After its week off to provide room for the season finale of How To Get Away With Murder, Scandal resumed last night with an episode which is sure to receive some intense debate.
Titled "The Lawn Chair", the episode was written by Severiano Canales and directed by Tom Verica. It mirrored months of infamous headlines coming out of the US, in which African-Americans ended up dead at the hands of white law enforcement officers.
I'm the first to admit that I was highly skeptical going into this hour, fearing it could morph into a pure political stunt Shondaland series are known for taking an issue present in the media and re-enacting it. That club is by no means exclusive, however. Many a showrunner has taken an issue to heart and made an opinion known in one way or another, with the success varying wildly among them.
The hour hit the ground running. The shooting had occurred, Brandon Parker was dead, and Olivia Pope was thrown into the middle of the mayhem, working with the Washington Police Department to manage the crisis. It didn't take long for things to turn pear-shaped though. Clarence Parker strode out into the crime scene, and let off a shotgun blast. Fired up even more by serial rights campaigner Marcus Walker, the crowd grew significantly.
Clarence Parker took up a position on top of his son on a (title drop) lawn chair provided by Walker. Olivia made the mistake of promising something she couldn't deliver, with her attempts to bring Attorney General David Rosen to the scene falling on deaf ears.
Investigating further, Olivia interviewed the police officer who shot and killed Brandon Parker. He claimed self defense, saying Parker had threatened him with a knife after he had questioned him about the origins of a new cellphone he was seen carrying, and noting Brandon had matched recent eyewitness descriptions of a man who had committed a shoplifting offense a short time earlier. Attempting to corroborate the officer's story, Olivia and Marcus moved Brandon's body, where a knife was discovered.
Let's be honest - events took an unrealistic turn here. I doubt many police forces in the world - not just the US - would not have shot Clarence Parker having observed his brandishing of the shotgun he was holding when he heard the news. The episode lost a lot of the already limited credibility it had right then and there in my opinion. But, nevertheless, Clarence managed to convince Olivia, and thus David Rosen, that there was more to the story, with both returning to the police station with new evidence to present to the offending officer.
It turned out that that officer, Jeffrey Newton, had another offender in his patrol car. In exchange for his silence, Newton let that offender run off, but not before planting his knife on Brandon's body. Walker came clean upon that evidence being presented, but managed to recover some of the episode's credibility by voicing his opinions on respect, and how African-Americans were killing their own - something he was trying to prevent - but with African-Americans not respecting or valuing law enforcement and what they were trying to do, his job was being made infinitely more difficult.
Despite his points being valid, the damage was done. Newton had planted evidence and filed an incorrect report, therefore he was arrested. Brandon Parker was exonerated, having merely attempted to pull a receipt from his jacket pocket - not a weapon. But the threatening behavior and non-compliance was his undoing. In the end, the creative team left both parties with some responsibility for what happened - exactly what I expected to happen even before the episode began.
Case aside, this was a highly unusual hour for Scandal. The serial storylines were almost completely halted, with finding a replacement Vice President the only thing on the agenda. Not much progress was made, though Mellie's intentions are abundantly clear.
Occurring events aside, everything else was pretty normal. The acting, writing and directing did the job but weren't spectacular. I enjoyed the score more than usual though.
But the main intention of this episode was to once again add fuel and opinions to the fiery debate surrounding the treatment African-Americans receive from law enforcement. I live a long way away from the US, so I don't believe it's useful or relevant for me to share any significant opinions on whether that was achieved in this episode, or whether it was a political stunt instead. If anything is clear, it's that respect and values are important - and that they are a two way street.
Thanks as always for reading! I'm keen to hear your thoughts on this episode, so please share them in the comments below! Remember you can check out Scandal's ratings on my TV ratings website, www.seriesmonitor.com/scandal.
Well you have given FOX HATE NEWS their tag line for tomorrow morning "was this episode a political stunt?" I imagine for some whites, the answer will be yes. For me, it was one of the most powerful episode of Scandal. So no, it's not a political stunt. MIchael Brown is dead. Tamri Rice is dead. Trayvon Martin is dead.
ReplyDeleteYou said it, not me. Exactly why I didn't share my own opinions - you obviously took the topic much more personally than I did or can.
ReplyDeleteYep. As an AA, my experience of racism is personal.
