An anti-Semitic teen is accused of killing a Jewish teacher. His defense attorney argues that the accused is really the victim of a Jewish conspiracy.An anti-Semitic teen is accused of killing a Jewish teacher. His defense attorney argues that the accused is really the victim of a Jewish conspiracy.An anti-Semitic teen is accused of killing a Jewish teacher. His defense attorney argues that the accused is really the victim of a Jewish conspiracy.
Photos
Jackey Vinson
- Matt Hastings
- (as Jack Vinson)
Douglas Santiago
- Eddie Camarillo
- (as Santiago Douglas)
Storyline
Did you know
- TriviaRoy Payne comments that he wrote a few briefs for the KKK and their march in Skokie. As of 1981 Skokie, Illinois is the home of the Illinois Holocaust Museum and Education center. But in 1977 it was the proposed site for a march by the KKK and a group of Neo Nazis. At the time the community of Skokie, a suburb of Chicago, had a population of about 70,000, 40,000 of whom were Jewish. Approximately 5,000 of the Jewish residents were survivors of the Holocaust. The residents of Skokie were shocked and outraged upon learning the news of the proposed Nazi march and attempted to file an injunction to stop them. They filed it on the grounds that it would "incite or promote hatred against persons of Jewish faith or ancestry," that is was a "deliberate and willful attempt" to inflict severe emotional harm on the Jewish population in Skokie (and especially on the survivors of the Holocaust), and that it would incite an "uncontrollably" violent response and lead to serious "bloodshed." The Nazis, in a fairly unexpected and shocking turn of events, were represented by lawyers of the ACLU, who said that while they abhorred the message the KKK and the Nazis stood for that they would represent anyone in America whose civil rights were being violated and they argued, successfully, that to prevent the KKK and the Nazis from marching would violate their First Amendment right to free speech. The case was argued before the Illinois Supreme Court, the United States Court of Appeals, and the United States Supreme Court, all three of which ruled that the KKK and the Nazi Party's right to conduct a peaceful march was protected by the First Amendment. The courts stated in their ruling that to censor a person(s) message simply because it was unpopular and offensive to the majority was not only a violation of their First Amendment rights, it was also a slippery slope that could lead the nation down the dark path to tyranny and oppression.
- Quotes
Rey Curtis: An art teacher. Who'd she ever hurt?
Lennie Briscoe: Yeah, an algebra teacher I could understand.
Featured review
Accusation in blood
Even for 'Law and Order', "Blood Libel's" topic is incredibly bold and makes one feel a mix of emotions between anger and upset. Anti-semitism has been such a major problem for decades, especially so in the Second World War but sadly it is little better now. It takes guts for any show or film to tackle it and do so sensitively, any show or film that tries to do so deserves some kind of credit. 'Law and Order', no stranger to controversial subjects, is no exception.
The show however did much better before and since with exploring heavy and controversial subjects, doing so with more tact and balance elsewhere with "Blood Libel". It is not at all bad, but by early season 'Law and Order' standards it is somewhat disappointing. More those appreciated it for what it tried to do sort of episodes than one of the love it ones. As far as Season 6 goes, "Blood Libel" is one of those well intended efforts but a lesser outing. A lot of good things here, but falls short.
"Blood Libel" has more good things than not so good. 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 literate and tight with some interesting questions and handles the subject boldly enough. The story succeeds in having a suitably uncompromising tone with the tension being almost frightening.
Much is it is down to the perpetrator being a truly reprehensible character, one of the most chilling bigoted perpetrators perhaps of the show. Briscoe and Curtis work really well together, some of their banter lightens the mood without jarring and intrigues. Curtis has an aforementioned line that sums up the puzzlement of the case very well. The policing intrigues and doesn't become predictable too early. Curtis is becoming more interesting. All the regulars are excellent.
However, the episode had drawbacks despite appreciating its good intentions. There were too many times in the second half where the subject could have been handled with more tact and nuance, it was like at times the writers were trying too hard to make its points and it was like being beaten around the head. Anti-semitism absolutely is beyond the pale wrong, but that didn't need to be emphasised quite that heavily.
It did at times feel over the top and could have done better at exploring it from all sides. Chris Cooper for my tastes overdoes it in his role and his character is too much of a too dominant caricature with a truly bizarre and not particularly realistic defense argument.
Concluding, has a lot of good things and well intended but didn't completely click with me. 6/10
The show however did much better before and since with exploring heavy and controversial subjects, doing so with more tact and balance elsewhere with "Blood Libel". It is not at all bad, but by early season 'Law and Order' standards it is somewhat disappointing. More those appreciated it for what it tried to do sort of episodes than one of the love it ones. As far as Season 6 goes, "Blood Libel" is one of those well intended efforts but a lesser outing. A lot of good things here, but falls short.
"Blood Libel" has more good things than not so good. 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 literate and tight with some interesting questions and handles the subject boldly enough. The story succeeds in having a suitably uncompromising tone with the tension being almost frightening.
Much is it is down to the perpetrator being a truly reprehensible character, one of the most chilling bigoted perpetrators perhaps of the show. Briscoe and Curtis work really well together, some of their banter lightens the mood without jarring and intrigues. Curtis has an aforementioned line that sums up the puzzlement of the case very well. The policing intrigues and doesn't become predictable too early. Curtis is becoming more interesting. All the regulars are excellent.
However, the episode had drawbacks despite appreciating its good intentions. There were too many times in the second half where the subject could have been handled with more tact and nuance, it was like at times the writers were trying too hard to make its points and it was like being beaten around the head. Anti-semitism absolutely is beyond the pale wrong, but that didn't need to be emphasised quite that heavily.
It did at times feel over the top and could have done better at exploring it from all sides. Chris Cooper for my tastes overdoes it in his role and his character is too much of a too dominant caricature with a truly bizarre and not particularly realistic defense argument.
Concluding, has a lot of good things and well intended but didn't completely click with me. 6/10
helpful•63
- TheLittleSongbird
- Feb 10, 2021
Details
Contribute to this page
Suggest an edit or add missing content