Dear students,
Thanks to this blog and the numerous discussions we had in class, I would like to summarize the important points you made about the relationship about law and cinema. There is nothing knew if you followed all of our discussions, and if you read the blog. But I thought I would be good to go over the main points before you move to the next lesson on law and cinema.
Like in class, I am not following a very strict outline, and I start with the same question: law and literature or law and cinema? As you will see, both literature and cinema have according to me good arguments to account for the law. I am not insisting so much on literature (this is not my task), my goal through this very brief comparison is only to clarify for you what it is at stake in the field of “law and humanities”.
Thanks to this blog and the numerous discussions we had in class, I would like to summarize the important points you made about the relationship about law and cinema. There is nothing knew if you followed all of our discussions, and if you read the blog. But I thought I would be good to go over the main points before you move to the next lesson on law and cinema.
Like in class, I am not following a very strict outline, and I start with the same question: law and literature or law and cinema? As you will see, both literature and cinema have according to me good arguments to account for the law. I am not insisting so much on literature (this is not my task), my goal through this very brief comparison is only to clarify for you what it is at stake in the field of “law and humanities”.
LAW AND CINEMA, May 6-8, 2009
Many of you said, even if you immediately gave counter-arguments: “The relationship between law and cinema is a young one. Therefore, this relation is less obvious than the one between literature and law (for example)”.
Comment: of course, the absence of a long tradition makes things harder when one wants to characterize long-term evolutions between law and cinema. But the point I wanted to make was slightly different, and had to do with to the very physical “nature” of the law. Though they are many unwritten customs which produce legal effects, one thinks about law at first as a written text. Therefore it is clear that literature has substantial arguments when it comes to describe the law as a text. One needs however to distinguish here between two definitions of literature (the same in cinema, as we will see below).
1. Literature = (simply) books.
Then the question is whether some authors wrote great masterpieces about legal issues (“LAW IN LITERATURE”). You studied this question with Dr. Stefania Gialdroni this semester. As in cinema, it happens very often that some great minds, though not necessarily being lawyers from training, grasp the logic of the law in a very interesting way. I don’t know Italian literature well enough, but it is very clear that “realist” authors such as Balzac or Dostoievski (see for instance, Crime and Punishment, a wonderful reflection about law and social justice), thanks to great preliminary works, can teach us a lot not only about the law or Justice “ideal” – and that would more be the task of a philosopher – but also about its practical functioning (NB: at the time, the “division of labor” between writers, novelists and scholars was only emerging, it is therefore right to say that Balzac was a kind of sociologist). Another possibility is to make a giant survey of influential books which talk about law and draw conclusions as to the perception, the image of the law (cf. below, same reasoning about law and cinema).
2. Literature as a scientific (more or less…) discipline, with its set of tools.
From this point of view, the question is no more “law in literature”, but “LAW AS LITERATURE”: how are laws, judgments written… Can the tools developed by scholars in the field of literature help us to understand the law in a more accurate way? For instance, many scholars in the 1960s-1980s, in a field called “critical legal studies” used theories developed in the linguistic and philosophical field (structuralism and post-structuralism, from Saussure to Derrida) to address sharp critics against the law. The purpose of this move was to reveal the true nature of the law behind the superficial objectivity of the rule.
What about cinema then?
Well with cinema, it’s just like with law and literature. We could also characterize cinema simply as “all movies that have been made so far”, and therefore as an artifact of both elitist culture (cf. Michele’s comment about Pasolini’s “SALO' E LE 120 GIORNATE DI SODOMA”, not exactly a blockbuster… ) and POPULAR CULTURE (important point here). With this definition, studying law and cinema means studying LAW IN CINEMA.
Or, we can think of cinema primarily as an art, with, again, its techniques, and try to see how these techniques may, or may not capture the essence of the law (CINEMA AS A TECHNIQUE revealing the true nature of the law).
Of course, you have already noticed that these 2 approaches cannot really be separated from each other, but it’s easier for our reasoning.
Let’s summarize here what “cinema and law” in both these approaches can teach us about law, and maybe about cinema as well. (WHAT FOLLOWS IS AN ORGANIZED SUMMARY of what you discussed in class and of what you wrote on the blog; of course, some important points are missing, it’s not meant to be exhaustive).
What about cinema then?
