A few months ago, some friends and I
were observing with some friends that although courtroom shows have always been
a mainstay of television, the heroes have changed. Time was, the heroes were defense-attorneys
like Perry Mason and Matlock. Gradually,
prosecutors took their place with the Law & Order franchise. The preponderance of investigative procedurals
gradually shifted from private investigation (Rockford Files, Magnum, PI) to
the law-enforcement-knows-best ethos of the CSI and NCIS franchises.
There are plenty of exceptions to these
trends, of course, but over time the prevailing ethos does seem to have shifted more and more
toward endorsing the authorities. In
fact, it trusts the authorities so much that it almost circles back to not
trusting the system. The
pro-law-enforcement trend continued so far beyond endorsing prosecutors and
police that it created a flood of righteous rule-breakers whose instincts
toward justice and order somehow transcend the systemic restrictions of civil
liberties. If Law & Order is the
ultimate system-truster, what do we call shows that endorse warrantless searches
and tuning up perps as a road to better order (if perhaps not law)? These righteous rule-breaker shows tell us to
trust the system even when it isn’t working as designed.
And that strikes dangerous right
now. There is, of course, a certain
degree of comfort in trusting the system.
When the system leads to a bad result—and it’s led to some real whoppers
of bad results in recent memory—at least we can console ourselves that it’s the
result of a system we’ve chosen. We have
to accept that result as a new point in a sea of data, and work to change the
system so it leads to better results more of the time. A great glory of our system design is that if
it leads to bad results often enough, we are at least theoretically empowered,
as a people, to change it.
But changing the system requires
looking at it critically. Observing when
and why it leads to bad results, so we can embark on change when that
happens. Observing when and how it leads
to different results for different people.
The power to change the system is illusory if we never consider what
works and what doesn’t. In a time when
the authorities are, appropriately, under scrutiny for a host of interrelated
ills including racial bias and militarized violence, television is important
enough that it should not only provide the comforts of fictional justice, but
also shine a light on the causes of our anxieties. We
need shows like Law & Order to show us how the system should work, and
comfort us that it often does. And we
need shows that genuinely explore the dynamics and risks of a flawed system,
like The Wire. But we don’t need shows
that convince us a broken system is an effective one.
So how, and how much, do recent new
shows trust and challenge the system? We’ve
got a lot of shows to choose from for this post, and interestingly, quite a few
of them challenge the system directly.
But we’ve also got some real polar opposites in this group, and a few in
the middle.
Conviction
(ABC, Fall 2016. Law Enforcement
Procedural.)
Watched: season
Premise: A DA’s Office team led by a rebellious president’s
daughter reinvestigates convictions and often exonerates convicts.
Promise: This show starts from the premise that the
system sometimes gets it wrong, and then gives us a system-based solution. It posits that if given the opportunity, the
authorities would prefer to get it right every time. The procedural element of this show gives us
the certainty that the Serial podcast lacked—every week, it questions the
process, reinvestigates a crime, and tells us whether a conviction was right or
wrong. The investigations are clever,
the cases are interesting and often provocative, and the team works well. Regrettably, those cases are surrounded by a
soapy arc that too often gives off a “women be crazy” vibe. It walks the line between celebrating its heroine’s
uncompromising insistence on being herself and sensationalizing her sexuality
and impulsiveness. I could have done
with more of the former and less of the latter, since the “herself” turned out not
only to be occasionally rash and self-sabotaging, but also intensely intelligent,
clever, and dedicated to justice and compassion.
Verdict: I would have preferred it without its soapy
bits, but I’m still sad it was canceled.
Eyewitness
(USA, Fall 2016. Law Enforcement Drama.)
Watched: season
Premise: A rural policewoman investigates a murder
that was, unbeknownst to her, witnessed by her foster son and another young man.
Promise: This is adapted from a Scandinavian show, and
that shows in the mood. There’s a
mystery to be solved and we learn pretty early that not all of the authority
figures are to be trusted, but the show’s central focus is on the characters’ complex
ecosystem of needs, fears, secrets, and lies.
The central initial tension seems dated:
in this day and age, would two teenagers in rural New York (where I grew
up) still refuse to come forward because they want to hide their same-sex assignation? Maybe, I suppose. But the show centers around universal
themes. The characters crave genuine
connection, love, safety, self-worth—and even if we wouldn’t do the same
things, we feel the characters’ humanity.
The show is more personal than The Killing, but its deliberative pace an
emotional focus feel similar.
Verdict: Drew me in.
Sweet/Vicious
(MTV, winter 2016. Drama.)
Watched: season
Premise: Two female college students carry out a
vigilante campaign against sexual assaulters.
Promise: This show is very much about a failure of the
system. It’s an intense mix of wry
humor, deep emotional content, and teen drama.
The characters are complicated and feel real, even if they might have
stepped from the pages of a comic book.
