Dear all,
before writing on the blog all the information about Charles de Froment talks, I would like to give you the titles of two movies he suggested. You are going to discuss about them during the next talks on Law and Cinema, but if you manage to have a look at them before, it could maybe be useful for the discussion. Anyway, we are trying to find a classroom to watch a movie together on Wednesday after the lesson, but it isn't sure (and it isn't compulsory, of course). By the way: Our university has a new, fantastic dvd player and there will be no problem next time to show a movie (I'm still "shell-shocked" by the MOV experience).
"It's a Free World..."
Director: Ken Loach
Cast: Kierston Wareing, Juliet Ellis, Leslaw Zurek
Drama
96 min.
UK, Italy, Germany, Spain, 2007
Best Screenplay, Venice Film Festival 2007
Best Film, Seville Film Festival 2007
"12 angry men"
Director: Sidney Lumet
Cast: Henry Fonda, Lee J. Cobb, Jack Warden
Drama
96 min.
USA, 1957
Golden Bear Award at the Berlin Film Festival 1957
There is also a 2007 adaptation by Nikita Mikhalkov: "12".
Manzoni: Dr. "Azzeccagarbugli"
Picture by Francesco Gonin, 1840 edition of Alessandro Manzoni's "I promessi sposi"
Iscriviti a:
Commenti sul post (Atom)
42 commenti:
Hello, I
I have the huge pleasure to read we are discussing about "It's a free world" by Ken Loach.
It is such an incredible film
In this movie Angie is a young divorced woman with eleven years old son, Jamie, who lives with his grandparents. Dismissed in a trunk from which labor procured from Eastern European countries, Angie decides to create their own business. Together with Rose creates an agency to manage recruitment in pairs. The comparison with the reality of immigration, illegal immigration and not impose the choice that will not be all in the same direction.
Ken Loach is a director who could be called 'necessary'. Necessary because each film (who speaks both of Glasgow, to Ireland or Spain during the civil war) reminds us that this world, our Western world is not paradise but, unlike others who accept this as a fact inevitable, he thinks that something can be done.
Almost novice Kierston Wareing offers a valuable aid its multifaceted character, and giving those changes from positive to negative that force the viewer to switch between adhesion and repulsion to it.
Angie is a 'monster' which seems not to notice it. You live in the need for redemption, the generous and the most cold and deadly determination. It is a woman who wants to break in a typically male territory ended with the take on the more negative characteristics of the opposite sex. Almost as if Loach felt upon himself the difference in generational approach to social issues offers (thanks to the writing of his most faithful that screenwriter Paul Laverty) a mirror which reflected the old father, who, seeing the work, can not not say: "We are going back to old times"? In the old days were used terms such as exploitation, enslavement, the proletariat. Today everything is much more soft. The work is' interim '. The contracts are 'out'. But the reality is still that painful.
What is striking is that the protagonist Angie, will turn from victim to executioner. Victim of a world that she believes everyone to remove their freedom. Executioner in a condition, where she can find freedom.
So, always the same question: can be a society, giving freedom to the people, whith its laws, being so limitate and cinic, taking away the same freedom to them?
Unfortunately I did not watch the second movie, I hope it will be very good..
Another less recent movie I want to quote is "In the name of the father (1993)"
In 1974, a pub in Guilford (London) is the scene of a terrorist attack, attributed to IRA(italian), the clandestine armed struggle for Irish independence of Northern Ireland. With the support of weak evidence, if not invented, of crime are blamed Jerry Conlon (Daniel Day-Lewis), his father Giuseppe (Pete Postlethwaite), the three friends of Jerry Paul Hill, Paddy Armstrong and Carole Richardson, and an entire family of their acquaintances, the Maguire. Despite the obvious evidence to the contrary (and the subsequent testimony of a tramp with whom Jerry and Paul were talking when the explosion) father, son and friends of the latter are condemned to thirty years' imprisonment.
