Introduction: why law and cinema? A call for interdisciplinarity and law & society studies
A. The “cinematogenic” nature of law (Wednesday and Thursday – first half of the class)
1. The love story between trial movies, the Hollywood film industry, and American courtrooms
(Question: why Hollywood trial movies –and American movies/TV shows talking about law in general outnumber European ones?
Famous examples (amongst many others): To Kill a Mockingbird (directed by R. Mulligan, starring G. Peck as Atticus Finch); 12 Angry Men (1957, directed by S. Lumet, starring H. Fonda as the dissenting juror).
2. What do we learn from movies about Law?
a. A distorted image certainly… but, “All I need to know about law, I learned it from Law & Order”
Readings: P. Meyer and L.M. Friedman;
Movies (TV shows etc.): your own culture!
Question: did movies influence in any way your perception of law? To what extent is the lawyer’s image in Italy similar to the one presented in Hollywood movies?
b. Movies and the tension between legal procedures and Justice.
Ex: 12 Angry Men and Dirty Harry (1971)
B. Reflecting on law and society through Ken Loach’s “It’s a free world” (2007)
(YOU HAVE TO SEE THE MOVIE BEFORE Thursday, I will only show you some extracts during the class)
Readings:
- please spend 30-45 minutes on the internet to gather information about temporary workers (agency workers, part-time etc.) in Italy and in Europe. I will send you statistics as well.
- Collins, Ewing, McColgan, Labour law: text and material, Second Edition, 2005. I chose some relevant extracts to introduce you to the complexity of British labour law. Any parallel you will be able to draw with the current situation in Italy will of course be welcome.
The purpose of this class is to benefit from our legal knowledge to understand and/or to criticize a movie, whose aim is to teach the audience about the margins of our legal system.
1. Temporary work in Europe: a brief overview
2. Legality and illegality in Ken Loach’s movie: a subtle look at the true functioning of the labour market or an exaggerated account of the reality?
3. Father and daughter: Ken Loach’s pessimistic vision of the new legal and social order.
Conclusion (summary of the 3 lessons and open discussion)
READINGS
Dear students,
Here is a short list of readings to prepare our 3 classes on “Law and cinema”.
Please read them as carefully as possible: they will provide ideas, themes we will further develop during the lessons.
Lawrence M. Friedman, “Law, Lawyers, and Popular Culture”, The Yale Law Journal, Vol.98, N°6, Symposium: Popular Legal Cultures, June 1989, pp.1576-1606 (read only until p.1598) (http://www.jstor.org/stable/
Phil Meyer, “Why a Jury Trial Is More Like a Movie than a Novel”, Journal of Law and Society, vol. 28, n°1, Law and Film, March 2001, pp.133-146 (http://www.jstor.org/stable/
Stefan Machura, S. Ulbrich, F.M. Nevis, N. Behling, “Globalizing the Hollywood Courtroom Drama”, Journal of Law and Society, vol. 28, n°1, Law and Film, March 2001, pp.117-132 (read only the first 3 pages, until p.119) (http://www.jstor.org/stable/
Hugh Collins, K.D. Ewing, A. McColgan, Labour Law: Text and Materials, Hart Publishing, 2nd Edition, 2005, p. 155-196 (but with only about 15 pages to read).
MOVIES
Twelve Angry Men, S. Lumet, 1957
It’s a Free World, K. Loach, 2007 (viewing compulsory before Thursday’s class)
CHARLES DE FROMENT CV:
He graduated in 2005 in History and Social Sciences from the Ecole Normale Supérieure (Paris), and received his M.A. in History from EHESS as well as a B.A. in Law from Université Paris-2 Assas in 2006.
In 2004-2005, he was a teaching assistant in the Romance Language Department at Harvard University.
His PHD dissertation is about the legal and social history of temporary work in Europe, especially in France and Germany.
9 commenti:
Hi,
Last lessons I have found very interesting descriptions of the doctor de Froment with regard to the film technique used in the film of the 12 judges.
We have noted the concept of Justice, as regards the film size static: the importance of the columns, this central corridor where encounters in court etc. etc.
The technique to describe the situations in accordance with de Froment is of fundamental importance: the lights, the eyes, the position of the cameras rebuild perfectly atmosphere and the main significance in question (in this case the condemnation of a young eighteen).