The stories are frank about the seriousness, pervasiveness, and damaging
nature of rape culture in a way that I think no show before has ever done. It’s telling that most episodes start with a
trigger warning. But it isn’t preachy;
it’s entertainment about a subject it knows is problematic. Like Veronica Mars, it’s casual about
horrifying things in a way that doesn’t blunt our vigilantes’ suffering but
makes their actions more bearable. Thankfully,
it never quite endorses those actions—but it also shows us how flaws in the
system brought us to this point.
Verdict: Generally well done.
APB
(Fox, new. Law Enforcement Procedural.)
Watched: three or four episodes
Premise: A tech entrepreneur outfits a New York police
department with advanced surveillance tech
Promise: This show could be a
cautionary tale about the dystopian horrors of a surveillance society. Instead, it’s a show about the wonders of
high-tech law enforcement. It gives our
central character selfish motives, cocky confidence, and abusable power, and yet
somehow makes him and his force effective and well-meaning, and make those who
challenge him into the villains of the piece.
It reminds me of how Fox managed to turn Minority Report from the
horrors of punishing as-yet uncommitted crimes into “let’s solve crimes using
precogs!” I’m not saying that high-tech
policing is always bad. Surely there are
ways it can improve safety and fairness without gobbling up civil
liberties. But this show doesn’t do any
soul-searching. Instead, it lulls
viewers into thinking that justice-at-any-cost is still justice. It’s the same trick that normalizes warrantless
wiretapping and enhanced interrogation.
Verdict: I really liked some of the characters, and
the concept of treating law enforcement as if it were an engineering problem is
one worth exploring. But that didn’t
stop the rage quit.
Doubt
(CBS, new. Courtroom Drama.)
Watched: first three episodes
Premise: Defense lawyers try
to find the right results.
Promise:This show has been
canceled. It suffered from being two
shows. One was a long-form
courtroom/mystery arc in the style of Murder One, featuring Katherine Heigl
developing an ill-advised romantic relationship with her client. The other was a defense-attorney drama with a
case-a-week format in the vein of The Practice, featuring Dule Hill and Laverne
Cox wrestling with the challenges of criminal defense. The latter was good—Dule Hill and Laverne Cox
were great, and they and senior partner Elliott Gould could have carried a
solid defense-attorney procedural. But
the show didn’t hold together, and I tired quickly of the did he/didn’t he of
the defense arc, and Heigl’s weak-kneed version of emotional attachment.
Verdict: I would have liked
to see part of the show continue, but the cancellation made sense.
Chicago
Justice (NBC, new. Courtroom procedural.)
Watched: season so far
Premise: Prosecutors try to find the right results.
Promise: This show is part of the greater Dick Wolf
universe, and it fits well there. It’s
more skeptical of the system than most Law & Order shows, which makes some
sense considering how deeply broken the system of “Chicago PD” is. Unlike Chicago PD, which too often tacitly endorses
shortcuts and abuses, Chicago Justice asks questions and acknowledges that the answers
aren’t always ideal. But it also fundamentally,
profoundly, and idealistically trusts
the system. This is a show where the good guys always outsmart the bad guys,
where intellect defeats evil, and where shortcuts don’t pay.
Verdict: Comforting without being blindly optimistic.
Shots
Fired (Fox, new. Law Enforcement Drama.)
Watched: season so far
Premise: After a black police
officer shoots a young white man in North Carolina, a Justice Department attorney
and investigator go there to investigate.
Promise: This show is about the far-reaching causes
and effects of cracks in the system. It often
shows-not-tells about how deep these fissures go, how lines based on authority
and cultural capital subtly descend from and exacerbate intersectional differences
in opportunity and perception. The story grows quickly from one about a single
racially-charged incident into something broader-reaching and possibly
conspiratorial, and our characters grow to match that expansion. I wish that it stayed with the systemic problems,
but the conspiratorial element does make the story more propulsive. The characters seem flawed and admirable in ways
we can identify with, and while the show portrays stereotypes, it doesn’t seem
to endorse them.
Verdict: Pretty good.
Rebel
(BET, new. Law Enforcement Drama.)
Watched: season so far
Premise: After her younger brother is shot by fellow
officers, a black police officer leaves the force to be a private investigator.
Promise: There are things about this show that I really
like. Giving our tough, closed-off ex-military
lead an emotional outlet of slam poetry is fantastic. Her confidence, her ingenuity, and her military
history are great. Her relationship with
her ex-partner is complex and interesting.
The PI cases she takes on will work as procedural stories. But the show tries to be too many things at
once, and its tone is all over the place, whiplashing between thoughtful justice-seeking
and campy sexpot/badassery. By episode
three, it’s starting to find its tone, and it may end up settling into a format
like Castle, where a case-a-week procedural floats atop a background arc-plot
about a more personal investigation. But
I want the show to decide whether it’s The Wire or Foxy Brown.
Verdict: Guarded optimism.
In
the Hopper: Hmmm. Which theme next? I’m Still deciding.
