As to the ideology, as I said, it's mixed and I wonder if like the old Star Trek series there aren't different writers bringing different ideologies to the table. The DA loses often enough and the law is realistic, and sometimes the tone even allows the viewer to side with the defense attorney. Usually, the DA loses when this happens.
But for once I would like to hear a defense attorney tell Waterson: "Some of us refer to a 'technicality' as the Fourth Amendment."
Yours,
Eric
Paul Henry Rosenberg wrote:
> Yoshie Furuhashi wrote:
>
> > Paul Rosenberg wrote:
> > >the top of my list is cop shows: "Homicide,
> > >Life on the Street" and "Law & Order". Both shows DO consistently
> > >question the nature of law, justice, morality, power, and their own
> > >roles, as well as that of the system they serve. (William Kunstler even
> > >appeared as himself on "Law & Order" about a year before he died.)
> >
> > Cop shows interpellate us not by making cops lovable but by askig us to
> > frame our questions in terms of 'innocence' and 'guilt.' This is so even
> > when these terms are 'deconstructed' by plots, characters, acting, dialog,
> > etc.
>
> Since I'm not familiar with "interpellate" in Althusser's usage, I asked
> Yoshie for clarification offlist, and received the following
> clarification:
>
> > I was using the term 'interpellate' in the way Althusser uses it in his
> > essay on Ideological State Apparati. It's about recognizing ourselves
> > (without our awareness of this recognition as such) as Ideology defines us,
> > and our recognition manifests itself not in our consciousness but in the
> > way we act.
>
> Well, this is clearly NOT the case with "Homicide" or "Law & Order".
> They very much DO intend us to be aware of this recognition. They want
> to start us thinking from the very innards outward. That's why I like
> them so much.
>
> > In the case of cop shows, I think that shows ask us to become
> > jurors of sorts, to _judge_ as seemingly disinterested (but in fact very
> > voyeuristic) observers of 'facts,' thinking about questions of 'innocence'
> > and 'guilt,' 'crime' and 'punishment.'
>
> But "Homicide" and "Law & Order" don't work like this.
>
> (Have you ever seen them, BTW?)
>
> They work AGAINST this. Not all the time, of course, not mechanically,
> but that's part of what's at the very heart of those shows. They
> undermine these very categories over and over and over again. They try
> to draw us in, not set us up as disinterested. They set up our
> expectations, and then veer off in a totally different direction,
> leaving us to deal with our own FALSE certainty, and reflect on that
> false certainty something fierce.
>
> The amazing thing about "Law & Order" is that this is almost the show's
> formula, yet after something like 5 or 6 seasons it still manages to be
> fresh. "Homicide" is much more free-form, so this process gets woven in
> and out much more freely, but false certainty (both factual and moral)
> are major themes in both shows -- and not in the facile, smug,
> self-congradulatory manner of the X-Files. "Homicide" and "Law & Order"
> both operate around getting *YOU* to commit (by identification with the
> characters, who also commit) and then undermining the certainty you've
> committed to.
>
> This is hardly anything new, of course. Dashielle Hamet was doing this
> routinely with the Continental Op back in the 30s. Undermining
> expectations lies at the very heart of the investigative drama, of
> course. But giving it a subversive thrust is what I'm talking about
> here, and there's a long history of leftish writers doing that.
>
> > You may or may not agree with my take on this, but I think
> > that thinking in those terms tends to make us moralistic,
> > self-righteous, individualistic, etc. (esp. in the post-Reagan
> > America obsessed with crime and security)--tendencies that
> > I associate with anti-historical materialist modes of looking
> > at our world.
>
> But, as I say, "Homicide" and "Law & Order" DON'T promote thinking in
> those terms. Moralism and self-righteousness get put through some very
> interesting changes. The biggest moralist on "Law & Order" is the DA,
> McCoy, a 1960s anti-war activist. The second biggest moralist is the
> detective, Curtis, a moderately conservative, religiously serious
> Latino. Both get their rigidity tested and exposed -- without
> necessarily saying they are wrong. This kind of complextity is what's
> so refreshing in the show.
> You could get that same kind of complexity in another setting, but
> choosing this particular setting simply raises the stakes to a very high
> level. Another kind of reason that more liberal, even critical TV
> producers choose the form.
>
> > not saying that watching lots of cop shows _necessarily_
> > makes _all_ of us think and act in the manner I just
> > described. Nonetheless, popularity of cop shows, 'true crime'
> > shows, footage of raids and arrests during TV news,
> > etc. is a disturbing phenomenon, I think.
>
> But "Law & Order" and "Homicide" are as far from 'true crime' shows as
> "Crime and Punishment" is from Dick Tracy.
>
> In fact, farther.
>
> --
> Paul Rosenberg
> Reason and Democracy
> rad at gte.net
>
> "Let's put the information BACK into the information age!"