ReplyDeleteI agree....I thought it was a good episode. That review was only slightly more subtle than one of those Fox news commentaries that claim to be "unbiased" or "neutral". A lot of TV shows deal with sociopolitical issues related to current events all the time, including issues of sexuality and gender discrimination, issues regarding international relations, etc. but as soon as a show brings up a topic that someone doesn't want to discuss, it gets criticized for getting too political.
ReplyDeleteI didn't criticize anything. Scandal is probably the most well known series for its sociopolitical issues and diversity - same sex relationships, black lead actress, politics, you name it. But the context is different when they are weaved into the everyday storyline. In this episode, however, the entire episode was devoted to one sociopolitical topic. Everything else was put on hold. That's why I ask the question: was the episode a political stunt.
ReplyDeletedon't forget adultery, that always a bonus (sarcasm)
ReplyDeleteHaha, not to mention election fixing, murder, corruption......
ReplyDeleteThe episode was strong, daring and very thoughtful. I loved it.
ReplyDeleteOr because the matter is far more important than everything else Scandal has dealt with - it speaks to the condition of the basic human being.
ReplyDeleteThis was a powerful and great episode. But Jimmy, the writer was Zahir McGhee, For some reason the ABCmedia info is incorrect. Tom Verica and Shonda Rhimes tweeted the episode writer on twitter last night.
ReplyDeleteSome would call it a filler episode that broke from central stories of the show, but it was a much needed one. Olivia still showed signs of PTSD and we had Fitz trying to honor his deal with Mellie. Again, Fitz was put in a impossible situation of crossing Mellie by picking an inexperience and un-electable VP choice or crossing Cyrus by picking someone with experience and could win POTUS. Fitz decided to help Mellie and he sabotaged the Governor of Mexico vetting to be his VP choice.
But back to the episode, I liked the ending the best. The cop lies were exposed and he was arrested and that rarely ever happens in real life. Usually the cops are never charged with murder. Glad it was an happy ending for the father which brings me to the best part of the episode when Olivia took the father to meet Fitz. Throughout the episode Fitz wanted to get involved but his hands was tied politically. It was a perfect moment of bonding between two fathers from two different worlds and different backgrounds who both tragically lost two sons. I could see Olivia sorrow for both men when they embraced.
A nice deter from the usual crazy insane moments of Scandal. Props to Shonda Rhimes.
If you had said "political statement', that might have implied more neutrality on your part, but saying "political stunt" reduces the topic to something more gimmicky. It suggests that the writers were using or exploiting a current political issue in order to get media attention (or gain some other type of leverage) but weren't truly interested in the issue. People often reserve that term for politicians who make a big deal about a trivial issue involving their opponent, in order to make their opponent look bad to the public. You stated your "question" in large print in the headline, which makes it more of a speculation than a question...correct?
ReplyDeleteI doubt many police forces in the world - not just the US - would not have shot Clarence Parker having observed his brandishing of the shotgun he was holding when he heard the news.
ReplyDeletePolice are supposed to diffuse a situation not escalate it. It's not unbelievable that they didn't shoot him immediately. What was unbelievable was that they continued to allow Olivia and Marcus to be the negotiators. They would have quickly called in SWAT with a professional negotiator to end the stand off.
Of course this is TV, and Scandal. Realism rarely need apply.
True that. Well said.
ReplyDeleteI'm happy with the word "stunt". A stunt is something done to get attention. A statement is more reserved and civilized. I'd call incorporating aspects such as sexuality, a strong black female lead character, and other sociopolitical things "statements" because of the way they're handled as part of the everyday storyline. Anything one-off or seriously deviating from the norm is heading toward stunt territory. That's the way I see it anyway.
ReplyDeleteAnd that's where we differ. I would like us to progress beyond the point where people stop regarding hiring black characters as "making a statement" Your distinction between a statement and a stunt seems odd. Are you saying that whenever someone actively protests something, you regard that as a stunt because it isn't reserved or civilized enough for you???
ReplyDeleteThank you! As an AA woman, Shonda probably felt obligated to address this issue in the best way she knew how, her art. And to call it a "political stunt"? Shonda is not running for office and neither is the show team. They are using their power and visibility to bring an issue that is plaguing this country to the forefront for some people who choose to believe this isn't a real issue. I think instead of criticizing how Shonda & Co. used their platform to bring light to a serious issue, I think we should focus on how she is using her power to inform and educate people. Just because Scandal is known as a soapy drama fest doesn't mean it can't have it's somber moments.