The dramatic experience will serve the two prison to approach and confide better: Jerry on the one hand, adolescent rebellion and little thieve, on the other hand Joseph, all home and church, and that flows into the fire for his loved ones. Over time, Jerry promiseth the parent, if they ever come out of jail, who will take care of the family and riabiliterà his name. Spend five years as well, where the real culprits in the attack pub (one of them will be closed in the same prison of the actors) to the police reveal the innocence of Conlon. A combative lawyer, Gareth Pierce (Emma Thompson) is so defenses of inmates that the public, convinced of their innocence, renamed "The four of Guilford."
In the meantime, however, Joseph, ill for some time already, has a respiratory crisis during sleep, led emergency hospital, there died an hour later. Then Jerry, left alone, but with the increasing support of the people, buy and consciousness of self-confidence as his father had always dreamed of-Pierce and helps in the process, which, during a visit to images of the police, discovered among the papers a sheet accusation deliberately never shown to the defense and containing the statements by the tramp, who acquitted completely Conlon.
The new process, so the court can only set aside the sentences, freeing the four. Jerry, left the court by the front door, declaring that fight "in the name of the father" as he had promised, so that the name of Joseph is rehabilitated.
The film highlights the hardness of the so-called emergency legislation approved in the United Kingdom between 1973 and 1974 (Emergency Provision Act - EPA and Prevention of Terrorism Act - PTA), which, in the wake of the growing danger of terrorism in Northern Ireland, came to provide for the establishment of special courts responsible, the Diplock Courts, extending the powers of arrest and search-in-chief to the police, the extension of the detention of a poliziasino seventy-two hours without providing any justification for the court, the presumption of innocence in the case of illegal possession of weapons and acceptance of evidence without the possibility of interrogation or comparison, the ability to restrict, by order of the Minister of Interior or the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, freedom of movement within the territory of the United Kingdom.
This is a fantastic movie, as simbol of the weakness and the limits of a justice which claims perfection, but prosecutes innocents..
See you
A. Festucci
Hi everybody,
today there was the first lesson of prof. Charles de Fremant, who introduced the relation between ”L aw and Cinema”. I like the way he let us to say our opinions before that he starts to speak ; we have analyzed how the connection between Law and Cinema is a little less obvious than for example:”Law and Architecture” , “Law and Literature” or “Law and History”. This because the” Cinema “ is a modern way to represent reality or fantasy, instead there is a long tradition which testifies the relationship between the Law and the other sciences: we have monuments or ancient laws since the time of Egyptians, Latin or Greek civilization. With the movies we have a more immediate approach rather than read a text but at the same time I think that we can consider a movie like a big box in which we can put inside all these sciences; for example we have seen with prof.de Frement the “twelve angry men”;the movie tells the history of a eighteen years old young boy who is charged with first degree murder against the father. The setting is the Palace of Justice, we can see the architecture of the building: high columns, many stairs until the dark room in which there is the boy, all gives the idea of austerity. The setting is in contrast , especially at the beginning, with the behavior of the twelve Judges that have to decide unanimously if he was or not guilty. They joke and speak about baseball , only then when they start with a first vote and there was only one who decides for the innocence of the boy ,they began to support their ideas with arguments. The movie is comic and dramatic at the same time but the terrified face of the boy is clear, it represents how difficult is often say that something is right or wrong, especially with human instruments like the” Law “and most of all when in the middle there is the life of a person.
See you tomorrow!
Alessia Colorizio
Hi all,
Today to lesson, as Alessia has underlined, we said as the relationship between law and cinema can seem less obvious than that among law and the other disciplines that we have analyzed in the other lessons.
But I am not of the same opinion, because the relationship between law and cinema should not be obvious? Rather such relationship could be the most obvious of all those studied.
What the cinema is relatively a recent art it is not a motive that can be set to support of the thesis according to which the bond between law and cinema is the least obvious one of all the others, rather if never confirmation the obviousness of such bond.
I mean, whoever is interesting of cinema will be skilled to understand in what period a determined movie has been made, and not only technically but above all for the films pick up and they expose the fears of the society , therefore the cinema changes and evolves him in relationship to the social demands, as should do the Law!!
For example, after the attack of September 11th, we assisted to an exponential growth of film concerning attacks of various type and kind.
