argument that the death penalty is in fact quite justified.

Episode #15-This episode actually comes close to making amends for the previous episode and even comes close to forcing Sam Benedict to get that much-needed humble pie experience for his character but unfortunately cops out by giving Benedict an escape hatch to avoid confronting the more interesting question. We start with Benedict's client, Frank Overton, being convicted for killing his wife and getting a death sentence. Benedict brashly predicts an appeal and a new trial will come. But the focus then turns to the matter of Overton's two small children and how Overton's sister Geraldine Brooks can't afford to look after them, and how the insurance policy that Overton took out on his wife is null due to the conviction so the children can't get the funds that would allow his sister to look after them.

Halfway through the episode, we get an unexpected turn where a disconsolate Overton confesses to a stunned Benedict that he doesn't want to bother with the appeal because he's guilty and if he were freed he could never look his children in the eye because he killed their mother. Benedict is sent reeling and retreats to his office and for the first time this arrogance is gone as he admits to Rust that this is the first time he has EVER in 42 murder trials had a case of finding out his client was lying to him before the process was over. That in a nutshell sums up the problem with a character like Benedict and why his proclamations about capital punishment ring hollow. He's never had to confront the fact during a trial that yes, he is defending someone who has no extenuating circumstances, who committed an act of mindless brutality etc. and thus he's been able by carefully picking his clients in the past and always getting lucky been able to justify his own POV on the subject.

But just when the episode is getting interesting in this regard they decide to punt and give Benedict an escape hatch. After this self-reflective musing on Benedict's part he gets a phone call that Overton has dropped dead of a heart attack. That means Benedict can now find an out for the kids by in effect giving us what happened just recently with Aaron Hernandez. Because the appeal was still in process at the time the defendant died, things become moot, we will never know what would have happened so the law must revert to a presumption of innocence and thus the conviction becomes vacant, and thus the kids can get the insurance money and Brooks can afford to raise them!

If that isn't enough of a cop-out to avoid having Benedict end the episode chastened the tag compounds it when Brooks asks him point-blank if her brother killed his wife. Benedict, who is always so blunt side-steps it with one of those, "Whatever he did or didn't do isn't relevant any longer, you must look forward now....." blah-blah speeches that is designed to let things end on an "up" note and also allow Benedict's final exchange with Rust to be one of the usual light-hearted quip moments. In the end, this episode gives us a classic case of how legal shows that decided to be "issue" oriented back in the day never had any real conception of how to properly handle opposing viewpoints that they were never exposed enough to. This episode comes close to recognizing the hypocrisy of Benedict but they're too afraid to take it further because there would go the lofty underpinnings they attach to their character.
 

FanCollector

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Nov 6, 2006
Messages
5,010
Real Name
Lee
In fairness, wouldn't it be a violation of Benedict's legal ethics to disclose the confession afterwards? Whether or not his client is still alive, he is obligated to maintain confidentiality.

As to your larger point, I do agree that a lot of anti-death penalty stories do take the easy way out. (And I am not a proponent of capital punishment; I just think that many of those stories avoid the real philosophical debate.) A few exceptions off the top of my head are the second-season Defenders episode "Madman," the In the Heat of the Night episode "A Trip Upstate," and Naked City's "Prime of Life." Of course, a viewer can certainly still disagree with the sentiments in those stories, but they don't stack the deck unfairly by questioning guilt or eliminating brutality.
 

Jack P

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Apr 15, 2006
Messages
5,593
Real Name
Jack
In open court, yes, he has that obligation. And I don't have any quarrel with the matter of law he handled. But since his motive is to help the family and assume a role bigger than that of a lawyer, I think he also has a moral obligation to not sugarcoat things with the sister if she really is going to make a true clean start raising the kids etc. especially in light of how blunt the character of Benedict usually is in dispensing practical advice.

It might also have been better if Overton had killed himself in prison rather than get a too-convenient heart attack. Then the episode would have foreshadowed the Hernandez case completely!

I have seen "Prime of Life". It was the type of episode done more than once by other programs to show us people being traumatized by watching the actual death penalty process. It was redone again even on "Law And Order" in the 90s to laughable effect by showing Detective Briscoe getting so traumatized by hit he falls off the wagon and it makes Detective Curtis so traumatized it makes him cheat on his wife when young Jennifer Garner shows interest in him. The thing that was so laughable about *that* variation of "Prime of Life" is that since Briscoe and Curtis are always shown making morbid jokes at every graphic murder scene regarding the *victim* that the idea that they could be traumatized by an execution of someone whose guilt wasn't in doubt defies all credibility.
 