I also noticed a key aspect: the structure of the procedural ritual described in a manner different from films that talk about justice and processes in Italy: the diversity of systems it implies a diversity in the descriptions (structure of the House, position of the lawyer and judge accuser etc. etc.).
But a fundamental aspect that I have noticed (as regards procedural differences) is the silence of the convicted person: in the film the convicted person silent always, in the Italian film (especially in films of mafia and such films that describe the famous "MAXIPROCESSO") instead the convicted person cries always.
The idea of law and cinema is much wider than the idea of law and justice.
Law and cinema is not static, idea but also includes the action, the pursuit, the shootings: in this case the television face of the law in function.
For example, note the difference in the Cleant Eastwood film (44 Magnum for Callahan): Cleant Eastwood, face "fascist" respect for the law (according to the critics Americans of cinema) has a raw and vulgar way to speak, seeks combat crime every day.
A way, precisely, crude and vulgar fascinates the rednekcs of the South (people who drink a lot, but who are fascinated by law and votes republican party).
Michele Viti
Hello!
In these three days we have discuss with Professor Froment about "law and cinema", and I found very interesting the way where were structured the lessons! Is nice to break the lesson with a movie ... and I want to say something about this.
I think that cinema can teach something about the law, and catch it in a interesting way; the important thing is not confuse the reality with the movie!
The film gives an immediate approach of what it wants to pass on, contrary to what happens in the literature in which there are written texts.
The cinema teaching law with a movie...
During the lessons we saw some films such as "12 angry men" and "44 magnum for Callahan" to understand the importance of technical for describe situations as the position of the cameras to get the right atmosphere and give an idea of the seriousness or less of some situations.
For example in the movie "12 angry men", the tall columns, the great staircase, the words "Court of Justice" before entering into a less illuminated room as the inside of the classroom where takes place the process about a young boy, give the idea of austerity and importance of the moment.
We have also discussed the relationship between law and society and I think that society requires the existence of the law!
Bye..
Giorgia Ciucci
Hi!
I would like to comment the three Law and Cinema lessons. About this topic, my opinion is that there is a very strong connection between law and cinema, because the cinema, when it is not about science fiction, is a mirror of reality. With the instrument of cinema, everyone can represent reality as he, or she, wants. This is the very important role of directors: they have the task to represent reality in the best way it is possible.
So, if we think that the law is everywhere in our life, and that cinema is a mirror of this life, well, it's very easy to find the connection.
To prove this, during the week, we have seen two particular movies, and I would like to talk about those two films:
- the vision of "12 angry men" has been the most interesting, at least for me. Above all the things that we have said during the lessons, I have noticed a very important particular. The thread of the film is the doubt: at the beginnig, when the judge says that the jury must condamn the boy only if certain beyond reasonable doubt; during the film, with Henry Fonda that will persuade the other eleven men about the presence of the doubt. About this thread, I think that seeing this movie, everyone can understand what the doubt is, and what kind of importance it has when people are judging a man suspect of omicide. By the way, I would like to quote the first paragraph of the art. 533 of our Code of Criminal Procedure: "Il giudice pronuncia sentenza di condanna se l'imputato risulta colpevole del reato contestatogli oltre ogni ragionevole dubbio (...)". I have a very garantistic thought about the importance of this article, so I've been very happy seeing "12 angry men", because I found someone who thinks like me!
- About "it's a free world", I have to say that I didn't found it so interesting as the previous movie. Surely the theme of this film is very important and actual: everyone of us, who more, who less, knows the problem of immigration. This is a very alarming problem. Well, about the film, I don't share Ken Loach's choice to make Angie continuing her life. She is a very bed hero: she has a son but he lives with grandparents; she has been fired; she wants to begin a personal activity, but when she reaches her objective, she becomes the worst person in the world, taking advantage of the problems of immigrants. I don't like her at all, maybe I would have finished the movie in a different way: my personal Angie would have stopped her bad practices after being threatened.
In conclusion, I would like to reccomend to you a movie, for me linked to the Usa prison law. The title is "He got game", the director is Spike Lee, starring Denzel Washington and Ray Allen (a very famous basketball player). In the movie, Denzel is Ray's father, and he is in jail because he has accidentally killed his wife. Ray is a very young basketball player, the best in the Usa, at the high school level. The director of Denzel's jail is a fan of a college team, and he promises to Denzel to free him if he will be able to convince his son to join that college. It's a story about abuse of power and about a very complicated relation between father and son.