Concluding: considering that the cinema (of course just film that interests of real life) mirrors the society in which is created and does it make knowable facts that without him will be circumscribed in small realities, what there is more obvious than to find a bond among the cinema and the law that every aspect of the civil cohabitation regulates? What there is more obvious than find a bond among a cinema projection of human relationships and the rules that discipline such relationships? Such results can more obvious if we consider the fact that the law pretends to regulate every least fragment of daily life more and more and often it wants also to judge on our happiness!!!
Contartese Antonio
Hi everybody!
I would like to say something about Charles de Froment's lesson.
Today we discussed about Law and Cinema. I think that American Movies/TV shows talking about law are quite different between Europe ones.
Europe (expecially Italian ones) movies/tv shows talking about law focus on what happen before the trial, for example investigation.
The reason, in my opinion, is that american trials are much more spectacular, theatrical than italian ones. Italian procedural law is technical (and very boring).
That's why italian "fictions" are full of love stories or something else that has no connection with law.
Moreover we talked a bit about "12 angry men". I found the movie very interesting. It shows the typical stereotypes of jurors and the strengh and weakness of americal law system.
I think that a process with jury is a very democratic system, but not so fair as it seems. For example as in the movie, there's always a leader that can influence a lot other jurors.
In the movie there is a good leader, of course, but what if there's a bad one?
Moreover, as in the movie again, sometimes the jurors has personal prejudice or identify themselves with the victims, and that (I hope) doensn't happen so often with a technical judge.
Last but not least, I would like to say few words about "reasonable doubt". This princeple has been introduced very recently in our law system.
Someone talked about this legislative reform as an "excess of garantism". In my personal opinion, I desagree with these critics.
Before the reform, the judge had to compare pm's thesis with attorney's thesis, and chose which one appeared more reliable.
In the movie, if the jury couldn't apply the princible of "reasonable doubt", it had to condamn the young man to death penalty, because seemed more realible that he was guilty than that he was not.
Now, I think the system works much better.
Good night, see you tomorrow!
Andrea Marangoni
Hello!!
I want to say something about the movie that we saw yesterday in the class: "It's a free world."
The movie was presented in competition in Venice(2007) and regards the world of work in England (London).
In particular, the movie reflects the problems that concern the poor classes based on precarious and blackmail and addresses the issue of immigration, a concept that I think is very significant in this context is that expressed by the words of the protagonist (Angie) of the film: "we must keep the head down and work".... and I would add: in a world that seems free but in reality it is not!
In fact in the past used terms such as exploitation and class ... now the terms are changed (intermittent work, contract with short term ..) but the reality is always that!
The plot of the movie speaks about a woman, Angie, who after being dismissed, she found, together with her friend Rose, an agency of temporary employment for unemployed immigrants.
Initially, the agency is fine, but then come the problems as promised wages and not delivered, and the two girls end up in a dangerous turn of illegality and mafia.
At this point there is a change of Angie that from victim becomes the executioner and she does illegal acts for to achieve her purpose; because the end justifies the means.
In the final scene Angie is in Ukraine, abandoned from her friend Rose, and recruit foreign workers who want to leave for the United Kingdom.
The end of the movie is strange .... I ask to myself .. why the director not condemn Angie that acts illegally for to achieve her purpose?....
See you
Giorgia Ciucci
Hi everybody!
I would like to say something about the movie "It's a free world" by Ken Loach,a director known for his political/social films.
I've loved so much the movie: realistic,very good directed,makes you forget that you are watching a fiction,and how can be fiction when the story is a real part of modern life.
The biggest success of the film is that focus into the lives of both immigrants and local western people.Shows clearly how capitalism,imperialism,sexism affects evrybody's life.The desperation is present as the main motive for surviving,and this isnt going only to immigrants but is also clear in Angie's life.
It's a good film. No fireworks here, but a solid piece of work. The ending is a bit of disappointment, because it hangs in the air with no conclusion.
I saw another Ken Loach's movie, The Navigator. Marvelous film set in South Yorkshire, using local actors and comedians,about a group of railroad track workers during the privatization of British Rail.