ReplyDeleteThe episode was a poorly executed tawdry attempt to capitalize on a serious civic issue in America. It is not enought that the attempt failed miserably, it's that episode squandered goodwill built up by the Olivia Pope character.
ReplyDeleteAs it stands, the audience has already suspended disbelief and accepted wild story lines and fantastical theories in the name of entertsinment. But this-- this episode pretends to expose and give insight into a certain reality. Just some but not all of the tired tropes and cliched drama devices:
1-Phillip Agnew community activist ripoff & Olivia co fronting him, yeah, right
2- Clichéd knife- conveniently found & naively accepted by Pope.
3- Deus ex machina swoops in to suggest a different scenario
4-last scene of dad walking away leaving son so fiercely protected lying on the ground.
5- implication of goddess Olivia magical powers of persuasion saving the world-- not in Ferguson, NYC, FL, CA has anything remotely ever been resolved, let alone neatly.
An irresponsible mailing it in episode thst squandered Courtney Vance, the police guy & Olivia Pope, who did the best they could w what they were given.
My criticism is regarding the the show as art. Hatchet job
ReplyDeleteIt was pure gimmickry & creative laziness. The craft deserves better. She can't ride on past laurels. Every effort must be best effort. Else, heavy criticism.
ReplyDeleteNeatly done. Dangerous resolution. Scripted poorly. Fairy tale ok for the shoe, but not for a serious subject still too raw in folk minds. Can't be dismissed this easily
ReplyDeleteFor this, a little reality I jected would have helped.
ReplyDeleteWorse scene, guns drawn and Olivia stops police shooting. In whose reality?
I'm all for statements and stunts - my home country, New Zealand, is very well known for them. Stunts and statements produce progress - it just takes time. I'm looking forward to the day when black lead characters are the norm.
ReplyDeleteProtests can be both a statement or a stunt. Are a few rowdy, angry, property damaging protestors going to accomplish the same level of change as a properly organized peaceful protest attended by thousands? In New Zealand's case, no. A statement will work much better than a stunt. In the US's case, perhaps the opposite is true with the huge amount of political barriers both at state and nationwide level, stunts garner more media attention etc. In New Zealand's case, with only 4.5 million people, it doesn't take a huge protest to change anything, and that will always produce better results than a few going at it the wrong way.
In what reality has anything in Scandal actually happened? LOL. The majority of the things that Pope and associates achieve would never happen. The problems and issues in this show may be real, but in most cases, the solutions are usually improbable!
ReplyDeleteThat's true with pretty much any TV show though. I'm willing to put realism aside for a show that is never realistic to begin with. Where I do tend to have an issue is when an unrealistic by nature show attempts to do something realistic to this degree. That makes it a complete farce unless done perfectly. And that very rarely happens.
ReplyDeleteI'm not a fan of violent demonstrations either, but the writers depicted a violent reality through peaceful channels (film), so it still doesn't fit your definition of a political stunt. But semantics aside, I think your real issue is that you don't really understand the motivation behind the protests, so the thing you disapprove of the most, is the actual protests . The USA is not New Zealand. Like England, I believe that most police officers in New Zealand do not carry firearms, so you don't have to worry as much about trigger-happy police officers who shoot first and think later. The issues with racial profiling in the USA are far more real than any other country I've lived in. I wasn't going to bring this up but there was a quote in your review that I wanted to address: You said:
ReplyDelete"Walker came clean upon that evidence being presented, but managed to recover some of the episode's credibility by voicing his opinions on respect, and how African-Americans were killing their own - something he was trying to prevent - but with African-Americans not respecting or valuing law enforcement and what they were trying to do, his job was being made infinitely more difficult.Despite his points being valid, the damage was done..."