FanCollector

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Nov 6, 2006
Messages
5,010
Real Name
Lee
Legally speaking, I don't think Sam would be off the hook for disclosing the confession in private either, but dramatically I do see what you mean.

The Law and Order episode you mentioned is a great counterexample to the very similar Naked City and Heat of the Night episodes. They are all variations on the same theme and they all have more or less the same message, but the two earlier versions are careful not to sacrifice character to the message. The Law and Order episode seems so desperate to prove how life-changing the event can be, that it goes rather too far, as you suggest. I felt that in Prime of Life and A Trip Upstate, we get the point that the protagonists are disturbed and changed by witnessing an execution, but in a more subtle and believable way. Again, one is free to dispute the underlying message, but those stories are still good drama and well within the established character parameters of their series.

Tangentially, Don Gordon, who was the Emmy-nominated guest star in the Defenders episode I mentioned above, died recently. His credits take a very scenic path through TV history and I always enjoyed his work.
 

jperez

Second Unit
Joined
Mar 1, 2012
Messages
304
Real Name
jorge perez
There's a great Run For Your Life episode, The Killing Scene, also touching on some of these issues. In it, Paul Bryan (Ben Gazzara), who in the series is a former lawyer trying to live his life to its fullest after being diagnosed with a fatal illness, runs against the clock trying to locate a witness that could exonerate an inmate sentenced to be executed in a questions of hours: a man he had helped convict.
 

Jack P

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Apr 15, 2006
Messages
5,593
Real Name
Jack
Fairness dictates my taking time to praise the episodes that I think landed. Before I do that, one episode with Inger Stevens as a woman trying to win back custody of her son unfortunately is difficult to watch because she is playing a former drug addict who must prove she has cured herself of her addiction to win custody and she gives a whole speech on the stand about her descent into addiction. It's difficult when we remember that Inger Stevens would ultimately die of a drug overdose.

There's a similar true-life undercurrent in "Not Even The Gulls Shall Weep" since it shows a marriage on the rocks between Howard Duff and Ida Lupino who in real life had a volatile marriage that ended badly (when the divorce became final after years of estrangement, Lupino had a wastebasket lined up with his picture) but it is a strong episode with some solid performances and Duff plays a client who is irresponsible but has at least some nuance that makes the resolution of the episode plausible.

"The Boiling Point" is a winner of an episode, and by far the best I've seen that finally provides the nuance and texture I've been waiting to see in this series. For the first time, Benedict has a client, ex-mobster David Wayne who is a terrible person on all levels but who must be defended when he becomes the victim of shakedowns by bitter cop, Garry Merrill. This episode avoids caricature and gives us the necessary nuance of how it's possible for terrible people to be entitled to proper representation (and why if they are innocent we must let the facts dictate what happens) and it also treats the bitterness Merrill expresses not with approval but with understanding. This is the kind of writing that on a consistent basis and with a better less gruff performance by O'Brien would have made the series a lot better IMO.
 

Bert Greene

Screenwriter
Joined
Apr 1, 2004
Messages
1,057
Fairness dictates my taking time to praise the episodes that I think landed. Before I do that, one episode with Inger Stevens as a woman trying to win back custody of her son unfortunately is difficult to watch because she is playing a former drug addict who must prove she has cured herself of her addiction to win custody and she gives a whole speech on the stand about her descent into addiction. It's difficult when we remember that Inger Stevens would ultimately die of a drug overdose.

There's a similar true-life undercurrent in "Not Even The Gulls Shall Weep" since it shows a marriage on the rocks between Howard Duff and Ida Lupino who in real life had a volatile marriage that ended badly (when the divorce became final after years of estrangement, Lupino had a wastebasket lined up with his picture) but it is a strong episode with some solid performances and Duff plays a client who is irresponsible but has at least some nuance that makes the resolution of the episode plausible.

