"Whose Monkey is it Anyway" is another episode that tackles a tough issue that is also quite controversial, with strong opinions either way (mostly pro from what has been seen in my life). Any film, documentary or television episode concerning animal rights (which the franchise tackled more than once since) deserves credit for taking it on in the first place, it was very relevant at the time and still is (even more so) and one of those topics that needs to be raised awareness of.
It is a subject matter that could have been dealt with a lot better here. As has been said quite a few times in my reviews for previous episodes, 'Law and Order' was often very good with its handling of tough topics and the best examples were topics that were a lot tougher and harder to pull off than animal rights (including racism, abortion, gun control, mercy killings etc). That is not the case with "Whose Monkey is it Anyway", which came over as ham-handed, odd and flimsy and it is another episode where the legal portion would better off have not happened.
By all means, "Whose Monkey is it Anyway" is not all bad. Looks good. Well shot and not resorting to being claustrophobic or gimmicky and nice use of locations. The music doesn't intrude or overbear and the direction lets the drama breathe enough and has moments of tension towards the end.
The first portion is quite thought-provoking and compelling. Cannot fault the regular cast and Kevin Isola's performance hits hard as a character where his viewpoint is understood, especially those that feels strongly about this issue on his side.
Like some of the previous Season 11 episodes on the other hand, "Whose Monkey is it Anyway" is rather thin (like half an hour stretched to just under twice as long), which made it feel rather routine halfway through particularly. And it did lay on too thick what its stance is on animal rights without exploring enough any other viewpoint. A stance that is not going to bode well for activists, especially with how they're portrayed here (exaggerated and stereotypically). The supporting characters lack subtlety and don't feel like real people.
Once again, the legal section of the episode underwhelms and is where the episode became rather ridiculous. The defense argument is another simplistic and facepalm worthy one and the prosecution consists of extreme lengths taken to get a result and trying to make a case out of not that much to go on. Another one of those cases that was not strong enough to go to court and where only one outcome would be realistic, whereas there is a personal preference for episodes that challenge and make one unsure of what is the truth and how it's going to turn out. The writing lacks tautness and by the end of the episode much of me ended up not caring for the result, which is not a good thing to feel when having friends that feel strongly about this issue.
To conclude, disappointing. 5/10.
9 out of 10 found this helpful.
Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