So that's where you completely lost me. That was the "valid" speech that resonated with you and restored the shows credibility?? It may have been realistic (and well-delivered), but his argument was not valid. Any time someone starts a sentence generalizing about an entire ethnic group,they lose credibility, because it sums up why we have problems with racial profiling in the first place. The idea that African Americans don't respect the law is a massive generalization. But if a cop really believes that (as implied by the "you people" attitude), then his knee jerk reaction will be to view all blacks initially as criminals, regardless of the individual, because he can't see beyond their colour. Most of the unarmed black kids who got shot were not doing anything wrong, as are many of the people who are pulled over on the highway and treated like criminals (e.g. the astronaut Mae Jemison, who was slammed against the pavement by a cop is one of the many examples). The argument that more blacks have been killed by other blacks is irrelevant in this regard (not to mention, a completely a completely asinine excuse), for a number of reasons: 1, Most lower income communities (which typically have the higher crime rates) in the USA tend to be racially segregated, so if you normalized for things like economics and geography, then it really isn't an issue of blacks targeting their own, it's an issue of socioeconomics combined with people having to live in racially segregated communities. It's like saying that Americans shouldn't be concerned about a terrorist bombing, because the vast majority of Americans are killed by Americans rather than foreign terrorists! 2. Also, when African Americans "kill their own", it is not condoned. They get harsh prison sentences when caught. If cops were also held accountable in a similar way, then people would not be protesting.and 3.They are police officers!!!! Since when is it OK for a cop to get excused just because some young criminal did the same thing? They're supposed to set an example and if they can't use their guns responsibly then they shouldn't be allowed to carry guns. Law-abiding people shouldn't be put in a situation where they actually fear the person sent out to protect them. If people (including the show's producer) are taking this topic personally, it's for a good reason. This is an issue that affects all blacks, regardless of whether they are wealthy, successful or law-abiding. .
And if they had ended up shooting the father for protesting his son's death (which truly would have been a more realistic outcome) and had Olivia been ineffective in her mediation, would that have made this episode right for you?Based on your stance, I suspect not.
ReplyDeleteThis entire response was great. I couldn't even finish reading the review because I was so put off by the reviewer's credibility comment.
ReplyDeleteYes I agree. They left out all the nuances and made it into a black and white cliché. Poor innocent black boy with loving caring father, and police are liars and killers. Please, they should have taken more responsibility if they are going to tackle this subject. IT is much more complicated that completely innocent black boys being gunned down for no reason by bigoted police officers. So tired of every storyline showing minorities as victims and un empowered. as if there is nothing they can do to succeed unless there are no bigots left in the world.
ReplyDeleteWhat I love about the POPE character is that she is smart, educated, beautiful, elegant classy and powerful and oh yea, she is black! They never even mention it (hardly) she is just busy being and leading gladiators in a powerful arena. She is nobody's victim That is so refreshing!
In my opinion, they are just adding fuel to the anti-cop fire, right when things finally started to calm down. Just another attempt by Hollywood to further exacerbate relations between AA and cops.
ReplyDeleteYes, and the fact that she wavered when the community activist made comments about her black card being revoked, or whatever racist comment that was, was disappointing and racist in and of itself. What, Olivia isnt black enough because she worked for the white house and went to law school? Come on. They need to stop perpetuating that belief. One of the reasons I love Scandal is because they never made her into a stereotypical black person, unlike a lot of the shows that are on now, where the black characters always speak, dress and act a certain way. Scandal was great, because it didn't portray people as white or black, but as people.
ReplyDeleteIf you don't like the handful of shows portraying an innocent black kid as a victim, just switch the channel. Because for every one show where there is an innocent black kid with (god forbid!) a loving parent who is wrongfully killed by a police officer, there are at least 20 shows portraying the opposite. I believe most of them are called "police procedurals". Those are the shows where cops are heroes and half the perps are blacks or latinos and there is no shortage of white victims (because apparently it's acceptible for whites to be portrayed as victims, but a black kid with a loving father gets viewed with cynicism). But these stereotypes are so rampant that most people accept them as the norm and don't express outrage, except when the tables are turned. Shonda Rhimes isn't the one who needs to act more responsibly. I actually thought she did a decent job of showing the different perspectives (even the of the guilty officer had a passionate speech that clearly resonated with the reviewer). And all the other cops seemed to behave within reason. She chose not to go with the standard "they were both innocent but the outcome was just unfortunate" ending which seems to be the classic jury verdict in most of these cases. She chose to show the cop as guilty.
ReplyDeleteI'm not sure what shows you're referring to when you say you are tired of blacks always being the "victim". I watched three shows this year concerning police killing an unarmed black kid and this was the only one that ended up with the cop being found guilty. Law and Order had an episode where Amaro accidentally shot a black kid, but the mistake was understandable (it was dark, another cop's bullet ricocheted, so he mistakenly thought that he was being shot at, etc. etc) Amaro was exonerated,. Not a bad episode, but the writers went overboard portraying blacks as having an ignorant mob-like mentality, and unwilling to listen to the facts. People commended that episode for being "balanced" and realistic though. And in contrast to Rhimes, the outcome was more realistic, but the portrayal of the individual characters was far more one-sided. But viewers accepted it as balanced because it fit with their view of reality.