Actually liked Season 17 quite a good deal on the whole (despite never caring for the character of Nina Cassady), or at least the first half of it. It did become less consistent post this episode though to me and the season ended a lot weaker than it started. On first watch, "Talking Points" was one of those liked it generally but not loved it episodes, feeling that it was thought probing and had tension but also feeling it too one-sided and at times over the top.
My feelings on rewatch are still pretty much the same for "Talking Points". It has a lot to like and that it tried to tackle this topic is admirable. It however is not a great episode of the season, in a season that had many of them, or 'Law and Order' as a show at its best, and like that episode (though not quite as jarringly) the topic could have been handled with more complexity and tact.
"Talking Points" as said is not perfect. It is heavy handed and while it does a good job showing how scary intolerance can be from one side it is made too what side the writers are on. Other episodes have presented their arguments in a more debatable way, whereas this pretty much made its mind up without hearing any other side. It would have been more complex and tactful if much more was made of the adult stem cells/embryonic stem cells medical history and statistics, that would have been fascinating and nothing was done with it when it came to trial and it would have proved that the argument that was being presented was not the right one.
What also would have made "Talking Points" more of a debate, rather than being one sided almost immediately, and more tactful was if the defense attorney wasn't so over the top and if what they were saying wasn't so moronic and judgemental, borderline bigoted in fact. Barlow is not a subtle character and some of how she presents her views lacked sensitivity and reeked of arrogance, but her point of view (or at the basic sentiment) was a lot more understandable and also today still relevant from the character that made the most sense in the episode. Once again, Cassady and Milena Govich's acting are bland, especially considering the larger than life personalities of the supporting characters.
However, so much is done right. The production values are typically slick with the right amount of grit, nothing is too fancy or too gimmicky. Nor is anything too static, drab or garish. The music is not too constant or emotionally manipulative, meanig not over-emphasising the emotion to make one think that's how we should be feeling. The direction is accommodating but also has pulse.
Furthermore, while not subtle, the writing is intelligent and taut, leaving one deep in thought. Barlow's writing in particular. The story is nothing out of the ordinary to begin with, but it is riveting in the second half. The ending was satisfying and the right one, considering the defendant's behaviour on the stand which gave them away any other verdict would have been a cheat. The colourful supporting characters help, especially Barlow. The acting is very good, with Charlotte Ross having a field day without unbalancing the episode too much.
Good but not great. 7/10.
My feelings on rewatch are still pretty much the same for "Talking Points". It has a lot to like and that it tried to tackle this topic is admirable. It however is not a great episode of the season, in a season that had many of them, or 'Law and Order' as a show at its best, and like that episode (though not quite as jarringly) the topic could have been handled with more complexity and tact.
"Talking Points" as said is not perfect. It is heavy handed and while it does a good job showing how scary intolerance can be from one side it is made too what side the writers are on. Other episodes have presented their arguments in a more debatable way, whereas this pretty much made its mind up without hearing any other side. It would have been more complex and tactful if much more was made of the adult stem cells/embryonic stem cells medical history and statistics, that would have been fascinating and nothing was done with it when it came to trial and it would have proved that the argument that was being presented was not the right one.
What also would have made "Talking Points" more of a debate, rather than being one sided almost immediately, and more tactful was if the defense attorney wasn't so over the top and if what they were saying wasn't so moronic and judgemental, borderline bigoted in fact. Barlow is not a subtle character and some of how she presents her views lacked sensitivity and reeked of arrogance, but her point of view (or at the basic sentiment) was a lot more understandable and also today still relevant from the character that made the most sense in the episode. Once again, Cassady and Milena Govich's acting are bland, especially considering the larger than life personalities of the supporting characters.
However, so much is done right. The production values are typically slick with the right amount of grit, nothing is too fancy or too gimmicky. Nor is anything too static, drab or garish. The music is not too constant or emotionally manipulative, meanig not over-emphasising the emotion to make one think that's how we should be feeling. The direction is accommodating but also has pulse.
Furthermore, while not subtle, the writing is intelligent and taut, leaving one deep in thought. Barlow's writing in particular. The story is nothing out of the ordinary to begin with, but it is riveting in the second half. The ending was satisfying and the right one, considering the defendant's behaviour on the stand which gave them away any other verdict would have been a cheat. The colourful supporting characters help, especially Barlow. The acting is very good, with Charlotte Ross having a field day without unbalancing the episode too much.
Good but not great. 7/10.
