Boston Legal S2E6 Witches Of Mass Destruction

Trading men-in-tights for men-in-flamingo-suits today. Not sure if that's an improvement. Whatever. Boston Legal. A law court dram-com. Stars William Shatner, best known as Star Trek's Captain Kirk, and James Spader, who has probably starred in something else. It's a demented show; sometimes funny, sometimes serious, sometimes failing at both.

Season 2 has been somewhat disappointing. Utter letdown, actually. So far. With over twenty episodes to go, I'd be naughty to suggest this applies to the season's entirety. And with the sixth episode, things are promising.

For me, Boston Legal is most entertaining when tackling difficult subjects. Yeah the silly get-ups, sexual innuendo, absurd cases ... They are amusing. Occasionally. But the show peaks when it anchors that stupidity with real purpose, a point. Something that makes you tighten those eyebrow muscles. Presumably in thought. Take here: Alan Shore, providing another pendulum swing between seedy sleaze-bag and justice upholder, challenges the controversial 'Stop-Loss' program. This sub-plot becomes an impassioned plea for opening discussion on, to actually allow space to talk about, the military's unaccountability for lost life. A compelling argument made more powerful by Shore's dealings with friends and colleagues.

Brad and Denny Crane, respectively, present discourses of 'pride' and 'nationalism' that stunt conversation about the army's culpability. Watching Shore face vilification, from friends, simply for taking a stand is moving. The writing's quality, however, isn't just its argument but its manner in navigating these sensibilities held by Denny and Brad without condemning them. Because, as the failure of Shore's case shows, the episode's point isn't to demonise the army, its troops or the war effort but to make room for the voicing of concern. And to present the articulation of this concern as not automatically dishonouring the sacrifices of troops or inciting treason. That is the episode's most valuable point. The judge, visibly moved by Shore's persuasive words, blatantly struggling with his ruling in favour of the army's defense highlights how we first need to free ourselves from anxieties of 'honour' and 'nationalism' before we begin to try and shape the nation's legal fabric.

The other case provides comedy to run concurrently with the thought-provoking material. That said, it also has a significant issue at its heart: bringing to attention the sensitivity of minority religious groups (Wiccans) when it comes to popular representations and motifs (the wicked witch and its prominence in Halloween themes). It's tough-in-cheek stuff, but refrains from being insulting or blunt. And, by the case's end, it too manages to place in one's mind a caution towards certain understandings of groups that are incapable of expressing themselves amidst more wide-spread imaginings.