"Law & Order" Chosen (TV Episode 2003) Poster

(TV Series)

(2003)

User Reviews

Review this title
8 Reviews
Sort by:
Filter by Rating:
9/10
Chutzpah in the first degree
bkoganbing3 March 2013
Warning: Spoilers
This episode of Law And Order marks the first of three appearances for defense attorney Randolph Dworkin and this episode is the best of the three. Sam Waterston learned to despise this man and with good reason.

The murder involves the death of a bookie. Not a guy who works out of a back table at the late Blarney Stone restaurants taking bets, but a man in partnership with a betting firm which is headquartered in Costa Rica and takes its bets by e-mail. Its clientèle is a high end one.

The investigation leads Briscoe and Green eventually to his partner who is married Jewish man with children who was skimming some of the action. Six figure skimming I might add. So John Rothman is arrested.

Peter Jacobson playing Dworkin is some piece of work. During the voir dire he loads the jury with Jews hoping for at very least a hung jury. And then the defense, Jacobson did it so he could give the money to Israel. At most jury nullification.

I would say off hand that Jacobson was guilty of chutzpah in the first degree. Fortunately both Sam Waterston and Elisabeth Rohm are up to his tricks. Mind you they never offer any real proof that this stolen betting money was going to Israel.

God Bless this Jewish jury which saw quite clearly the appeal to their heritage and prejudice.
19 out of 23 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
9/10
Here's to hoping the Big Guy upstairs has a little more sympathy
Mrpalli7723 November 2017
Two yuppies got out of an Italian restaurant totally drunk. One opened the wrong car at parking lot, noticing a dead body in the trunk. Policemen soon cut them loose and started investigating in victim's life. He was a bookie but not a traditional one: his company is placed oversea (Costa Rica) and he placed bets for wealthy people in the city. He was a real peace of work: he took advantage of a girl who owed him 25 grand and he used to mock his girlfriend (Emily Wing) by promising to marry her sooner or later. A colleague stole the murder weapon (a steak knife) from a restaurant in order to kill him after an argument; the perp embezzled money for his own purpose and the victim found it out. But what seemed to be an easy case for the prosecutors it's not a piece of cake at all...

The freak defense attorney since the beginning tried to get the jury's sympathy. He admitted the money was about to be used for the greater good (donation to Jewish organization for people crippled by terrorist attack) and some members of the Jury, as well as the judge, were actually Jews. McCoy and Southerlyn had to work hard in one of the longest trial in "Law & Order" franchise.
14 out of 20 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
9/10
A must choose
TheLittleSongbird15 June 2022
Of all the stories for Season 13, "Chosen's" was the one that intrigued and grabbed my attention the most. The character that the episode centres around sounded like one that one loves to hate, am not always keen on the defense attorney characters because of some of the arguments put worth being ridiculous (this is including the earlier seasons) but it is always interesting when the regular characters meet their match and someone that pushes them to the limit.

"Chosen" for me is one of the best episodes of a generally solid if not consistent Season 13. 'Law and Order' post-Season 10 was less consistent and more variable in quality compared to the earlier seasons, but "Chosen" is proof that the show still had brilliance in it that didn't always come out. The premise isn't a unique one, but it has nearly always been compelling and it certainly is here. Helped by that Randy Dworkin, in his first of three appearances, is such a well written and memorable character.

There is a lot to admire here. It is as ever shot with the right amount of intimacy without feeling too up close, even with a reliance of close up camerawork. That the editing has become increasingly tighter over-time is great too. The music isn't over-scored, manipulative or used too much. There is intimacy and tautness in the direction.

Script is intelligent and lean with no signs of fat. It also has intensity, emotional impact and even the odd sprinkle of humour, with it being especially good with Dworkin. While the policing is gritty and entertaining, and not routine, helped by that Briscoe and Green's chemistry is so strong, it's even better when the case comes to trial. Which shows a lot of tension and Dworkin is a more than formidable foe which is a primary source of the tension. McCoy sums him up very well. Absolutely do not agree about "Chosen" being anti-semitic, it's about it and it is clear that Jews are being painted in a favourable light.

Acting is excellent, cannot fault most of the regulars but the episode does belong to a quite exceptional Peter Jacobson.

Only one exception here and that is Elisabeth Rohm, who never looks comfortable and her line delivery is too one note.

In summary, absolutely excellent. 9/10.
8 out of 12 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
10/10
One of the Very Best L&O Episodes
kdspringer-7275929 May 2021
First off, Peter Jacobson in his first of three appearances as defense lawyer Randy Dworkin is a total revelation. He has had a nice acting career, particularly on "House," but his talent is on full display here and IMO, he deserved a much brighter star. His performance is reason enough to watch this episode.

I'm not going to rehash the plot. You can read other reviews here for that. Or better yet - just watch the episode for yourself, which I highly recommend.

In addition to the excellent acting all around, I want to complement the writer and director on handling a delicate subject with deft and class. And for giving Jack McCoy one of the best closing arguments that he ever makes. As Peter Jacobson's character Randy Dworkin says of McCoy, better than him they do not come. Top of the food chain.

