Proven Innocent Review 2019 TV-Show Series Cast Crew Online
Creator: David Elliot
Stars: Riley Smith, Caitlin Mehner, Clare O’Connor
Review: Fox’s new drama “Innocent Provence” seems to be made for a time when many look more closely at the prosecutors’ methods and see the excesses in the criminal justice system. Rachelle Lefevre plays Madeline Scott, imprisoned for years thanks in part to the fervent attention of a prosecutor (Kelsey Grammer), but was later exonerated on appeal. In order, at the beginning, to thwart the career of her nemesis for a political office, she has as mission to find the people she had imprisoned who do not deserve to be there, to, as the title says, prove that the prisoner is innocent.
And that’s where the show stumbles. The program’s obsession with “innocence” as a concept does not correspond to the privilege of the legal system or its absence. In our world, those who are abandoned by the legal system can not be proven guilty; In this program, a seemingly harsh judge softens when she declares that a defendant is “really innocent”, before bursting into a resplendent smile as the audio of applause explodes in the courtroom.
The divergence of the facts of the chapter and the verse is nothing new (and a series of television that moved to the rhythm and with the lack of lightness of a trial in the royal court would be unappealable). But the goal of defending clients is not, or should not be, to investigate who is “really innocent”, but it provides a fair hearing guaranteed by the Constitution to everyone, even to those who, in fact, can really be guilty but with impeccable cases. With extenuating circumstances. Recalling his decision to represent the character of Lefevre while still in prison, Russell Hornsby reflects: “Who will fight for innocent people behind bars that were not famous?” This formulation leaves the criminals behind bars, who still deserve a defense.
This is not just a philosophical or political issue; It serves to deactivate any voltage that may exist in “Innocent checked”. After watching two episodes of the series (Fox sent critics the first and the fourth installment of the series), the premise that Lefevre defends clients, it is clear that she did not commit the truth. Crimes for which they have been punished: it erases the moral ambiguity that is the hallmark of the best criminal television. The ongoing secondary argument about Lefevre trying to find the “real murderer” of his childhood friend is a bit more interesting, as he faces the fact that the show has only presented a suspect, a character whose cruelty is out of all belief.
The villain general of the program also makes the bets of the show too obvious: the performance of Grammer is his most unhappy villain, and makes Sideshow Bob from “The Simpsons” look complex and soft-spoken. As it is presented, it is a bag of noxious gas that demands that from its first moments on the screen it is defeated, which makes the program an exercise to boo an antagonist of the opera, but not exactly a single one for more time to air.
Of the rest of the group, which includes Hornsby and Vincent Kartheiser, “Mad Men”, who deserve something better, only Lefevre really stands out, not quite positively. His delivery of lines is unusual and unconventional, sometimes in ways that improve the script (his objections and interjections in court scenes, this long post- “Ally McBeal”, could hardly be worse than they are on the page, Why not?), And sometimes in ways that make the program, and Madeline, a bit challenging to pass the time. She seems to be a person whose ability to interact with the world was severely atrophied by her time in prison, someone who lost her life in unfair ways. It is a subtle note, although perhaps accidental, that is the most real thing of a quite ridiculous show. And it’s enough to make you want this drama to understand that Madeline’s story would have been one that reflected an unfair system that hurt a person, even if she was not innocent.
Check More Stuff – Project Blue Book Review 2019 TV-Show Series Cast Crew Online