Books, Movies, Television

Standard Of Review: What I've Learned By Writing About Lawyers And Law Students In TV, Movies, And Books

Harry Graff still wishes that legal entertainment would just be a little bit better.

By
on

When I began my “Standard of Review” column in late 2014, I was admittedly a legal entertainment curmudgeon. As exemplified by my very first column, in which I reviewed an old episode of Law & Order, I identified as a movie, television, and book enthusiast who did not like most legal entertainment, even though I was and am a lawyer. In my mind, works like Law & Order oversimplified the law, portraying legal cases as able to be wrapped up in a neat, hour-long (minus commercials) package. One of my goals in writing this column was to test this thesis. Did works of legal entertainment tend towards the simple, eschewing character-driven stories for disposable storylines? After three years, the answer, like many things, is somewhere in the middle. As will be explained in greater detail below, this is my last column for Above the Law. Just like the proponent of the “Caine-Hackman Theory” from PCU who just discovered A Bridge Too Far, this is my thesis, my closing argument. While I have reviewed plenty of books and somewhat fewer films during my time at Above the Law, this column will specifically focus on television.

One of the best aspects of writing this column is exposing myself to works that I would not normally seek out. We obviously live in the world of too many television options — even more now than in late 2014 — and if I did not feel compelled to watch nearly every legal show available, I do not know if I would have bothered streaming Goliath or sticking with Billions. Goliath is an Amazon show so apparently unpopular that John Oliver recently made a joke about how nor a single person watched it (except me, I guess). And I certainly had my problems with Goliath, particularly its portrayal of the “goliath” mega-firm led by the cartoonishly evil William Hurt. But I really enjoyed Billy Bob Thornton’s performance as the washed-up alcoholic attorney Billy McBride, and I thought that Nina Arianda gave one of the most unheralded performances of 2016 as the abrasive and often hilarious Patty Solis-Papagian. Goliath is supposedly coming back for a second season (though I will believe it when I see it); if it does not, I hope that Arianda gets another major role somewhere.

Billions is a show on which I might have given up after the first season if I was not writing about it for this column. The Showtime drama about the U.S. Attorney’s investigation of a hedge-fund titan was merely fine in its first season, but took a major step forward in 2017 by not taking itself so seriously (as it wasn’t a prestige drama) and embracing the fact that legal dramas can be fun. It also unearthed a terrific performer in Asia Kate Dillon, who was terrific as Taylor, who despite their brilliance is uneasy as a gender-neutral individual at the masculine Axe Capital.

To be sure, it was not all great. I know I pick on them a lot, but I did not enjoy the fact that writing this column forced me to keep up-to-date on Suits and How To Get Away With Murder. Suits should be what Billions is, a fun, entertaining legal show with long-form storytelling. And while that is sometimes true — such as the half season in which the delightful villain Jack Soloff attempted to take over the firm — the show is too often bogged down by overseriousness and the need to repeatedly turn every plot point on its head. Further, by no longer writing about Suits, I won’t need to write my inevitable column about the show can work in Meghan Markle’s impending royal wedding to the storyline.

How To Get Away With Murder has its positives, namely one of the best actresses of our generation in Viola Davis as its lead and a strong commitment to diversity. But for some reason, the show feels compelled to stick to annoying storytelling gimmicks, such as flashforwards, that have little value. And I don’t think I have ever watched anything with less of a commitment to verisimilitude; I weep for the prospective law students who might think that it accurately depicts law school.

As this is my last column, I would be remiss if I did not thank David Lat and all the Above the Law editors for agreeing to let me write and putting up with the jokes and references that I repeated a million times. Above the Law is a crucial resource for lawyers and law students alike, and I will definitely continue to be a regular reader.

What will I do now? Well, I still work full-time as an actual attorney, so not writing for Above the Law leaves more time for those billable hours. Maybe I’ll write a book that attempts to pick apart and comment on the legal stereotypes I so often criticize. Maybe some legal television show will come to its senses and hire me to help it properly depict the practice of law (a radical concept, I know). Or maybe I’ll just stick with being a movie, television, and book buff and wishing that legal entertainment would just be a little bit better.

Sponsored

Harry Graff is a litigation associate at a firm, but he spends days wishing that he was writing about film, television, literature, and pop culture instead of writing briefs. If there is a law-related movie, television show, book, or any other form of media that you would like Harry Graff to discuss, he can be reached at harrygraff19@gmail.com. Be sure to follow Harry Graff on Twitter at @harrygraff19.

Sponsored

Topics

, , , ,