最近大為著迷的《相棒》讓我想起了我在美國的另一個夥伴，《Law & Order》。上網一查，才驚然發現原裝原味的這一套已經在2010年停播。
每次聽到片頭這冷靜低沉的旁白，還有旁白之後的兩聲「登登」，就會頭皮發麻開始緊張：
"In the criminal justice system, the people are represented by two separate yet equally important groups. The police who investigate crime and the district attorneys who prosecute the offenders. These are their stories."
回味一下片頭音樂：
從1990年開播，走過了二十個年頭，畫下句點是必然的結果。不過就像CSI那樣，Law & Order 在二十年內也發展出很多系列，除了原裝的《Law & Order》，在美國還有《Law & Order: Special Victims Unit》(1999迄今)、《Law & Order: Criminal Intent》(2001-2011)、《Law & Order: Trial by Jury》(2005-2006)這幾個系列，甚至也有電玩遊戲。
比較有特色和人氣的是SVU這個系列，主要是講性犯罪以及和兒童有關的犯罪，不過後來看多了覺得很害怕，也就不那麼喜歡了。Criminal Intent很多都是心理變態類型的犯罪，可是我覺得這種心理分析有點千篇一律，跟SVU也有重複的地方。Trial by Jury是講上法庭之前檢方和辯方的一些攻防準備，有時也會演陪審團在做出判決前的一些討論，其實滿好看的，但收視率很差一季就掛點了。當然有時候這四個系列會有cross-over的人物。我最喜歡的還是原始的Law & Order，討論的議題比較廣。
《Law & Order》每一集的前半小時是警察辦案，後半小時則是法庭戲。所以一個小時能擁有雙重享受。
另一個使我喜愛的地方，在於它不拖泥帶水，往往一開始就出現屍體（喂～～），警察馬上開始辦案，也不太會花時間著墨於警探的私生活。這一點，《相棒》倒是也做得不錯。
美國刑事劇節奏比較明快，日本警察花好多時間開會跟聽長官講__話，我想這真的跟文化有關(日本的開會文化啊~~)
《Law & Order》的架構很簡單：
1. 兩個警探，老鳥配新芽
2. 警探的頂頭上司，小隊長或更高的上司(較少出現)
3. 一組檢察官，一個是資深的行政助理地方檢察官(EADA)，一個是資淺的助理地方檢察官(ADA)（通常都找美女來演，平衡一下這部戲的陽剛味，但是換人的頻率超高）。
4. 這對檢察官的老闆，也就是紐約地方檢察官(DA)，看了這齣劇才知道這位子也是要選舉的，所以劇中常會演到碰到選舉時刻必須小心觸犯民意的狀況。
1990年第一季的時候，飾演其中一個警探的就是還很嫩的Mr. Big（本名克里斯‧諾斯，下圖左） 。
圖片來源：Amazon
不過可想而知，經過二十年的時間，雖然戲劇的架構不變，但演員/人物也大搬風了好幾次。因為劇本夠強，所以觀眾對這個好像也不是很介意。
我比較熟悉的是這個組合：
圖片來源：Amazon
最左的一老一少是警探二人組，頭(像)最大的白髮先生是EADA，最右的美女是ADA。頭像比較大也可想見他很受觀眾愛戴，他也是我最喜歡的劇中人物。聽他在法庭辯論實在過癮極了！
右下那個看起來有點憤怒的男子是DA，事實上這個演員本人真的是律師，2002年加入劇組的時候甚至是共和黨參議員！後來還聽說他有意角逐共和黨總統提名，不過，初選選得很難看就識相地退出了！左下有一個黑人女性是小隊長，警探duo的上司。
除了一般牽涉愛恨情仇與金錢的兇案，也有一些案子反映了美國的社會問題。比如同性戀、墮胎、種族、毒品、貧窮、非法移民這些在美國很熱很火的話題；有時候也會討論美國憲法的一些基本概念，這部份非常精彩。因為故事背景是設在紐約，也有一些跟紐約相關的問題，如房租管制。
連《六人行》裡面，他們一群人都常聚在一起看Law & Order 呢，裡面的Joey甚至得到過在Law & Order登場的機會！
由於Law & Order原裝系列在美國本土已經是昨日黃花，即使後來推出了一個洛杉磯系列（以往都是在紐約）也無力回天。因此其製作人Dick Wolf也開始把這個架構往海外推銷，在英國和俄國觀眾還算買單，2012年也會推出南非版。
最後來兩段檢方跟辯方的結辯陳詞。
第一段是來自第八季第十三集，Castoff。
前情提要(維基百科)：
The street murder of a woman who worked with underprivileged kids takes a turn towards the bizarre when the detectives uncover she had a predilection for kinky sex, and that one of her current partners appears to be a serial killer, who offers an overexposure to television violence as his defense during his trial.
辯方用電視對人的影響來當抗辯理由，請看雙方結辯：
辯方：
If television didn't influence our behavior, why would advertisers spend millions of dollars every year on TV commercials? Of course TV has an effect on us. You watch-- as I did 30 years ago-- you watch the Vietnam war on TV, you are changed. Now, Mr. McCOY will no doubt tell you that this is a matter of freedom of speech-- that this is a first amendment issue. It is not. It is about what you as parents already know-- that your children are mesmerized when they watch TV-- how they copy what they see. Th-they act out karate fights after watching Power Rangers. And here we have Eddie Chandler who was abused, exploited and discarded by people he thought were his friends. Eddie chandler, who for 30 years, was bombarded with televised fantasies of bloodshed and vengeance and cruelty that turned him into a violence junkie. Television told him it's okay to kill. Television. Now, the judge will instruct you that if you find mitigating circumstances-- for example, if my client acted under an irresistible compulsion to commit violence-- then you can acquit him of the top count of murder one, and find him guilty of first-degree manslaughter. I am not asking you to absolve him of all blame. Just the blame that properly belongs to those who infected his mind.
檢方：
McCoy: Mr. Pressman is right. This is not a first amendment issue. We can all agree that what we see powerfully affects us, but that doesn't excuse us from being decent human beings or from making moral choices. What we choose to watch and how we react is up to us. The baby-boom generation to which Congressman Maxwell and I both belong, grew up watching hundreds of hours of violent TV. We dressed up like Davy Crockett with his trusty rifle Old Betsy…Like Hopalong Cassidy with his pearl-handled six shooters. And what was the result of all this make-believe, TV-inspired violence? We grew up to be a generation that marched against war and preached peace, love and flower power. Yes Mr. Pressman, watched the Vietnam war on TV and how did that change him? I looked up his record. He became a conscientiou objector, and a Harvard law professor. Dangerous guy, huh? We are creatures of free will and moral choice. No matter what we see, read or hear we still make choices. A man who murdered and tortured two innocent … chose evil.
辯方律師他認為被告不是預謀殺人，是因為看了太多電視而對暴力上癮(因為前面的情節我也忘了)，失去自我控制的能力，雖然美國憲法第一修正案保障言論自由，但而電視內容也不能用言論自由無限上綱。
檢方順著辯方的思路，故意說這的確不是言論自由的問題，而是自由意志的問題，人可以選擇要看甚麼節目，以及要成為甚麼樣的人。
當然兩方的結辯都可以找到漏洞，只不過就看陪審團比較能被誰說服。But look at this argument. When can we see this kind of arguments in our primetime TV series? If TV shows reflect what we are as a nation...
P.S. Law & Order古早以前曾在台灣播出，譯名為《法網遊龍》。從賣鍋貼到警察，都是遊龍啊！
美日刑事劇珠玉
，敬請期待下集
留言列表