"The Boiling Point" is a winner of an episode, and by far the best I've seen that finally provides the nuance and texture I've been waiting to see in this series. For the first time, Benedict has a client, ex-mobster David Wayne who is a terrible person on all levels but who must be defended when he becomes the victim of shakedowns by bitter cop, Garry Merrill. This episode avoids caricature and gives us the necessary nuance of how it's possible for terrible people to be entitled to proper representation (and why if they are innocent we must let the facts dictate what happens) and it also treats the bitterness Merrill expresses not with approval but with understanding. This is the kind of writing that on a consistent basis and with a better less gruff performance by O'Brien would have made the series a lot better IMO.

Totally agree about the episode "The Boiling Point.". I remember that one being one of the best, by far. One of the few episodes that genuinely left me feeling satisfied and entertained. (also always fun seeing Elizabeth MacCrea, whom I once had a good talk with concerning her "Route 66" episodes). Yet I wasn't so keen on the Duff-Lupino one. Although it was in many ways a relief to see episodes eschewing the social hot-topics, efforts like this one (and the Barry Sullivan one) wore me out with all their chattering angst and psyche-exploring.

True, I know I seem to have a quirky love/hate attitude regarding all these shows, and I've discussed it before. I'm totally enthralled by the semi-anthology format that proliferated in early-mid-1960s drama. I love it, and many of the series that followed this path. Especially the apparent influence of preceding trends like cinema verite, Italian neorealism, and the kitchen-table dramas, all which added this 'slice of life' quality. More location work, emphasis on character-studies, and plus you had that almost 'repertory' class of Interesting Hollywood players rotating from show to show. It's such a terrific mix.

Yet it all seemed to eventually go so off-kilter. Characterization became more defined by long-winded emotional blathering and psychological demons. More shows became concerned with social agendas, and served up those ham-fisted, stacked deck scripts, coming across as condescending lectures. Even a series as innocuous as "Kraft Suspense Theater" had some insufferable examples of this. What started out so interestingly and aesthetically rewarding just seemed to peter away. Sometimes when watching these shows, I get the sense that the writers wrote these scripts while either standing on a soapbox, or lying on a psychiatrist's couch.

It's particularly funny to me in retrospect, because twenty, thirty, nearly-forty years ago I was collecting old TV Guides, and I used to just love going through the synopses of these shows' episodes... "Sam Benedict," "Eleventh Hour," "The Defenders," "Breaking Point," "The Nurses," "Channing," etc, etc. I would just salivate reading over these things, dying to see some of these shows. All these years later, and I come to the realization that had I been an adult tv-viewer back then, I actually would not have remotely a regular (or even sporadic) viewer of most of these shows. I would have been far more apt to just roll my eyes at them, and instead tune in to some old Alan Ladd or Gary Cooper flick on the late-show. Oh, it's been interesting, getting and finally watching some of these series via DVD-sets and such, but in many cases (like this one), they're almost more like engaging in academic efforts and scratching old itches rather than deriving actual entertainment.
 

Jack P

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Apr 15, 2006
Messages
5,593
Real Name
Jack
After the great episode that was "The Boiling Point" the next episode was another step backward as it was another anti-death penalty episode with Benedict in a race against the clock to look for the critical piece of info that will get a stay when the attorney in the case is seriously injured in a car wreck while on his way to present a petition for a stay. The episode boils down to exposing the attorney as an ex-prosecutor who tanked the case because he didn't want to defend an obviously guilty client and the theme of the episode is how a stay is necessary and a new trial necessary even if as its conceded the defendant will likely be found guilty anyway on the second trial.

But ask yourself this. This may be all about the law, but is it really all about justice? That's the ethical question a show like "Benedict" totally sidesteps and avoids confronting, and its the reason why the previous episode I discussed regarding Overton was a cop-out ESPECIALLY since this episode gives us the conceit of an ex-prosecutor torn to the point where he cracked on the matter of giving a "proper" defense to his client. This is the ethical dilemma that was side-stepped for Benedict in the Overton episode because they chose to let his client drop dead of a heart attack rather than force Benedict to ask himself if his duty was to the "law" to keep handling an appeal and get a new trial even though he knew now his client was guilty and wanted to die because of his shame.

