Law & Order (TV Series) Privileged (1995) User Reviews

A Gruesome Murder and Good Performances

[Better_TV · 7/10 · 5 June 2018]

This one starts out pretty baffling: everyone liked the victims and they were murdered in a horribly brutal way (the crime scene is one of the bloodiest I've seen on L&O, though it's shown only briefly). It leads into issues of drunkenness, child abuse and mental competency; given the latter, it's no surprise that Carolyn McCormick as Dr. Elizabeth Olivet is called in to judge whether or not the defendant was aware of his alleged actions when he committed them.

I was surprised at how good the performances were: Eddie Malavarca, who is perhaps best known for his work on HBO's prison drama "Oz," really gives his all as the defendant; he's pathetic and tragic in equal measure. And his foster mother, Fran Brill, completely knocks it out the park too - there's a really heartbreaking court scene with her character, and you'll know it when you see it.

The main "ethical quandary of the week" here is whether or not McCoy is doing the right thing in trying to convict someone who might not be responsible for his actions - assuming he even did the deed in the first place.

It's yet another solid episode in what has so far been a great first season for the McCoy character. I loved Michael Moriarty as EADA Ben Stone too, but thanks to Sam Waterston he's now a distant memory.

Strange privilege

[TheLittleSongbird · 8/10 · 24 December 2020]

Have loved the original 'Law and Order' for a long time, particularly the earlier seasons, and consider it my personal favourite of the 'Law and Order' franchise. Personally find Season 5 on the variable side, mostly solid with the best episodes being outstanding, and much prefer McCoy in later seasons. "Privileged" to me was not the most interesting of concepts on paper on first watch, seemed rather "this has been seen before" and worried as to whether it would be able to do anything fresh.

Luckily it is not too routine or predictable. Actually liked "Privileged" a lot better than expected on first watch and have found more to appreciate on subsequent rewatches. It is a lot more interesting in execution than it sounds on paper and personally liked it even better than the previous commentators (completely agree with what has already been said by the way). "Privileged" is not one of the best episodes of 'Law and Order' or even of Season 5 but it is very good.

The second half is better than the first, with the story taking a little time to get going and does start off quite ordinarily outside of one of the season's most gruesome murders.

Do agree in a way too that the whole thing with which crime was murder or self-defense didn't quite add up.

But actually there is not an awful lot to dislike about "Privileged". As always, it's a slickly made episode, the editing especially having come on quite a bit from when the show first started (never was it a problem but it got more fluid with each episode up to this stage). The music is sparingly used and never seemed melodramatic, the theme tune easy to remember as usual. The direction is sympathetic enough without being too low key on the whole. The script is generally tight and thought-provoking.

Really liked the storytelling as an overall whole. It starts off promisingly with a not for the faint hearted crime scene and, although it has a slightly routine stretch a little bit after, the episode picks up significantly in the second half. Thanks to the interesting and unique tactics used to get to the truth, some well drawn supporting characters (including a surprisingly complex defendant), a pull no punches approach to the subject matter and some nice turns that avoid obviousness. All the performances are on point, not just from the particularly excellent Jerry Orbach and Sam Waterston but also an unsettling Eddie Malavarca and heart-wrenching Fran Brill (absolutely agree about the emotional impact of her court scene).

Concluding, another very well done episode. 8/10

How responsible under the influence

[bkoganbing · 7/10 · 6 February 2016]

A middle-aged couple is killed during a home invasion where nothing is taken from the brownstone where they lived. Which gives a big old mystery to solve for Jerry Orbach and Chris Noth. Definitely it's not your garden variety home invasion.

I can sort of relate to the perpetrator's mind set here. We certainly revert back to the place that has the most memories for us in our subconscious. In my dreams I constantly am back at my home in Brooklyn. There's an SVU episode where Jane Powell plays an elderly Alzheimer's patient who is caught breaking into her childhood home. The memories can be good and bad.

The memories are bad for Eddie Malavarca who was the foster kid of David Leary a prominent divorce attorney who used to own the brownstone. It's not also hard to figure alternative suspects as Leary made a lot of enemies in his line of work. Something Lennie Briscoe can relate to.

Malavarca is a multiple substance abuser so it's a question of how responsible is he under the influence. Some unique techniques are tried at trial to answer that question.

Loose end?

[danuthaiduc · 7/10 · 22 November 2017]

At the end of the episode, the accusation of killing the woman is dropped as self-defense, however the one of killing her husband is held.

Suppose you are defending yourself from person A. Then person B wakes up and stops you from defending yourself. Doesn't that mean person B is attacking you as well?

Shouldn't both count as self-defense?