I am mindful of how Vice President Dan Quayle was mocked for criticizing Murphy Brown, a fictional TV character, for choosing to have a baby as a single mother. He suggested the program contributed to the "poverty of values," which, in turn, caused the 1992 Los Angeles riots. Nonetheless, I am willing to take the risk of ridicule in suggesting that The Good Wife, despite being a fictional program about the law serves to demean it.
Every episode that I have watched (and watching is mandatory in my house) has depicted judges as fools and idiots. They are portrayed not only as arrogant and pompous but deranged as well. Psychiatrists delve into one's past to determine current attitudes, and I can only assume that one or more of the writers of this program has had an unpleasant experience with a judge. Otherwise, it is difficult to account for this consistent derogatory portrayal.
While on the subject, I cannot help but wonder whether or not the writers have the benefit of advisers on the law. Not only are judges portrayed as half-wits, but the plots involving the law are often ridiculous or ludicrous. No trial takes place without someone running in at the last minute with new evidence or evidence is presented to an appellate court -- neither of which actually happens in the real world. There are other examples too numerous to mention. Dramatic license is understandable, but being authentic isn't that difficult.
If there were a decision that a "President" Newt Gingrich did not like, he would either have the guilty judge removed, have Congress overrule the decision, reduce the judge's budget or at a minimum shut off the judge's chamber lights. But even Newt does not condemn all judges -- just the ones who do not rule as he wishes. As contrasted to The Good Wife, he criticizes judges; he does not ridicule them. The Good Wife is very popular and boasts a viewership of about 13 million. Having that many people seeing judges (even fictional ones) depicted as pompous idiots week-in and week-out takes its toll on respect for the judiciary. I concede that I may be overly sensitive, but I suspect that surgeons would be offended by a hospital TV show that depicted doctors bungling operations on a weekly basis.
With conservatives constantly railing that too many judges are getting it wrong -- activists thwarting the will of the people -- it does not help to have such a popular program declaring that they are jerks and creeps as well. Before anyone goes ape that I am violating the free speech rights of the producers, I make no claim that they cannot do what they are doing. But if they continue -- maybe in the name of full disclosure -- they should call the show The Good Wife and the Bad Judge.
I'm British and without experience of American legal practice.
I don't see the judges on TGW as accurate representations of judges. Rather they're a plot device to highlight the personalities of the lawyers in a character-driven rather than case-law show. I find this show interesting for intelligently exploring different ways women have to handle and express power/authority. As for years women have been portrayed in rather flat ways - ambitious ball-breaker, submissive housewife, sex kitten/femme fatale - this is a great relief, providing viewing with recogniseable aspects of women I've known rather than a portrayal of my gender I can't relate to and often despise. For me this is the heart of the show.
Your concern has merit. The portrayal of legal workings does give the impression of a structually and systemically corrupt judicial and political institution, as a complete outsider I can't tell if I'm raising eyebrows at distorted representations or not. I'd like to reassure you I don't use TGW to form any serious opinion on the subject. I recognise I've no independant experience or knowledge and fictional shows aren't good source material. Some people may choose to believe the portrayal, some people are either lazy thinkers or just stupid.
My suggestion is to write a couple of character outlines for judges for the show and submit it to the the decisionmaker. Maybe they'll accept it?
I wish you success in achieving a better representation of judges in popular culture.
Zed Dee
Considering the blog re never consenting to search, and the attending comments, it appears a majority of people have zero trust and respect for law enforcement and our judicial system nowadays. Whether news, anecdoates or TV dramas, citizens are all too happy to take this info and ascribe it to every court across the land. So your view of how fictional judges will be processed as examples of real judges does make sense to me. The prevailing mindset these days is to bash an entire lot of folks for their geography, politics, education, and/or job.
My 30+ career has been with the military justice system. Our judges are of exemplary integrity. And yet, some are characters with their little pet peeves and quirks, but they follow the law and the gold standard of impartiality. In contrast, I've never been selected for jury duty, never been tried, nor even arrested. Some would say my frame of reference is rather limited. In any case, I had to put in my two cents.
The fact is that there are enough judges "guilty as charged" that complaining about the caricatures suggests that they may be apt.
You made some excellent points and I can understand the perspective you have from your years on the bench. I am a regular watcher of THE GOOD WIFE, so I wanted to give you my perspective for what it is worth. The show is set in Chicago, and this show parodies all the real and imagined corruption of the Cook County courts. I did not however, see it as an indictment of the whole legal system, more of just a distorted (at times) mirror of the windy city.
I am a nurse, and nurses get portrayed through some very distorted lenses in the entertainment industry also. It can be frustrating.
As the co-creator and producer of THE GOOD WIFE, I think you're being unfair to our show. It's true we have our fair share of judges who demonstrate bias and an excess of personality on our fictional benches, but that's part of the thrust of our show: to examine bias and corruption in the court systems. How is justice to be achieved if the law is treated as a game? That's one of the main themes of the show. You can disagree with it, but at least our show has a point of view. And I would argue there are more than enough legal shows that portray judges as (boring, but respectful) fonts of impartial wisdom.
You ask "Can't there be at least one episode with a normal, caring fair judge...?" There is at least one episode. In fact there are dozens. Judge Cuesta, as played by David Paymer, is a truth-seeker. He has been in five episodes. So is Judge Morris, as portrayed by Jane Alexander. I would argue that most of our judges have personality, or even an excess of personality (given that we are fiction writers, you must forgive us for being drawn toward personality), but in fact often judge correctly on the law. The point is that the lawyers, even our protagonist lawyers, think they can exploit the bias and personality of these judges, but then are surprised when the judge decides against them.
Warmest,
--Robert King
With respect
Lee Sarokin
I realize for those in the profession being shown, i.e. lawyer, doctor, etc. these shows seem a bit far fetched, but they are not ment to be complete reality.
Are you sure you watched any episodes other than this week's? I thought Dennis O'Hare this week came very close to the line between quirky and silly. But O'Hare can get away with it because he is so talented. There have been numerous legitimate portrayals of judges on The Good Wife. David Paymer has done an excellent job as a reoccurring judge. Jayne Alexander, David Fonteno, Peter Riegert, Joanna Gleason, and especially Linda Emond have done excellent jobs portraying judges.
Let's also remember that this show was initially pitched as How Elliot Spitzer's Wife Got Her Groove Back, and has since spiraled into a soapy lawyer show when that initial premise ran its course.