And think of the justice being denied to the victim of the crime in this episode who are forced to go through another trial and see justice delayed (we learn this stay is for someone who kidnapped and killed a 16 year old girl). Maybe it's "cruel and unusual punishment" to go through a second trial where in all likelihood another death sentence is likely to be handed down again. Maybe by this point, the defendant will be just like Overton and know there isn't a point going through it (remember the ending of "The Postman Always Rings Twice" where John Garfield decides he might as well just be executed for the murder he didn't commit when he'd just be tried and executed later for the murder he DID commit). These are the nuances we don't get because this episode wants to make what it thinks is a fine technical point that should sweep aside other ethical points and without some discussion at least of those other ethical points the episode fails. All it would have taken is for a conversation with Benedict on the order of, "You know it's likely this will be for nothing and he'll just get sentenced to death all over again" and Benedict might reply, "You may be right. And maybe it'll be the just outcome, but at least it will have been done the right way where he had the best possible defense." But because we have a character who NEVER thinks the death penalty is called for, we can't have this kind of nuance that would make even a death penalty supporter see the point as to why this matter of a lawyer tanking his case is not what we can have in our system.

Again, I am not saying that the points to be found in some of these episodes are not of themselves valid points to make. The problem is the way they are presented and the fact that too often the people responsible for these episodes didn't have an intelligent grasp of the counter-arguments to be made because they tend to view the counter-arguments in narrow, stereotypical terms.
 

Bert Greene

Screenwriter
Joined
Apr 1, 2004
Messages
1,057
All I can say, Jack, is that you had better avoid that "Defenders" dvd-set, because it will give you a septic-shock injection of all this. The weighted hands on the moral/ethical scales, the fetishizing of legal technicalities, the omission of victim voices, the ultimate trivializing of justice, etc. etc. As a viewer, you're not supposed to apparently ponder these things, as it knocks down the pedestal our writers have constructed for our fictional lawyer-heroes to stand on. But I do ponder these things while watching these shows. And it invariably leaves me with a revulsion towards the characters, the shows, the genre, and the actual justice system at large. Hence my reason for just no longer subjecting myself to such legal series from here on out.
 

Jack P

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Apr 15, 2006
Messages
5,593
Real Name
Jack
Oh believe me, subjecting myself to "For The People" (in which we had prosecutors acting like defense attorneys and forgetting their job) and "Coronet Blue" immunized me forever from that production company! :)

But I must report the next episode, "Speak Softly, Oh Softly" is a solid, good episode with Brian Keith accused of embezzlement. And it also has one of those little unforeseen bits that makes me love being a vintage TV buff of this era. Where else could you get a kick out of seeing four years before "Family Affair" an episode with Brian Keith that also has in the same episode in one of the side-stories a character named "Mrs. Beasley?" :D
 

Bert Greene

Screenwriter
Joined
Apr 1, 2004
Messages
1,057
Oh believe me, subjecting myself to "For The People" (in which we had prosecutors acting like defense attorneys and forgetting their job) and "Coronet Blue" immunized me forever from that production company! :)

But I must report the next episode, "Speak Softly, Oh Softly" is a solid, good episode with Brian Keith accused of embezzlement. And it also has one of those little unforeseen bits that makes me love being a vintage TV buff of this era. Where else could you get a kick out of seeing four years before "Family Affair" an episode with Brian Keith that also has in the same episode in one of the side-stories a character named "Mrs. Beasley?" :D

Oh, I don't think "Coronet Blue" is all that bad. It had some interesting, and often intriguing episodes. It also had some that were just flaky. But overall, even though it didn't really click with me, I actually appreciated how it ventured off the beaten path. Some good direction and location work too, as I recall. And regarding Brodkin fare, I thought "Brenner" was relatively nifty.

Jack, have you seen all the "For The People" episodes? I'm really only familiar with the two long-circulating episodes, including the one with Tony Bill and a very young Leslie Ann Warren. The 'sour note' ending to that one was always memorable, but it was pretty bleak, dreary fare. I'm sure the rest of the series would probably be a chore for me to endure. Similarly, there were always two commonly circulating episodes of "The Nurses" for a long time. The one with guest-star Peggy Wood as an older nurse who's fighting off retirement was a pretty incisive character drama. And a real downer. I actually like both Shirl Conway and Zina Bethune, but I have little doubt the series would pummel me with a lot of blathering about social ills and inequities. Entertainment potential, zero.