These are two
movies that you watch and get angry. For anyone working in a globalized economy is nothing new. Yet I can't think of a movie that has illustrated this situation more clearly. It's actually shocking that there aren't more movies about how altered our working world has became. Possibly because this is such a current experience in the world today...
Anyway,
I'm sorry that tomorrow I can't come to lesson,I would liked to deepen the impressions on it!
See you!
F. Lanfranconi
Law and cinema.
I have to say that it’s quite unusual for me the relationship between law and cinema, maybe only because I never thought that even the cinema could be an interesting way to talk about the law, a very direct instrument that can represent the law, I know that the cinema has its own rules, that there is a law even for the cinema, but I never thought about the cinema as the same way I look at the theatre or the literature, so I started to look at the cinema and see how the lawyer and the law is often represented. I really like the movie “12 angry man”, I liked very much the “close up” on the face of the young defendant at the first beginning of the movie because it shows us the feelings of a defendant: fear, hope and resignation.
I think that a director has a lot of instruments to reach the public: shots, choice of the actors ( their look), music, dialogs, lights. In this movie we can see at first the judge that gives to the court the instruction to judge, what really impressed to me is that the judge, giving those instructions, seems that he’s doing something really simple, something bureaucratic, something that doesn’t deals whit the life of a person, only one man, during the vote guilty/not guilty underlines that the jury is called to decide about the life, the real life, of a person.
I think that sometimes the law can gives the impression to be something apart from the real world, and often we hide our selves saying that “it’s the law”, saying that we have the “right” to do something, we forget that “legal” isn’t the synonymous of “right”. I think that we always have to see the law as something that isn’t apart from the real world, but as something that describes the real world creating another one.
In the movie “12 angry man” they are not wrong when they vote guilty at the first vote, it was legal to vote guilty, they apply the law, they apply literally the instructions of the judge, they stop to be a jury and they became a sort of officials of the big machine of the law. When they start to discuss about the trial, when they argue about the innocence or the guilty of the boy, in that moment, they are a real jury. To judge it doesn’t mean to say guilty or not, to judge it means to discuss, to argue, to judge it’s really an hard job. Sometimes we forget that the law needs to be “lived” (it’s funny the word play!), we have to interpret/live the law to have justice, maybe I’m too romantic, but I think that we can’t apply it literally if so it would mean that we are in a totalitarian state with no democracy.
Maria Buonanno
Hi!
Law and cinema is our argument this week…
If we speak about culture in general, we must find something that represent our society. Cinema is more direct form because it’s an instrument that all of us know, less or more.
So, above all in American fiction we find lawyers, judges, policeman…a movies that speak about rights and law. For my opinion justification is founded on an mistake: law and movies aren’t the same. First speaks about reality, film is a “pretence” only a vision of the reality. I don’t like generalize, because not all lawyers are like Al Pacino in the devil’s advocate and not all criminals are like Hannibal lecter! Cinema is only an idea of haw lawyers could be…but why lawyers are always arrogant and rich and doctors, for example, are prepares and available?!! Because part of our society thinks that..so movie represent only this part.
Also, movies are an exasperation of the reality. In 12 angry men the court seem (but I hope that’s it’s not always really) negligent and boring. For they is not important (in his point of view) if guy is or not guilty: they are hasty and not a lot interested, they want only came back home. It seem that it’s “only a work”..at the and life isn’t mine..could be a probable mind of the member of the court about the gay.
But there are also Henry Fonda: he’s the justice. If I imagine what is justice for me, I think about a possibility that my situation is value not superficially but compare its with principles of law. I believe in the right trial like a possibility to prove my innocence or be condemn…beyond each reasonable doubt. This is the character of Fonda. I don’t know if he really believe in the innocence of gay, but he try to discuss about it.
When I see the scene in which he makes some question at another member of the court for prove his version ( what did you do yesterday, what was the film that you look..), I think to Portia. Both of them give a reading of the situation that they are studing..try to convince judge, or court in this case, whit their opinion. At the and the member change their idea…director isn’t interested if it’s the best chose. I think that he wants stress that the first impression isn’t the best.
The problem is that, in spite of law is objective and general, interpretations of its are a lot of. And not all are right.
Daniela D’Annibale
Hi!
