In little more than three short years, USA Network has turned itself into a juggernaut of original programming. Psych challenged what we’d come to expect from an investigative series — and from West Wing alum — while Burn Notice took a spy series and turned it into a vigilante’s tale. Even season one of In Plain Sight rocked the very foundation of stale crime fighters, giving us a glimpse at the lawmen (and women) who enter the picture after-the-fact.
At first I thought the network had gone weak with Royal Pains, but the hospital-drama-turned-on-its-head gained its footing almost as soon as Hank did in his new job. And White Collar … well, Peter and Neal are the greatest, and they also give new meaning to the term “cooperating witness.”
But then the run of hits stumbled. I had thought that Covert Affairs would do for clandestine agents what the network’s other series had done for their respective genres, but the show was so lifeless that I found it impossible to tune in after an episode and a half. It joined the pass pile with In Plain Sight as the first of USA’s original concepts that never quite got off the ground. The question was, would it be an aberration or a sign of things to come?
Enter Fairly Legal. In the exact opposite way that White Collar had me from the first of its promos that I saw, Fairly Legal barely made a blip on my radar. A lawyer turned mediator … how unexciting could a show be?
But it’s the responsibility of every dutiful USA Network fan to give all of the network’s shows a chance, so for my column this week I caught last week’s new episode of Fairly Legal, entitled “Believers.” And let the alternative dispute resolution begin!
The episode’s “A” plot revolved around an e-reader … ugh. Aside from tablet computers those are about the most absurd, needless pieces of technology on the market today. How could you even begin to think about replacing the printed book?
But that’s besides the point. There’s no question that Kate’s (Sarah Shahi) client John Marsden (Currie Graham, or Not Kevin Spacey) was a rather unpleasant individual to work for, but how unethical can Kate be? Ignoring the fact that Marcus (Devon Gummersall) had clearly stolen from his employer, he was the opposing side of the mitigation; Kate working with him, bailing him out of jail, and then forcing Marsden to negotiate terms by holding the prototype hostage should certainly have cost her her bar card, if not landed her in jail for aiding and abetting and/or conspiracy to commit grand larceny (assuming the prototype was valuable enough). I didn’t find her charming or someone to root for at all.
The “B” plot, with Kate’s boss (and stepmother) Lauren (Virginia Williams) convincing a man to give his apparently bigamous wife a divorce was too minor a story. It was weird, almost like the writers ran a little short on time and realized they needed to add a few minutes on the fly — not to mention Leo (Baron Vaughn) and his comic book … what an odd, random character. Anyway, I take it that Lauren’s supposed to be the shrew who’s really a loving, caring woman with only the best at heart … assuming that’s true, is all of that really necessary? Couldn’t Kate have faced a life-altering event like her father’s death without the stereotypical — yet “wholly original” — fly in the firm ointment?
I take it that Kate’s supposed to be a bit of a do-gooder, but she can’t really play that given her profession. The show could be about this woman who’s trying to find an alternative way of looking at life situations, but if she’s being hired by a client, how can she be advocating for the little guy who’s not paying her bills?
USA appears to have constructed something of a downward-sloping network pyramid, where the successes of the earlier shows are wearing thin when the network attempts to apply lessons learned to new shows, as opposed to the more common “getting better as you go.” I don’t think all is lost for the network, and possibly not even for shows like Covert Affairs and Fairly Legal, but the original creativity that went into shows like Psych and Burn Notice needs to be called upon, because resting on their laurels isn’t working.
As for Fairly Legal? Don’t think so for me.
Clacked by Aryeh S.
on Feb 28, 2011 @ 18:24 EST5EDT
“an e-reader … ugh. Aside from tablet computers those are about the most absurd”
Hey!
* Sent from my Nook Color *
You have to take into account that this is the world according to Gar… Aryeh. eReaders begone!
*POST AUTHOR*
An — Where would we be if books disappeared? We’d eventually be overrun by trees! :)
Admittedly, we’re writers (or e-writers) who should love all things ancient and/or dying but
#1. I’m a nerd who wants cool stuff.
#2. I’m a geek who surfs the web while watching TV
#3. I’m a geeky nerd who, with 4 overflowing bookshelves, and 4 more storage boxes, decided she could continue to buy books but only if they mattered. All others — beach reads, summer reads, disposable cozy mysteries — to the e-reader they go!
I’m most of those things, except for the third.
For me:
#3 I’m a geeky nerd who, after moving like 7 times in the last 5 years, never has to take books to a half price book store because I have to minimize what I ship to my next “home.”
