Harry's Law (2011) | How Woke Is It?

Our VerdictWoke

70%

Harry's Law2011

In a free society the right to critique art is essential and protected speech. These reviews reflect personal opinions and not statements of fact.

What We Think

Harry’s Law checks many mainstream Hollywood boxes: diverse casting, social issue episodes, and the gentle mocking of old-school values. While not at top-tier ‘woke’ intensity, it’s a noticeable example of early 2010s television gradually leaning into the trend.

Score Breakdown

Compromised:Narrative Integrity

Woke

What is this?

Harry's Law spotlights diverse characters and issues, sometimes at the expense of nuanced storytelling. The focus occasionally shifts from organic character development to addressing trendy social topics, and identity traits are often foregrounded. However, the show still maintains its legal drama roots, with some believable character arcs.

Compromised:Cultural Foundations

Woke

What is this?

The show challenges traditional ideas about law, authority, and gender, sometimes depicting older values as outdated or problematic. While there’s some lip service to tradition, most main characters embody modern ideologies, with masculinity and traditional morality typically downplayed or questioned rather than celebrated.

Compromised:Ideological Monoculture

Woke

What is this?

Alternative or conservative viewpoints pop up mostly as foils, with dissenting characters often serving as stand-ins for archaic or villainous perspectives. Main characters are ideologically aligned in their progressive attitudes, and there’s little space for genuine pluralism or traditional voices.

User Reviews

No user reviews received yet.

Please leave a review and let the world know what you think.
Your review will be kept completely anonymous.

Your Review

Comments

Users Also Viewed

12%

Disclaimer: In a free society the right to critique art is essential and protected as a form of free speech and freedom of expression. The reviews and commentary on this site represent personal opinions and interpretations. They are not statements of fact and should not be taken as factual claims about any individual, company, or creative work.