Why Does The End of 1840 Make Me Feel That The Cast/Writers Stopped Caring??

Stop!  You're killing me!  I almost laughed my head off!!!

I could swear I've used that line before...you all must be as forgetful as I am!

I could swear I've used that line before

A search of the forum's posts reveals that you have not.

It must have only been in your own, uh, head. 

It must have only been in your own, uh, head. 

Thank goodness I was only drinking water when I read this!

CassB wrote:

Stop!  You're killing me!  I almost laughed my head off!!! 

Time to get serious again, guys.   

There is a great deal I like about 1840 but the witchcraft trial is absolutely ludicrous.  You have a dynamic talent like David Selby and you put him in a plot where he is confined to a jail cell and a court room where he can only shout No!  That's not true!  etc., etc.  Not a very good use of your cast.  And I'm sure someone has probably mentioned it before, but where did Judah get a psychedelic compositon/theme book to use as his journal in the 1680's?

I'm probably beginning to sound like a cheerleader for 1840, but I actually like the 1840 trial.  The dialogue is quick and sharp, and there is a realistic element to the legal aspect.  A former poster who is a lawyer wrote at length during the last run about how well done and accurate the courtroom exchanges and procedures were.  That was my feeling as well, and I find the scenes really sizzle.  Quentin's role in the courtroom is what the role a defendant should be.

The one thing about this trial - at least up to this point when Desmond is charged - is that both Dawson and Desmond are legitimate lawyers opposing each other.

As to Vlad's comment about Quentin's role being what a defendant's role should be - I think that was Julian's point - they created a plot where there wasn't much of anything for him to do.

He seems to be getting a lot of airtime in the jail cell.  Moreso, I think, than John Karlen's excellent courtroom scenes.  I'd be happy with more of Mr. Karlen.

Agree that the courtroom scenes are often gripping, but I do wonder on what planet any judge would allow the defendant's attorney to be called to the stand as a witness for the prosecution?  Highly improbable, and likely grounds for a big fat mistrial.

Not that I don't like 1840, I do - just think it gets messy from here on out.  But the witchcraft trial is ludicrous, not just for the reason above.  Also in the sense that it takes place in the middle of the nineteenth century.  That just strains credulity.  Even the trial of Victoria Winters for sorcery in 1795 is several decades later than any American witchcraft trials of which I'm aware.

Agree that the courtroom scenes are often gripping, but I do wonder on what planet any judge would allow the defendant's attorney to be called to the stand as a witness for the prosecution?  Highly improbable, and likely grounds for a big fat mistrial.

I wish we had Ben's posts from the VN board.  As a lawyer, he gave a very thorough assessment.  I'm sure you're right about the part you mention (which I haven't viewed yet).

Not that I don't like 1840, I do - just think it gets messy from here on out.  But the witchcraft trial is ludicrous, not just for the reason above.  Also in the sense that it takes place in the middle of the nineteenth century.  That just strains credulity.  Even the trial of Victoria Winters for sorcery in 1795 is several decades later than any American witchcraft trials of which I'm aware.

You're right, of course.  I don't think there were many -- or possibly any -- witch trials in America after Salem in 1692.  Though DS did deal with that very point not long ago in 1840 -- various characters expressing incredulity that anyone could believe in witches in the 19th century; the legal technicalities wherein the original colonial law could still be invoked, etc.  I thought they did a decent job in making the 1840 witch trial theoretically possible if not wholly believable -- but the "believable" part is part and parcel of DS's premises as a whole:  witches, vampires, werewolves ...

I don't recall 1795 making any similar attempt to explain Victoria's trial for witchcraft 100 years after witch trials had ended.  I know there were a few witch trials in Europe -- Germany, I think -- some years later than Salem.

I think the last witch trials anywhere were around 1722.

Agree that the courtroom scenes are often gripping, but I do wonder on what planet any judge would allow the defendant's attorney to be called to the stand as a witness for the prosecution?  Highly improbable, and likely grounds for a big fat mistrial.

What bothers me is that this particular court seems to pick and choose which civil rights they'll respect.  For example, they honor Quentin's Sixth Amendment right to be represented by counsel, but then they defy the Fifth Amendment by forcing Desmond to provide testimony that ultimately incriminates himself.  So does this court operate according to the US Constitution or not?  It's just a big jumbled mess to me.

What bothers me is that this particular court seems to pick and choose which civil rights they'll respect.  For example, they honor Quentin's Sixth Amendment right to be represented by counsel, but then they defy the Fifth Amendment by forcing Desmond to provide testimony that ultimately incriminates himself.  So does this court operate according to the US Constitution or not?  It's just a big jumbled mess to me.

Although Desmond was not on trial, so he couldn't really be said to be incriminating himself.  It was more like an impromptu hearing -- interrupting Quentin's trial -- to supposedly see if there was a conflict of interest with Desmond representing Quentin.  Maybe the judges rode slipshod over procedure by then indicting Desmond for witchcraft ... but how many TV trials or even movies are all that accurate -- or even realistic -- when it comes to trial scenes?   

 

but how many TV trials or even movies are all that accurate -- or even realistic -- when it comes to trial scenes?   

Uh, probably none - at least not 100%. For the most part, real trials are never as dramatic as their entertainment counterparts. But then, that's why they call it entertainment. 

Although Desmond was not on trial, so he couldn't really be said to be incriminating himself.

I think a simple google search on "self-incrimination" would provide you with evidence to the contrary.

It was more like an impromptu hearing -- interrupting Quentin's trial -- to supposedly see if there was a conflict of interest with Desmond representing Quentin.

No, he was called as a witness for the State to provide evidence that Quentin was possessed.  As a result of his testimony he was arrested and charged with witchcraft.

but how many TV trials or even movies are all that accurate -- or even realistic -- when it comes to trial scenes?   

My point was that no effort was made here to be consistent.  Realism and accuracy went out the window when this became a witchcraft trial.

The entire premise of this trial is ludicrous.  But that's an odd thing to complain about when you've already watched several years of stories involving witches, vampires, werewolves, Frankenstein-like creatures, Leviathans, parallel time, gypsy curses, ghosts, severed heads, severed hands,...have I left anything out?  OH yeah, the most unbelievable thing of all.....a Mistress of the Mansion who hasn't gone out shopping for 20 years!!!