That’s reason #4. I’m a lazy a** tired of packing/unpacking $#$3@! boxes of books –
*POST AUTHOR*
I hear the reasons, but ultimately nothing beats a book in your hand…. ;)
Book discussions aside, while it’s far from one of USA’s best shows I find “Fairly Legal” more enjoyable than I expected to. I can’t place my finger on what I like, I guess it’s Sara Shahi’s character and the love/hate she has with her stepmother. Plus I like the way Kate has a natural ability to really find common ground, it’s a nice change from courtroom drama.
Personally, I don’t care what would happen to her in the real world if she pulled some of the stunts she has. After all this is just light entertainment, not a documentary, and it’s an upbeat hour of television.
Dogs can’t really talk, but I still enjoy Scooby Doo…so sue me!
*POST AUTHOR*
It could have been the episode I caught, but I found Sara to be more manipulative than a negotiator. I think sometimes USA tries too hard with their female characters, thinking that they have to be a certain way in order to get us to root for them.
I understand suspension of reality, but I think that shouldn’t be applied as liberally to shows that are translatable to real life. Push the envelope, but if your protagonist is in a real professional field, make them responsible practitioners of that profession. I’m weird like that. ;)
Well…let me start off by saying I know you’re weird, but it takes one to know one and I’ve always been proud of being weird. Hell, anyone can be normal, it takes talent to be weird.
Actually, Kate is manipulative, but as a negotiator that should probably be one of your strong suits. There are many levels of manipulation, but in every case of mediation the core tool at use is manipulation. Sometimes it’s subtle ways of showing the opposing parties how and why the opposite side thinks the way they do, while other times it takes nothing short of blackmail to get some obstinate ass to move towards the middle-ground of understanding. Can you really think of another skill that is used with mediation that isn’t in some way a form of manipulation? Even showing someone how to be reasonable about a conflict is still manipulating them towards thinking more rationally. Hell, many of the discussions that go on at this site are nothing more than attempts to manipulate others into seeing your point of view or at least understanding why you like or hate a show.
Having watched all but the most recent episode of the show I’ve seen the character of Kate use just about every tool in the spectrum of manipulation. In episode 5 she uses some very gentle techniques to get an insurance representative to see why the wife of a man who was hit by a truck feels she deserves greater compensation than they were offering. The husband ended up fine after months of therapy, in fact he felt better than fine.
Before the accident he was a very reliable, organized and somewhat dull person, but that was the man she fell in love with. After the accident, his mental faculties were all still there, but his personality had changed to a man who had an almost childish love of life and an insatiable urge to live it to the fullest. He was still the same man, but this woman felt part of him “died” when the accident happened and he was so caught up in his new zest for life that he never realized his wife was suffering.
Kate got people who knew the man before his accident and people who knew him after the accident to sit in on a second mediation session. They each told stories of the kind of man he was from their individual experiences with him, these stories showed the core of wife’s concerns; something she was unable to do clearly convey herself. It was not overt manipulation, just stories of a kind gentleman who was a good man both before and after the accident, only a little different. There was no law breaking/bending, no deals being made and from what little I know about lawyers there was nothing unethical going on. The insurance rep finally understood what the overly emotional and distraught wife was unable to tell him and a new settlement was made.
If anything about this episode was unrealistic, it was the insurance rep’s agreeing with a higher settlement after hearing these stories. Kate did say to him that almost any jury, after hearing these accounts, would agree that the wife had a point so settling out of court would save his company a lot of money, but I just don’t see an insurance rep giving in on the spot. Of course, that was more likely done to speed the story along since, as I said before, this isn’t a documentary and doesn’t claim to be anywhere close to reality.
When it comes to the original series on USA Network every one of them applies the suspension of reality very liberally. I know you’re a fan of at least one or two of them so you know that’s the case. They’re “light” shows meaning the point is to entertain, not necessarily adhere to the rules of real life or to try and be gritty and realistic. The only show I can think of on that net that even bothers to try is “In Plain Sight” and it is by far my least favorite show they air. I watch every USA Network series and that’s the only show I wouldn’t lose sleep over if it were canceled, followed closely by “Royal Pains” and even that show has improved vastly over its first season, but still doesn’t come anywhere close to being like reality.
*POST AUTHOR*
I’m sure you’re right about the manipulation required for the job, but holding a product hostage that a client had paid dearly for is criminal. I’m just saying that I’d appreciate the show more for at the very least showing us the consequences of Kate’s actions.
By the way, the example you use from a previous episode is much more in-line with what I’d imagine a mediator does.