I saw most of the "East Side, West Side" episodes when that Trio network aired the series. Depressing milieu and a lot of lecturing. Although I actually prefer it to "The Defenders.". Because there were a handful of tolerable, low-key episodes in the vein of "Naked City," like the one about a kid who is a 'numbers runner' for the rackets. It remains "The Defenders" that I find just too impossible to stomach. One thing about the Brodkin shows is that it always seems like the weekly guest characters are always so weak, powerless, and mired in a kind of oppressive inertia. Like an ennui cultivated in a dehumanizing, suffocating urban backdrop. The only salvation being elite professional and government agencies. The shows feel depressing and claustrophobic to me in a way I never got from "Naked City," which had more of a visceral visual openness, highlighting bright NYC locales, and guest characters that bristled with energy and individualism. Even when often awash in tiresome, self-indulgent angst. On just an innate gut level, "Naked City" draws me in, while the Brodkin shows push me away.
 

Jack P

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Apr 15, 2006
Messages
5,593
Real Name
Jack
Well my journey through this show is complete (though I skipped those two episodes that I just knew I didn't have to bother with). Yvonne Craig's second go-round on the series was better than her first. Not an exceptional episode but decent. O'Brien's dual role episode was indeed an impressive performance by him where he made the other character distinctive (I couldn't help but notice how they staged the bit of "Charlie" stumbling as he left the witness stand so Benedict could catch him, which was clearly a bit of stage direction to try and tell those who'd figured it out that they weren't always using split screen!) and even though it was a bit on the saccharine side, frankly this was a show that needed an episode like that (and it once again had a nice faith affirming moment) so I overall give that one a thumbs up (but one of the kids in the group, Manuel Padilla gave me a preview of why he was insufferably annoying a few years later on "Tarzan"). O'Brien's daughter made her acting debut and got a special "introducing" credit.

But then comes the Eddie Albert episode, and oh boy if all the previous anti-death penalty episodes were bad enough, this one really takes the cake. Here we have a case of what I presume were the writers deciding to offer their concept of being "balanced" by giving us Albert as a lawyer who is an even bigger anti-death penalty crusader but who turns out to be unethical and dishonest as he and Benedict are defending clients who were part of a robbery where a watchman was killed. One of them killed the watchman, the other was just the accomplice but both face the death penalty. Albert decides that he's going to go for broke and get his client, Roger Perry to turn on his loyal friend Brock Peters and this way guarantee one will not get the death penalty. Benedict manages to thwart Albert's machinations by slaughtering Perry on the witness stand. BUT......this is a show remember where the writers, producer etc. don't ever want to create a situation where someone gets the death penalty even though in any rational dramatic context, the episode should have ended with Perry being exposed as the man who pulled the trigger and Benedict could have observed the irony of how Albert in his misguided zeal just guaranteed that his client was going to get the death penalty. Instead, the Judge steps in implausibly and even though Perry is clearly devoid of credibility in his attempt to hang the shooting on Peters, announces he's going to offer a chance for both Perry and Peters to plead guilty to murder one and get life without parole because we'll never know who was the one who pulled the trigger. At this point I was going, "You've got to be KIDDING!" This was a case where the writers were clearly doing mental gymnastics and cartwheels of epic proportions to avoid coming up with the only realistic dramatic scenario this story should have headed for which was Perry getting the death penalty and Albert left with the ultimate humiliation. Instead, even as he faces sanction Albert is allowed to smugly look at Benedict and go, "We saved them both." I've seen Perry Mason episodes more believable than this.

The last episode at least was a good one though I don't rate it as strong as "Boiling Point." To their credit, they avoided what viewers might have thought was going to be the cliche of Lukas being a former Nazi etc. but instead gave his character some nuance and in the end the story had a nuance I could appreciate.

The verdict I have given this show has been largely negative but I don't regard getting it or watching it as a mistake. It's the kind of show I wish I could enjoy more since I appreciate the touches that I associate with this era of TV history that on occasion could give us some winning episodes, but the show was fatally flawed on a number of levels and the biggest is that it just didn't give us proper nuance. Still, Edmond O'Brien I think over time improved in his performance as Benedict as he was less gruff at the end than he was at the beginning (one final footnote is that I suspect O'Brien filmed his short part in "Birdman Of Alcatraz" during the production of the series when he was doing SF location work)
 

Jack P

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Apr 15, 2006
Messages
5,593
Real Name
Jack
Oh, I don't think "Coronet Blue" is all that bad. It had some interesting, and often intriguing episodes. It also had some that were just flaky. But overall, even though it didn't really click with me, I actually appreciated how it ventured off the beaten path. Some good direction and location work too, as I recall. And regarding Brodkin fare, I thought "Brenner" was relatively nifty.

