MDA

This "dog of a series" as just described, has been nominated for four Australian Film Institute Awards in the following categories:

Best Television Drama

Best Actress in a Leading Role in a Television Drama - Kerry Armstrong

Best Actor in a Leading Role in a Television Drama - Shane Bourne

Best Actor in a Supporting Role in a Television Drama - Angus Grant

The show was also recently named to the Hollywood Reporter's "A-List" - shows likely to generate strong buzz at MIPCOM 2002.

I thought the ABC had got over this sort of thing with the terminally boring ( and unlamented) G.P. This dog of a series is rating in the pits in Australia. It's the standard ABC repertory company offering. If Gary Sweet, Callan Mulvey or Bill Hunter appears in an upcoming ep I for one am going to put my foot through the TV. Kerry Armstrong plays a pathetic user (suprise ,suprise) and the rest of the cast are as pitiful. Avoid if possible!!

This series is more delicately crafted than would appear at a casual viewing. Most story-lines continue - sometimes over several weeks - and are over-lapped by yet other stories, so you have to sit with it over several weeks in order to actually `get' what it's about.

I'm thrilled that there are no `goodies' and `baddies' in this series. You know, like: `We're doctors/lawyers, and there ain't nothin' we cain't do!' If anything, MDA presents its characters as people, before all else. It presents the law as it is - rigid and flawed, but it's all we have. We see doctors as people who can be anything from cold and arrogant professionals, to scared victims of a system - medical indemnity - which we've `inherited' from the US. This system appears to almost have developed a life of its own in our current society, which seems to believe that perceptions of wrong-doing can be `fixed' with money.

Scripts are tight and economical - you have to pay attention - and the acting is superb. Worth a special mention is Shane Bourne (previously known as a stand-up comic!) His character (`Happy' Henderson) is complex and believable. I found myself angry with him and at the same time sympathetic when he behaved less than nobly towards his son. It's also good to see that Jason Donovan has left Scott Robinson well and truly behind him. His Richard Savage - while a bit one-dimensional for my tastes - is suitably reptilian to satisfy the character balance.

not being bothered to watch this show when it first started back in 2002 due to the school certificate, i thought there was no use in trying to catch up on it in 2003 either, but this year i've started to watch it, when it began late last month, and i have to say that the comment that i just read may have been true about the show in 2002 but as the years progress shows get better, and i can say as stumbling across an episode before and not really liking it, as Sigrid doesn't really do anything for me, i left it, but this show is great.... i mean its basically about what happens these days in the world anyway... lawyers sticking up for their clients, doing the best they can... so what's so wrong about this program?!?!?!?!? this season so far so good! enjoy if your into this sort of viewing if not then don't bother... it depends on the person i suppose, but i like it, and think its great as i'm 'into' this sort of viewing...

My wife and I thoroughly enjoyed MDA for the first two seasons. (The less said about the third season the better.) MDA is Medical Defence Australia, an insurer for doctors. Kerry Armstrong leads an excellent cast as a doctor working alongside MDA lawyers, headed by an ultimately endearing curmudgeon played by Shane Bourne in a dramatic turn from his usual comedic roles. Jason Donovan plays the plaintiff's attorney. Their characters are well-written, interesting, and solidly performed. The supporting cast is excellent. Although Armstrong left the cast part way thru the second season, the introduction of strong new characters played by Angie Milliken and Felix Nobis held our interest. Milliken won an Austrlian Film Institue award for her role. The stories were generally interesting and presented the difficult subject of medical malpractice insurance with considerable care. No black-and-white portrayals of medical practitioners or lawyers. Well deserving of the critical acclaim it got.