See you next week!
Andrea Severini
Hi,
With the Dr. Charles de Froment we analyzed also the movie « It’s a free world » of Ken Loach. This is an actuality movie about a girl whose name is Angie, she works in an agency where she was looking for employers from east countries. Angie decides to work alone, after leaving her job. She founds another agency with her friend Rose. At the beginning they decide to work illegally without declaring any activity, but they say they will regularize their activity. But some peripetias make some problems. In fact, a society in which she worked, doesn’t pay her and and she is not able to pay her workers. This situation will create retortions from her workers which baste her and alarm her saying that they will rape her son. A man, the principal of a society where she worked, shows her some papers of a process against a criminal who had under him hundred of workers to whom he gave false passport. Against this man only a letter of formal notice has been sent.
Thanks to this wrong application of the law, that should punish equally, with measures different from a simple letter, Angie decides to go on with the « black work », underpaying the workers and using those who have a false passport because they don t give so much problems and accept every kind of work’s conditions. The protagonist of the movie is obsessioned by the dream of power and by a way of life ( like the one of her parents) that she defines meager. The immigrants to whom she gives a work , going on with the movie, become just means to achieve her goal.
An idea of her vision can be seen in the scene where, to close a van full of immigrant direct to a farm, she tries to close it also if it s so full that, to do it, she risks to break an arm to one of the passengers. It’s a movie of denunce. It evidences clearly the situation of immigrant in the most reach countries of Europe.
Riccardo Varano
Here's my reflection about law and cinema in relation to the movie "It's a free world".
Cinema and tv -as we all know- is one of the most important way to communicate with the greatest mass of people possible. For sure we should be careful, watching movies, to give them interpretations as if the art director gave them.
I need to underline as Prof. Conde has already done, how movies can influence public opinion and how, public opinion can influence the law's production in a sort of circular process of influences.
In my opinion the point is that we have to identify and focus exactly which was the art director target otherwise we colud misunderstand the all-round interpretation.
The reason why I made this introduction is linked to the choice of the Ken Loach movie. We all know that Ken Loach is used to produce movies about social problems; of course "It's a free world is one of these".
The very point in my opinion is that he has chosen cinema to communicate for the reason mentioned before: movies are one of the most powerful and strong (sometimes exasperated) way to let people know about social problems. This could be considered the best way to make a denounce or just a critic but it could be a way to manipulate the public opinion too.
I think that in this movie the producer doesn't want to talk about law, there is not connection with the "world of law" except because the law works always as a backgorund of the society and K.L. is just trying to give a protrait of a part of it. Maybe we could be wrong using this movies as a starting point to talk about law especially using certain parts to start discussions about metaphores connected to the world of the law. On the other hand I found really interesting the reflection around the "Twelve angry man" that is of course a movie about law not just because of the plot but for the big denounce against justice and trials the director made thruough his characters. Of course in this movie the author has chosen to talk us about the law through his story.
In conclusion I think that if we want to talk about the law's relationship with cinema we maybe should choose a different kind of movies; talk about social problems of course means to talk about law but sometimes only indirectly.
Comments are really welcome
Andrea Petroni
Dear Andrea,
As your commentary is clearly provocative and an appeal to a discussion, let me answer you (some answers are also provided in the long post I wrote on the blog with links to the videos).
It is clear that “12 angry men” is definitely more a movie about the “law” in its traditional sense than “It’s a free world”. 100% of the action takes place inside the jury room, the plot is organized around the notion of “reasonable doubt” etc. etc. I think everyone understood that.
On the contrary, Ken Loach’s movie takes place in the “real world”, there is no judge, no policeman. As in any movie about society, as you rightly pointed out, law plays a structuring role, but why more in this movie than in any other?
“I think that in this movie the producer doesn't want to talk about law, there is not connection with the "world of law" except because the law works always as a backgorund of the society and K.L. is just trying to give a protrait of a part of it. Maybe we could be wrong using this movies as a starting point to talk about law especially using certain parts to start discussions about metaphores connected to the world of the law.”
You go even further: for you, what matters is the intention of the film maker, and it would be dangerous to “take extracts”, and use these extracts outside their context as pretexts to talk about law.