Well with cinema, it’s just like with law and literature. We could also characterize cinema simply as “all movies that have been made so far”, and therefore as an artifact of both elitist culture (cf. Michele’s comment about Pasolini’s “SALO' E LE 120 GIORNATE DI SODOMA”, not exactly a blockbuster… ) and POPULAR CULTURE (important point here). With this definition, studying law and cinema means studying LAW IN CINEMA.
Or, we can think of cinema primarily as an art, with, again, its techniques, and try to see how these techniques may, or may not capture the essence of the law (CINEMA AS A TECHNIQUE revealing the true nature of the law).
Of course, you have already noticed that these 2 approaches cannot really be separated from each other, but it’s easier for our reasoning.
Let’s summarize here what “cinema and law” in both these approaches can teach us about law, and maybe about cinema as well. (WHAT FOLLOWS IS AN ORGANIZED SUMMARY of what you discussed in class and of what you wrote on the blog; of course, some important points are missing, it’s not meant to be exhaustive).
1. Law in cinema.
a. A GENERAL (STATISTICAL) APPROACH: Cinema, popular culture and the law (cf. article from Friedman, Yale Law Journal). Cinema and legal culture. Almost all of you agreed on this point: cinema or cinema/television is currently the most important form of popular art. Therefore, by studying how law is treated, understood in films, one can draw conclusions about the perception of the law within a significant part of the population, because cinema is a great way to understand the cultural values of a society. For instance, the image of the law in movies is very different in Italy, where many films have recently insisted on how corrupt the legal and political system could be (cf. movies about the mafia) and in the US.
And because movies, TV shows are so important in our perception of the reality, the way law is handled in them influence very much the legal system itself! (some lawyers talk about a “CSI effect” ; people in France often say “your honor” to judges! ; in Germany, people are surprised when they enter a court for it doesn’t look like American tribunals!
Ø Cf. short excerpt from Machura’s article about “Globalizing the Hollywood Courtroom Drama”
But ATTENTION!!! Studying the perception of law within movies is fine. It is also important sociologically speaking. But one should pay attention to methodological issues. YOU CANNOT DRAW SOCIOLOGICAL CONCLUSIONS with one, two or even 5 movies. You need to have many different examples, and almost make a quantitative, statistical analysis… Of course, life is short, and you have better things to do right now. So you need to trust your own culture, or your intuition, and remark for instance that, “most of the time lawyers had a good image, but since the 1990s, it changed”, or “in Hollywood movies, lawyers are often depicted as” etc. But be cautious!
To be honest, I also have other things to do and I can’t watch movies all day long. That is why I introduced you through 2 movies, “12 Angry men” and “Dirty Harry”, which according to me represents two of the most important images of the law in Hollywood movies.
Ø In “12 Angry men”, Lumet shows that when the law is put into practice in the good way, the rule of law, the legal process can be the best tool against social prejudices. The ideal of a balanced Justice (cf. our/your! analysis of the opening scene of the movie is finally met through the process of law).
Ø But as we saw in “Dirty Harry”, and it happens in many other films, sometimes the bureaucratic/procedural nature of the legal order stands in the way of justice (cf. extract). This is the case in many thrillers, where members of the audience often know from the beginning who is guilty. Tension between Justice and respect for the legal order is also present in westerns. We can also think of one great Orson Welles’ movie calles Touch of Evil. In this movie, the sheriff Quinlan (Orson Welles himself) is convinced that a man is guilty of murder, but doesn’t have the evidence to prove it. He doesn’t hesitate to forge it! At the very end of the movie, the audience will learn that, in fact, the alleged killer was indeed guilty though nothing could prove it. Eventually, the death of this guilty man after a long chase doesn’t solve this philosophical/legal question we have already seen in 12 Angry men and in Dirty Harry: what is Justice? Should we let a man walk free if we can’t legally prove he’s guilty?
Ø To summarize, the relationship between law and Justice or between justice and Justice is a very important theme in the cinema history.
b. Films about the law.
