0/5

Crownies

ABC's new legal drama that explores young lawyers dealing with pressure asks a lot of the audience but there's enough to make a case for a promising series.

Television sure is full of legal dramas.

Most of them tell the story of a lawyer getting their client off. Most of them tell the story of an entire case resolved within a single episode.

Crownies does neither of these things, and that’s a good thing. It helps give the new ABC drama a point of difference.

But there’s a lot to take in with this first instalment of 2 hours.

Strictly speaking, the Department of the Public Prosecution is fictional (NSW actually has a Director of Public Prosecution) but with all the Sydney locations it’s difficult not to simply see this as a Sydney-based drama. The producers have tried hard to make this a generic Australian metropolis -you won’t see the Harbour Bridge here.

Lewis Fitz-Gerald plays the most senior role here, as the Director of the DPP, David Sinclair. Other senior lawyers are played by Marta Dusseldorp, Jerome Ehlers and, returning to screen in a regular role after a long absence, Peter Kowitz. In a supportive admin role is character actress, Jeanette Cronin.

But the focus of Crownies is the young guns, the still-wet-behind-the-ears lawyers who are learning on the run. Despite their relative inexperience they are entrusted with cases that matter and make decisions that affect real people. As a dramatic premise it’s a noble dilemma worth exploring. Crownies will also dramatise how these kinds of pressures impact on their personal lives, indeed how they release that pressure.

For much of the premiere two-part episode they release it through sex. A lot of sex. On the desk, under the desk, at the office party, in the corridor, on the move…. They’re a pretty glamorous lot too, dressed up in evening wear and skimpy outfits that would look more at home on Underbelly: The Golden Mile (it’s a visual red herring, the plot soon justifies the attire).

That said, I would be worried about these randy kids trying to prosecute any case I was a party to.

The effect of this overt display detracts from the kind of legal drama one might expect of ABC -but perhaps that’s the point. At any rate, I didn’t really buy it and felt like it was sensation for the sake of it.

There are several legal cases set up in the premiere: a sexual scandal involving the Attorney General, a teenage murderer, the rape of a disabled teen, the prosecution of a drug pusher, and a high profile murder case.

With 22 episodes this series will see cases ebb and flow across its series arc. But with 9 ensemble characters (and at least 13 featured parts) and so many legal cases to set up, the focus of the premiere is diluted. I’m not convinced it’s the most effective way into the world of this DPP.

A scene involving a Muslim woman asked to remove her traditional headdress is one of the better moments. It personalises contemporary issues and dramatises the dilemma. If anyone comes off looking bad here, it’s the magistrate.

The young cast members are quite good, with Todd Lasance given the lion’s share of the attention. But Hamish Michael impresses as a lawyer nervous about speaking in public. Andrea Demetriades could also be one to watch. Other roles are played by Indiana Evans, Ella Scott Lynch, Chantelle Jamieson, and Christopher Morris.

The premiere is a bit of a mixed bag: there are flashes of story and character, partnered by some pedestrian scenes and others that are over the top.

The feel of the show is This Life meets MDA, the latter produced by the same producers, Screentime.

ABC opens the series with a double-episode debut, presumably to address the vast scale of the project. I felt a disconnect from the premiere but admit it demonstrated enough ideas and performers to warrant another look.

In the current TV landscape, that may be ABC’s challenge for the wider audience.

I suppose in that respect, this jury is still out?

Crownies airs 8:30pm Thursdays on ABC1.

37 Responses

  1. This show is definitely improving with some good story lines and character development. However whilst there are some good story lines they need to be more fully developed for example last nights story on the father who accidentally left his child in the car and the spousal abuse story.Hopefully they will put more substance into these incoming epsodes.

  2. i wasn’t impressed there is much room for improvment. ‘Put in a few half dressed girls, shown quite provocatively call them young laywers and theres a show. It seems like one of the females was just in a school uniform, on home and away “u could say, like yesturday(lol)” and now u see her in some pretty undergarments and a little top hat?..(that sounds a bit ”legally incorrect!?…lol. Possibly its the kind of show to watch when theres nothin else on. maybe they should put more depth into each eppisode. we all have diff, taste though..;) Well put though about the sene with the muslim woman, the tended to bring up the issue and simply have the judge just popping out with a quite sensitive issue with an quite unlikeble tone, u would expect some kind of explination from the woman..& the scene..no..

  3. I lasted for 20 minutes but was so bored I turned off, never to watch again … none of the cast were at all interesting to me, and the story too slow.

  4. Julie I’m pretty sure that graphic you’re referring to is a sexed-up parody of Lady Justice. So that specific complaint doesn’t hold much weight.

  5. I also cannot understand people commenting….when they have not even watched the show…..
    I was not really taken in by the previews ….but was totally hooked watching it!
    And as for being skewed to a ‘young’ audience…..I am an elderly person…so kinda shoots that arguement in the foot?!?

  6. Omg, you’ve got to love the negative comments from people who admit they haven’t even watched it. I always watch a show before deciding it is good or bad

  7. What aload of trash & a waste of taxpayers’ money.Even though I didn’t watch it ,the previews were enough for me,more than likely aimed at a young audience.

  8. I found it very commercial. Disappointed, thought they might be able to do serious with depth, while adding a little fun, but sorry, failed to impress us.

  9. It’s a shameless attempt to make a Seven show for the ABC, and it was inept in the extreme. The attempt to make this ‘attractive’ to an audience – have you seen the posters- female lawyer, blindfolded, faceless in wig, gown, fishnets and stilettos is completely gratuitous exploitation – and the implication that you need this sort of crap to attract eyeballs in 2011 is seriously insulting to the public. The notion that some assistant could wander round a DPP office looking like a trashy Berlin cabaret act all day is risible. It’s white male middle aged middle class fantasy. The dialogue was truly terrible, the acting patchy (those performers who played the parents – what thankless cliched roles they had to cope with!). You could almost time the plot lines – screwing on the desk – gotta be someone doing a line on tomorrow’s court papers, and yes, there it was. Where’s the rigour? Where’s the intelligence?

  10. This was a load of junk unfortunately. What a waste of money. I felt like it treated its audience like idiots. Poorly written characters, hammy acting, cheasy storylines with a pinch of ABC political correctness to distract that your actually watching watered down Underbelly. Its crap!

Leave a Reply