This is a good critic, quite clever in fact. And you could use it against the whole field of “law and cinema”, or against any kind of interdisciplinary work, as I reminded in the introduction of the class. The risk is to misuse cinema (or literature, architecture, sociology, history etc.) to produce legal arguments that were not present in the mind of the film maker (novelist, architect, sociologist, historian etc.).
Having this problem in mind is A VERY GOOD ATTITUDE WHEN DOING INTERDISCIPLINAR but also COMPARATIVE RESEARCH (where people often “pick” something in a different culture outside its context and use it to make a point about their own).
But there are nevertheless problems also in what you say:
1. As I tried to show you when quoting you Thatcher’s speech (“there is no such thing as society” and showing you some parts of “The Navigators”, Ken Loach’s social movies since the 1980s always denounce a social and economic evolution that is very closely linked to labour law reforms (and vice versa): Thatcher fought the trade unions, and a whole policy was implemented to flexibilise employment contracts. As far as I know, labour law is law…
Law is indeed extremely important in Ken Loach’s work. I said it earlier, the scriptwriter Laverty is a lawyer from training; as you can see in Wikipedia... “Oxford University [also] awarded [Ken Loach] an Honorary Doctor of Civil Law degree in June 2005.” Loach is not a lawyer, but it seems like his work speaks at least to some (leftist) Oxford lawyers…
And to refresh our memory: in the movie, law is explicitly present: - almost in every discussion between Rose and Angie;
- when Angie decides to hire illegal immigrants following the (strange) legal advice his friend gave her in the shirt factory;
- when Angie denounces to the immigration service the illegal occupation of a piece of land by illegal immigrants;
- when Angie’s father (in the real life: a former trade unionist…) asks her if she pays her workers the minimum wage, or when he’s mentioning the fierce forthcoming competition between foreign workers and English workers (which reminds us of the “Bolkenstein” debate and of the “Laval Case” a bit later at the ECJ);
- when Angie is getting sexually harassed and fired and can't/won't contest her dismissal in court;
- when Angie’s friend at the factory explains her he can’t control his workers when they have “papers” (= contract of employment, hence legal protections) and that he would therefore be glad to have temporary workers instead (and we see this doctrine in application later when he clearly asks Angie to fire those amongst her workers which aren’t working well enough… and Angie can do it, because, out of legal reasons, temporary agency workers have temporary missions which can be terminated pretty much at any time…).
Did I make my point?
2. It is not because it is not the intention of a film maker to make a movie about law that we cannot use it to study law. Some movies that are talking about law in a very silly way are not worth studying for a law and cinema scholar, that’s true. But other movies provide us a certain vision of law which we need to understand in order to show how law is perceived, analyzed amongst popular culture productions… even if the first intention of the movie maker is to gather an enormous audience to make money!
To sum up: yes, you should always avoid to “over-interpret” or misinterpret a movie, a book etc. which is not really or primarily talking about the law for your own purpose and try to show, because you’re an egocentric lawyer who thinks everything is related to her/his own little specialty, that law is the key to everything. Cinema is cinema, art is art, and law is law.
But! Being aware of this central problem (that’s why I liked your remark), you can however carefully try to find bridges, paths between the 2 domains:
“12 Angry men” showing us law in action, the complex interaction between law and society, the bureaucratic nature of the legal process and the idea of Justice etc. etc. ;
“It’s a free world” driving our attention to consequences of labour laws deregulation, to the possible “instrumentalisation” of the law (Angie denouncing illegal immigrants for instance), to how hypocrite can be some statutes (the one about illegal workers which is in fact never applied because, as pointed out by Loach, the whole system needs these workers…).
This may not justify the existence of a research field called “law and cinema” (I am deeply convinced law and cinema emerged first out the boredom of some law professors and students who thought studying cinema would be “cool”), but at least doing this work is, according to me, a way to rethink about, and to better understand the law itself. It doesn't replace classical legal studies or cinema scholarship.
But it’s not that bad.
First of all thanks for your answer.
I would like to stress a couple of points about my comment you've quoted.
What I wanted to say is not that "It's a free world" has no connections with the world of law. Of course the bridges with the world of law as you've mentioned in your post are a lot.