Apart from this statistical/cultural approach of cinema considered as an important expression of popular culture, and popular legal culture (cf. for the definition of popular legal culture Friedman’s article), we can also study law within particular movies. As lawyers, we are in an excellent position to evaluate movies in which the law, lawyers, judges etc. play a very important role. Movies are most of the times fiction, so the question is not so much whether the movie is or isn’t “realistic” but whether it represents well the law, the idea of Justice, even in a symbolic way. Not everything is realistic in “12 angry men”, for instance it is not certain a judge would really behave like him if it was a matter of life or death, or that the jurors would be so biases at the beginning of their meeting. But S. Lumet wants to represent in a symbolic way the tension between the idea of Justice, and the day-to-day “bureaucratic production of justice” as some of you said it in the class (cf extract 1).Some great films can then be used to teach law, or to reflect about law. With “12 angry men”, we had the opportunity to reflect on the importance of prejudices in a trial, and to what extent they should be left to one side during the process. Society and its prejudices should never enter a tribunal. But it doesn’t mean law in itself is sufficient! On the contrary, whilst giving up step by step these prejudices, the jurors nevertheless invoke their own experiences but only to make a better interpretations of facts and therefore to serve the law (cf. extract n°2). Social knowledge can be used, but not to (pre)judge an individual, but to appreciate facts, or to be more accurate, legal facts (for instance: someone heard a noise = legal fact to be discussed; someone thinks the kid is probably guilty because he’s from the slums = prejudice that should never enter the jury room): cf. extract n°3 when the juror from the “slums” explains how to use a knife. Lumet makes us think about the ideal interaction of law and society, and how, in a democratic society where all opinions are respected, one can reach justice with our judicial institutions. The purpose of the movie is also certainly to warn future jurors against their own prejudices. The movie is a somehow a normative educational depiction of the legal system!
With “It’s a free world”, of course, a very different perspective is given us on the law, and the role it plays within society. I am just giving some insights here, because I hadn’t time to fully explain why I chose the movie during the class. Some of you made a comment saying 12 angry men was a better match than “It’s a free world” to talk about “Law and cinema”. I totally understand this opinion, and there are very strong arguments to support it. Nevertheless, here are some interesting points that we can study in the movie “It’s a free world”.
It’s very much a realistic movie. Everything or almost everything, although it’s highly symbolic, is supposed to account for an economic, social, legal reality. It’s somehow in-between a film and a documentary about a forgotten part of the labour market and what it means for our society. Of course, the focus is not only on the “law” or on the “legal system” in the narrow sense of the term. But the movie challenges the role we usually grant to the law. Ken Loach knows legal problems pretty well, and his scriptwriter, Paul Laverty, is a lawyer from training… and I think we can see it in the movie.
First, the movie underlines how often laws are broken, circumvented, unapplied. The movie starts with a sexual harassment scene (cf. extract n°4). But we can clearly see that Angie has almost no possibility to contest her dismissal, though the English in particular is particularly protective against all sorts of discriminations and sexual harassments on the workplace: law is not always the solution, and to praise for its better application may be a loss of time. Maybe mentalities, culture should change first! Second example: Rose abides very much by the law, she’s the one having the most naïve relationship to the rule of law: she believes that penalties provided in statutes are to be applied strictly (5 years for providing illegal workers for instance). But believing in the law doesn’t really make her a better person, as she is the one proposing a “legal” way to exploit even more workers through her double-shift housing system for temporary workers. And she also refuses to help the Iranian family. (cf. end of extract n°1)
Second, the movie provides us with a survey of legal practices in the world of temporary workers: in the extract n°1, you can see Angie’s client complaining about Polish workers’ behavior as soon as they have “papers”, which means as soon as they have regular contracts of employment (I guess). As you can see in Collins (ed.) Textbook, the most protective rights are granted primarily to regular “employees”, whilst “workers” (having a contract for and not of services), independent workers etc. have less and less rights. Loach show us therefore the ambiguous connection between labour laws and real practices and explain us that the fear of legal obligations as well as the will to have workers who obey like machines can explain the success of these new forms of employment.As often in Ken Loach, there are prejudices and biases, and employers’ awfulness is as exaggerated as employees’ kindness and fairness (cf. beginning extract n°2). Economists argue sometimes for example that the