Finally, I want to dispel the ridicuous notion offered by some other reviewers that this episode is anti-Semitic. The Jewish creator/producer and Jewish writer may disagree with that allegation, along with the Jewish actors who played the judge, the defense attorney, the lead detective and the defendant in this episode. And frankly, without spoilng anything, the entire point of the episode was to uphold the (accurate) idea that Jewish-Americans are excellent American citizens, and do not slavishly fall prey to every appeal that is supposedly made on behalf of Israel. This is not anti-Semitic; it's actually quite pro-Semitic!
13 out of 15 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
10/10
I absolutely LOVED this episode
tennismenace19 January 2023
Warning: Spoilers
Peter Jacobsen was the star, by far.....I loved every time he opened his mouth or made a gesture. No doubt, this episode was different which to me made it refreshing. I realize some may disagree with the politics (I applaud it) but the show just tried to show you how people will go to any lengths to support their cause. Unfortunately, when you break the law, there are consequences. One should always count the costs before making huge decisions like this guy made.

There was no doubt the ADA had the law on his side, but as we all know, all it takes is one serious jurist to shoot that down. The defense gambled on having that one or two jurist. Oh well.....oh, Great closing argument by the ADA....as usual.
2 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
This Episode Is Absurd and Honestly a Disgrace Towards the Show
bramcsbms6 July 2022
I have many things to say about this episode so I am just going to number off my points, but the main idea is that this episode was insane, fairly confusing, and insulting on multiple levels.

1. First off, the concept was cool, what happens when a lawyer's only hope is to play the jury? I think its a good simple premise that this show could have fun with, but it clearly got carried away. Instead of just having the one, they decided to also include a debate about culture or religion vs citizenship. Both are cool but this show was not built to handle both at once and the episode feels disjointed and incredibly preachy, both literally and metaphorically.

2. The entire Israel thing is totally and completely shoed in and I hate it as a plot line. This whole segment completely dominates the episode, even its characters are suddenly commanded by it as the judge is completely ridiculous and the assistant to the main lawyer (I forget everyones names my bad) is claiming everyones anti-semetic. Logic totally goes out the window and everyone forgets theyre in a court room, and all just to make some half hearted point about culture. Its almost like bringing up Israel flips a switch on everyone. I get that this was almost 20 years ago and post-9/11 was a crazy time especially for nyc but still. They also decided to choose a very deep, long, and complicated conflict when they could have just done something simpler and it would have been much more effective.

3. For a show that loves showing both sides, this episode completely abandons any hope of fairness or nuance in the slightest. There was no defense of the Arabs of Palestinians at any point, with the perps wife claiming that Palestinians "do not exist" which is a pretty egregious thing to say (and very much false by the way), and the defense "attorney" even claims that the Arabs are WORSE than the Nazis at one point which is just an insane statement that everyone should know is insane. Its wild that the episode is so concerned about being anti-semetic that they will demonize and perpetuate pretty horrible rhetoric towards Arabs and theyre culture. I am sure my Arab friends would be appalled by this episode, but I doubt they would be surprised to see this sort of racism on American television, especially during the era it was made in. The I/P conflict is notoriously one of the most complex in modern history, and to see it portrayed like this is almost disgusting, as its entire portrayal is offensive, unfathomably biased, and a disgrace to the namesake of the series, law and order.

4. This ones just personal I dont have grand argument or anything. I despised the defense attorney and I wanted him to go away every time I saw him, he was so annoying and irritating that I couldnt stand it. I feel similarly, but not as strongly towards the judge as he just completely forgot that he was an actual judge and not a complete fool.

If you have read this far then just to summarize, this episode is ridiculous and I hate it, it is not deep, interesting or thought provoking, it is simply ignorant, disrespectful, and fails to say anything meaningful.
2 out of 13 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
AntiSemitism on Display, By Writers, Director, Producer
evony-jwm26 February 2021
So obviously Jewish Guy obviously kills bookie partner... law and order then brings out all the terrible tropes of Jewish Lawyer, Jewish Jury, Jewish Judge, Jewish witnesses all presenting and supporting an impossible justification defense that financing Israel Jews overrules a killing.. Pure AntiSemitism.

Also law and order even got the tropes incorrect (am assuming on purpose) as Palestine was never a State, all the territory per UN was legally called the British Mandate carved out of prior Ottoman Empire. The first use of "Palestine" was by Romans to permanently eradicate Jews when almost the whole populace was killed or sold into Slaver.. Hint Palestine was NOT used by the Ottoman Empire. Also tropes of Jews persecuted which while true is Not evidence for a court.

Not actually a spoiler is the Very Predictable rabbit out of a hat Guilty.. #SMH at the stupidity of this plot

skip this one when binge watching as it's too overboard and a waste of time
3 out of 29 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
Would Dick Wolf explain this thing that he titled as"The Chosen" to me?
dsmith1492518 December 2007
What the HELL Dick? I knew you back we you were a legend, and inspiration to all of us. What happen to you? Not since the novel "Mark Twain" by Clemens has (for him a book, for you your integrity and body of work) fallen from grace with such speed and a plummeting towards Fascism.

The character played by the great Sam Waterston, who may remember and know and love him from his PERFECT portrayal of Nick Carraway in Fitzgerald's "The Great Gatsby".

How can I ever point to Executive A.D.A. Jack McCoy as an example for my European friends of why I am proud to be an American. Especially when I next vacation in Tel Aviv and I have to make hundreds of apologies to my friends as an American.

I feel like I have been betrayed by the last good thing to survive 9/11.
2 out of 76 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

See also

Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews


Recently Viewed