What I mean is that this movie doesn't give to me the idea of a good starting point for a general discussion between law and cinema but maybe it could be more useful in a specific discussion around the world of employees, immigrants, unionized etc. Here's the point for me: of course the Ken Loach's plan was to provide material for a deep critic of the system (which is of course made of/by law) but at the same time is a specific critic around the "world" he represented in his movie; that's why in my opinion could be dangrous to produce GENERAL legal argument watching the movie (of course we're back to the main issue of my first comment that you've resumed in a gret way -thanks-
"This is a good critic, quite clever in fact. And you could use it against the whole field of “law and cinema”, or against any kind of interdisciplinary work, as I reminded in the introduction of the class. The risk is to misuse cinema (or literature, architecture, sociology, history etc.) to produce legal arguments that were not present in the mind of the film maker (novelist, architect, sociologist, historian etc.).
Having this problem in mind is A VERY GOOD ATTITUDE WHEN DOING INTERDISCIPLINAR but also COMPARATIVE RESEARCH (where people often “pick” something in a different culture outside its context and use it to make a point about their own)".
At the same time I would like to underline what I think about "12 angry men"; is not only because the connection is more evident than somewhere else that I think this movie could be more useful. Here the director and the movie itself is not talking only about a single case or issue (as in "It's a free world" in which the topic is more circumscribed e.g.Law&work); thorugh the story the movie give us some space for great landscape of reflections and observations around the theme of justice:
-law decides on men's lifes- so be aware of routine
-what happens inside the tribunal is always connected with what is happening outside of it (remember the connections between the jury room and the jurymen plans as the football match) and may others
In conclusion I agree completly with what you said and you've absolutly individuated my intention in writing that comment; the only thing I wanted underline with this answer is that maybe I was thinking to a different approach to the law and cinema field in your lectures; maybe more general and not focused on a specific topic - and in my opinion interesting as well- as Law&work/law&immigration is.
Thanks a lot for the attention you gave me
Andrea Petroni
Hi,
I found interesting the lessons of “Law and cinema”.
The cinema is a good media because it is intimate. Ideas can be discussed in every possible way to avoid boredom. Law (trial by Jury) can be seen as a ritual.
The role of the jury is to determine facts.
The strength of the film “12 Angry Men” is in the jury’s change of mind when the facts are insisted upon. From this procedure many attitudes are uncovered which influence the verdict.
We are told that Counsel did not dissect the evidence sufficiently. The sentence is serious – 1st Degree Murder – Death penalty.
The first verdict, almost unanimous, is “guilty”. When the facts are dissected, doubts occur. Many jurors were influenced by prejudice (racial and social).
One voted with the majority out of laziness, without applying his intelligence to the facts.
One was influenced by strong personal prejudice.
Jurors are not there to judge but to examine the given evidence.
Ken Loach’s film, “It’s a Free World”, deals with the legal problems behind the immigration (legal and illegal) issue. It also deals with sexual discrimination and harassment.
Esteban Conde discusses three approaches to Law and Cinema:
1. Law in the Cinema – How Law is portrayed in films;
2. Law as Cinema – Legal practices as a specific type of cinema
3. Law on Cinema – Legal regulations of type of cinema permitted intellectual property, contractual regulations, industry organization, Legal restrains.
Law in Cinema/Cinema as Law
R. Sherwin: When Law goes pop: issues: - Legal realism (1920’s – 80’s)
Critical legal studies
Studies of Law and popular culture
Anglo – American way of Law and its effects on European legal systems
A trial seen as a show
The Post – modern Challenge
Desire for order The important thing is to win the case by any means.
Radical scepticism with Law Verdict reacted on technical pities and interruption.
Loss of Law’s legitimacy
Reputation of reason
The dangers are: Parody
Crises of ideology
Superficiality
Cynicism
Non – differentialism of media and images from live experience
Denvir: - There could be a symbiosis between Law and popular culture
Law on Cinema: Bergman/Rossellini Scandal “Il Miracolo”
American Constitution – 1st Amendament. The Government shall make no restriction on freedom of Speech.
Films were considered a low form of entertainment.
Restrictions: Governmental Censor boards
Organized religious pressure
“Morality clauses in film stars” contracts
McCarthyism – Discrimination against employment of members of the Comunist party in the theatre and cinema. There was a “black list!”
See you next week
Lorenzo Librandi
Posta un commento