protection granted to some employees (protections very much defended by Ken Loach) are being “paid” somehow by this flexible workers, and some of us should be more flexible so that the others can be less flexible… But this movie is one of the rare attempt to capture the margins of our world, and to try to explain injustice in a subtle way. Besides, both Loach’s arguments (represented by the father) and liberal’s arguments are (almost) fairly exposed in the park scene (cf. extract n°3). I find the way in which Angie starts to work with illegal workers (out of social empathy and greediness) particularly interesting. Ken Loach seems to argue (cf. the father during the park scene) that immigrant workers should rather stay in their home land to develop their own economy, but it’s easy to find counter-arguments, especially for Italians (should have all qualified Sicilian workers stayed in Palermo instead of going to the US?)The main argument in Loach’s movie is well-represented in the very symbolic organization of the movie and in some particularly violent scenes (when Angie is beaten up in the street and at her own place, cf. extract n°5). You have probably noticed (that’s why I put together in extract n°4 the sexual harassment scene and the scene where Angie and Rose text some of their temp workers to have sex with them) that they are many symmetric elements in the movie, the victim often becomes the executioner, the friend becomes the enemy etc. During the class, I read you a passage of a famous M. Thatcher’s interview in which she states that “there is no such thing as society”. Loach’s argument through his production is to prove the contrary in a symbolic way (and of course fictional): our actions have always consequences (cf. scene in the park –extract 3-, where the grandfather accuses Angie to jeopardize her son’s future), “Thatcherian” individualism (whose birth in the labor world is described in a previous movie called the Navigators) destroy the very equilibrium of our existence which should be built on social solidarity. The division between work and life is broken, everything is affected by individualism, including the sex life.A last remark about Ken Loach’s movie. One could easily argue, apart from the fact that Ken Loach clearly doesn’t believe in capitalism (when the majority actually do), that this is quite a conservative movie in the end, praising for the impossible return of a golden age, which, in fact, may never have existed!
2. Cinema as an art, with its techniques: is the cinematographic art well-adapted to the law?
It is so hard to separate dimension 1 from dimension 2 that I have of course already talked about some techniques which made cinema particularly adapted to account for the law production. Some of you made very nice comment about it during the class and on the blog (the last Georgia’s comment 12/05 for example) so I will just summarize it very quickly:
Ø a movie plot is in many respects very similar to a trial “plot” or even to the legal process in general (complicated facts step by step combined together in a rational story)
Ø similarities between lawyers and actors. Judges in England wear “wigs”. Ritualistic nature of the law particularly well-adapted to movies and cinema
Ø tension between Justice and law in action: in 12 Angry Men, we start with a static shot, before following people in dark and complicated corridors. Cinema can both combine this static and moving element of law
etc. etc.
Let’s go back to our first question, law and literature rather than law and cinema or the contrary? So, my opinion is, but it can be challenged, that both points can be argued. To grasp the image of law, lawyers etc. in our different cultures, both literature and cinema are essential. With the success of cinema and television, it may however be more relevant to study these last two if we’re interested in the modern image of law. What about techniques then? Well, as we said earlier, law is a text, which puts literature in a very good position to win our contest. Nevertheless, all arguments that we have pinpointed above (plot, actor-lawyer, representation of law-in-action etc.) plead for the victory of cinema. That’s your call!
Well, it was longer than I thought, congratulations for those who have read until there, and enjoy your last “law and the humanities” lessons.
Charles.
With “It’s a free world”, of course, a very different perspective is given us on the law, and the role it plays within society. I am just giving some insights here, because I hadn’t time to fully explain why I chose the movie during the class. Some of you made a comment saying 12 angry men was a better match than “It’s a free world” to talk about “Law and cinema”. I totally understand this opinion, and there are very strong arguments to support it. Nevertheless, here are some interesting points that we can study in the movie “It’s a free world”.
It’s very much a realistic movie. Everything or almost everything, although it’s highly symbolic, is supposed to account for an economic, social, legal reality. It’s somehow in-between a film and a documentary about a forgotten part of the labour market and what it means for our society. Of course, the focus is not only on the “law” or on the “legal system” in the narrow sense of the term. But the movie challenges the role we usually grant to the law. Ken Loach knows legal problems pretty well, and his scriptwriter, Paul Laverty, is a lawyer from training… and I think we can see it in the movie.