The Candice Bergen campus revolt episode of "Coronet Blue" was indeed flaky. But the real problem I had with the show has less to do with ideology and more to do with the fact that its fatally flawed by making its McGuffin dynamic more important than what the series itself was about. One reason why "The Fugitive" works is that we *know* what the ultimate truth is regarding Richard Kimble and that we the viewer don't need to be concerned with whether he gets exonerated this week or not. But when you're setting up a dynamic of amnesia in your lead character, then you're giving the viewer a tease of wanting to see some resolution or at least some serious *advancement* on this. I watched these episodes frustrated that it was never resulting in genuine momentum and thus the episodes were little more than set-pieces telling me, "Pay attention to this, instead".

Jack, have you seen all the "For The People" episodes? I'm really only familiar with the two long-circulating episodes, including the one with Tony Bill and a very young Leslie Ann Warren. The 'sour note' ending to that one was always memorable, but it was pretty bleak, dreary fare. I'm sure the rest of the series would probably be a chore for me to endure. Similarly, there were always two commonly circulating episodes of "The Nurses" for a long time. The one with guest-star Peggy Wood as an older nurse who's fighting off retirement was a pretty incisive character drama. And a real downer. I actually like both Shirl Conway and Zina Bethune, but I have little doubt the series would pummel me with a lot of blathering about social ills and inequities. Entertainment potential, zero.

I have a four disc boot set of six episodes. I do remember watching the Lesley Ann Warren one you mention and it was a downer though the details have faded but the one that I will never forget is Episode #3 in the series "The Influence Of Fear." This is the episode where Shatner tanks a murder case against a Puerto Rican that by his own admission he is convinced brutally murdered an old woman but you see, there's this clearly racist detective Philip Bosco who *may* have coerced a confession during interrogation (we never see this happen. The action takes place outside the room when this happens and we hear voices raised but we don't see it) and thus when the insufferably smug defense attorney Diana Douglas (Kirk's first wife and Michael's mother) raises all the objections, Shatner sits on his hands even as his boss Howard da Silva is pleading with him on what he's doing to the case. In the end, the person the script tells us likely is a killer walks in the name of a lofty uber-technicality that has come about because Shatner refused to do his job and act "For The People". The place to debate whether the confession was coerced or not was in court and see if it created any genuine "reasonable doubt". The episode then gave us its phony "balance" by having an angry Bosco lash out at Shatner in the corridor afterwards but Bosco has been set up as an unlikable racist from the get-go so we the viewer are supposed to brush off whatever sentiments he expresses as the prattlings of fanatical extremists. Shatner's responses sounded like dialogue that only a defense attorney, not a prosecutor would be saying. After this episode, I'd be among citizens calling for Shatner to be fired or voted out. Even though I was never crazy about Sam Waterston's Jack McCoy character on "Law And Order" one thing he never did was tank a case the way Shatner does here.

The pity was that from an acting standpoint, Shatner was fine, and I got to see the always engaging Jessica Walter in some of her early work (she almost reunited with Shatner on Trek since she was the first choice for the Season 3 "Is There In Truth No Beauty?" episode but when she wasn't available, Diana Muldaur got her second guest shot) plus the location photography looked good and Leonard Rosenmann's theme was nice. But if this was how Brodkin did a show about prosecutors, then I'd learned all I needed to know about what he did in a show about defense attorneys. "Defenders" will remain unwatched by me not because I'm afraid to watch shows that espouse viewpoints I don't agree with (as my posts on "Benedict" have demonstrated) but because Brodkin tipped his hand to me in "For The People" as did Reginald Rose in "Twelve Angry Men" (a film that has corrupted generations of people with a false concept of what the phrase "reasonable doubt" really means) so there's little point in my bothering with it.