First, the movie underlines how often laws are broken, circumvented, unapplied. The movie starts with a sexual harassment scene (cf. extract n°4). But we can clearly see that Angie has almost no possibility to contest her dismissal, though the English in particular is particularly protective against all sorts of discriminations and sexual harassments on the workplace: law is not always the solution, and to praise for its better application may be a loss of time. Maybe mentalities, culture should change first! Second example: Rose abides very much by the law, she’s the one having the most naïve relationship to the rule of law: she believes that penalties provided in statutes are to be applied strictly (5 years for providing illegal workers for instance). But believing in the law doesn’t really make her a better person, as she is the one proposing a “legal” way to exploit even more workers through her double-shift housing system for temporary workers. And she also refuses to help the Iranian family. (cf. end of extract n°1)
Second, the movie provides us with a survey of legal practices in the world of temporary workers: in the extract n°1, you can see Angie’s client complaining about Polish workers’ behavior as soon as they have “papers”, which means as soon as they have regular contracts of employment (I guess). As you can see in Collins (ed.) Textbook, the most protective rights are granted primarily to regular “employees”, whilst “workers” (having a contract for and not of services), independent workers etc. have less and less rights. Loach show us therefore the ambiguous connection between labour laws and real practices and explain us that the fear of legal obligations as well as the will to have workers who obey like machines can explain the success of these new forms of employment.As often in Ken Loach, there are prejudices and biases, and employers’ awfulness is as exaggerated as employees’ kindness and fairness (cf. beginning extract n°2). Economists argue sometimes for example that the protection granted to some employees (protections very much defended by Ken Loach) are being “paid” somehow by this flexible workers, and some of us should be more flexible so that the others can be less flexible… But this movie is one of the rare attempt to capture the margins of our world, and to try to explain injustice in a subtle way. Besides, both Loach’s arguments (represented by the father) and liberal’s arguments are (almost) fairly exposed in the park scene (cf. extract n°3). I find the way in which Angie starts to work with illegal workers (out of social empathy and greediness) particularly interesting. Ken Loach seems to argue (cf. the father during the park scene) that immigrant workers should rather stay in their home land to develop their own economy, but it’s easy to find counter-arguments, especially for Italians (should have all qualified Sicilian workers stayed in Palermo instead of going to the US?)The main argument in Loach’s movie is well-represented in the very symbolic organization of the movie and in some particularly violent scenes (when Angie is beaten up in the street and at her own place, cf. extract n°5). You have probably noticed (that’s why I put together in extract n°4 the sexual harassment scene and the scene where Angie and Rose text some of their temp workers to have sex with them) that they are many symmetric elements in the movie, the victim often becomes the executioner, the friend becomes the enemy etc. During the class, I read you a passage of a famous M. Thatcher’s interview in which she states that “there is no such thing as society”. Loach’s argument through his production is to prove the contrary in a symbolic way (and of course fictional): our actions have always consequences (cf. scene in the park –extract 3-, where the grandfather accuses Angie to jeopardize her son’s future), “Thatcherian” individualism (whose birth in the labor world is described in a previous movie called the Navigators) destroy the very equilibrium of our existence which should be built on social solidarity. The division between work and life is broken, everything is affected by individualism, including the sex life.A last remark about Ken Loach’s movie. One could easily argue, apart from the fact that Ken Loach clearly doesn’t believe in capitalism (when the majority actually do), that this is quite a conservative movie in the end, praising for the impossible return of a golden age, which, in fact, may never have existed!
2. Cinema as an art, with its techniques: is the cinematographic art well-adapted to the law?
It is so hard to separate dimension 1 from dimension 2 that I have of course already talked about some techniques which made cinema particularly adapted to account for the law production. Some of you made very nice comment about it during the class and on the blog (the last Georgia’s comment 12/05 for example) so I will just summarize it very quickly:
Ø a movie plot is in many respects very similar to a trial “plot” or even to the legal process in general (complicated facts step by step combined together in a rational story)
Ø similarities between lawyers and actors. Judges in England wear “wigs”. Ritualistic nature of the law particularly well-adapted to movies and cinema
Ø tension between Justice and law in action: in 12 Angry Men, we start with a static shot, before following people in dark and complicated corridors. Cinema can both combine this static and moving element of law
etc. etc.
Let’s go back to our first question, law and literature rather than law and cinema or the contrary? So, my opinion is, but it can be challenged, that both points can be argued. To grasp the image of law, lawyers etc. in our different cultures, both literature and cinema are essential. With the success of cinema and television, it may however be more relevant to study these last two if we’re interested in the modern image of law. What about techniques then? Well, as we said earlier, law is a text, which puts literature in a very good position to win our contest. Nevertheless, all arguments that we have pinpointed above (plot, actor-lawyer, representation of law-in-action etc.) plead for the victory of cinema. That’s your call!
Well, it was longer than I thought, congratulations for those who have read until there, and enjoy your last “law and the humanities” lessons.
Charles.
Nessun commento:
Posta un commento