I agree that "Naked City" can sometimes have its share of clunkers (I think the worst was the Season 3 debut "Take Your Hat Off When A Funeral Passes") but overall it is an engaging show where you feel drawn into the vanished world of New York City in the early 60s just before the city went into the massive decline of the John Lindsey era. My only real quibble was that after three years, Flint and LIbby should have been married (they were clearly trying to make Flint more "bohemian" than James Franciscus's Jimmy Halloran had been, and this quality I have to admit sometimes leaves Flint devoid of the kind of edge that one might expect from a NY cop). "Route 66" likewise is fascinating for doing what "Naked City" did for New York in showing a vanishing picture of America before the turbulent madness of the "60s" really set in. Ironically that has the unintentional effect perhaps of making both series seem more "conservative" in hindsight especially when compared to the Brodkin shows.
 

Stephen Bowie

Stunt Coordinator
Joined
Aug 6, 2004
Messages
222
But if this was how Brodkin did a show about prosecutors, then I'd learned all I needed to know about what he did in a show about defense attorneys. "Defenders" will remain unwatched by me not because I'm afraid to watch shows that espouse viewpoints I don't agree with (as my posts on "Benedict" have demonstrated) but because Brodkin tipped his hand to me in "For The People" as did Reginald Rose in "Twelve Angry Men" (a film that has corrupted generations of people with a false concept of what the phrase "reasonable doubt" really means) so there's little point in my bothering with it.
Well, as long as you're keeping an open mind.
 

Jack P

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Apr 15, 2006
Messages
5,593
Real Name
Jack
I have. That's why I was willing to watch shows produced by the man even when I already knew of his reputation. "For The People" was easier to sample and if he'd done that show right, I would have been willing to sample "Defenders" even knowing what I do about a number of episodes. But life shows how sometimes, first impressions are the only ones that count (in this case the producer got two chances from me and in "Coronet Blue" he came up with something that wasn't good TV structurally).

But that said, may those who enjoy his work get to see all of it on legit DVD releases so their TV viewing on DVD can be what they want it to be.
 
Last edited:

Neil Brock

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Apr 29, 2009
Messages
4,325
Just out of curiosity, are there any shows which deal with controversial issues and topics which you do agree with? Other than All in the Family and Archie Bunker of course.
 

Jack P

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Apr 15, 2006
Messages
5,593
Real Name
Jack
Neil, your comment in which you decide to label me "Archie Bunker" and the snarky blow-off by Bowie offer a graphic insight into the whole problem behind these programs. That is an incessant desire to pigeonhole those who raise objections to the supposedly beyond reproach perspectives of "controversial" shows as shallow fools or racists whose opinions are not worthy of consideration or being a part of the overall dialogue on the issues being discussed and who can thus be depicted as the sinister villains or the silly fools. That's usually what happens when you have programs written by people who have largely never had any real serious exposure to the beliefs or values of those outside the narrow worlds they live in (and which get praised by critics who in their lifetime never had any real exposure to them. Pauline Kael after 1972 anyone?)

You also have seen enough posts from me in this forum to note that I am against seeing episodic television become a forum for dealing with "controversial" subjects unless it's clear that the marketplace of programming reflects the even divisions of our society on such matters and treats both sides fairly (the "Boiling Point" episode shows how it *can* be done). Since the marketplace has shown too often that its not willing to acknowledge that division much of the time, then my policy is not to waste my time watching the kind of soapbox speech I can get any day in the course of my regular job which requires me to read news opinion pieces on a routine basis. And more than once I've shown my disapproval of shoehorning speeches of points I agree with at the expense of good entertainment as I saw in many a third season episode of "Dragnet."

What I find telling though is how both you and Bowie think only a snarky soundbite is all you should give instead of addressing specifics and having a dialogue. So much for the question of who really needs to have more of an "open mind".
 
Last edited:

Gary OS

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Feb 2, 2004
Messages
5,995
Location
Florida
Real Name
Gary
Just out of curiosity, are there any shows which deal with controversial issues and topics which you do agree with? Other than All in the Family and Archie Bunker of course.

Not even AITF or Archie Bunker for me. I watch TV to be entertained. It's an escape from the dreary world we all have to live in. Why anyone would want an entertainment choice to blister them with real-life depression and drama that will alienate at least half the audience at any given time is beyond me.

Bottom line, I don't watch TV to be lectured to about "controversial" topics, especially when they are presented in such one-sided and ham-fisted ways. Ugh...
 
Last edited:

Users who are viewing this thread

Similar Threads

Latest Articles

Forum statistics

Threads
356,808
Messages
5,123,532
Members
144,184
Latest member
H-508
Recent bookmarks
0
Top