I would just add a little comment about Giorgia's question: Why Ken Loach doesn't condemn Angie at the end of "It's a Free World..."?. I think this is the very core of Loach's cinema and certainly a great talent of him. He has always been dealing with very dramatic social/political issues, in our contemporary world or in the past (e.g. "Land and Freedom", 1995). His aim is to represent reality as it is, without judging, which is no easy task at all! He says: "Look, this is what happens, I don't know if it is good or bad, you are free to have your opinion". Anyway, it is not difficult to understand his point of view just looking at the subjects he chooses, isn't it?
Hi!
There is another point that I want stress…
Return once more the problem of the emotion against law. First in law and literature and now… in the 12 angry men, when speech’s court became more interesting and the court don’t know if really gay had kill, the atmosphere became “hot”…director attributes it at the clime..the temperature of the thermostat. But I thinks that it’s only an interpretation. Atmosphere became warm because men understand that the solution is not clear like they think – or would think. It’s means that any decision that interest men’s life is an hard work. But this conclusion is link to the emotion of the men: only when they started about the possibility that there is an alternative, and their work isn’t standard, the objectivity is precede by passion. Like in Shakespeare, for me, motivation is that law is apply by men, it’s interpreted by men..so they aren’t absolutely objective and their life experience influences their decisions.
In this moment the temperature grow up!
Evidently, director hadn’t a good impression about a justice!
See you tomorrow!
Daniela D’Annibale
This week we have seen with prof. Charles de Fremant “twelve angry men”;
Twelve Angry Men takes place in a jury room in the late afternoon on a hot summer's day in New York City. Once the curtain is raised,, the judge's voice is heard offstage, giving instructions to the jury. He says that the defendant is being tried for first-degree murder, which carries a mandatory death penalty. The judge adds that if the jury has reasonable doubt about the guilt of the accused, they must acquit him. The verdict must be unanimous. The jurors, all men, come into a room and sit around a long table. The weather is hot, and there is no air-conditioning; some of the men are irritable. From the initial chitchat, it is clear that most members of the jury regard the man as guilty. An initial vote is taken and eleven of the jurors vote "guilty". Fortunately, one brave dissenting juror votes 'not guilty' at the start of the deliberations because of his reasonable doubt. Persistently and persuasively, he forces the other men to reconsider and review the complicated case In fact the final vote is unanimous for acquittal . The film shows that there are many reasons to get to the truth. First you feel a lot better. Second it may save lives. Finally you will be trusted a lot more, also it’s very respectful .So in conclusion I think the truth is the way forward. Finally, a man can make a difference, if has courage .
See you!!
Federica Pischedda
Good evening to everybody,
i want to talk about Ken Loach film "It's a Free World".
It is estimated that 90% of low paid-work in London is done by the proportion of migrant workers who are the new class of transient casual day labourers. After being falsely promised good wages and full time work, these unskilled, non-English speakers from Eastern Europe, South America and the Middle East are at the mercy of unscrupulous employers and a government reluctant to impose better regulations, else they upset the industries that are benefiting from the cheap labour.
If there is one filmmaker who you’d expect to make a film about the appalling lack of rights in Britain for many migrant workers, then it is Ken Loach.
Loach’s social realist style of filmmaking and socialist politics have resulted in a string of films that depict the social evils of prejudice, poverty, substance abuses, homelessness and the abuse of workers’ rights.
Interestingly, the central character of It’s a Free World… is Angie,a recruitment professional who makes a living recruiting cheap migrant factory workers. Angie is initially sympathetic and recognisable - she’s an overqualified 30-something single mother who is sick of working in dead and jobs for middle-aged men who think it is acceptable to grope her at the pub. After losing her job she decides to take control of her life and sets up her own recruitment agency. While initially successful, Angie very quickly finds herself out of her depth with unscrupulous business owners and increasingly aggressive workers demanding to be paid. To the horror of her business partner and friend Rose, Angie engages in increasingly illegal, exploitive and immoral behaviour in order to survive.
It’s a Free World… is a damning critique of the exploitive industry that has sprung up to capitalise on the influx of low skilled migrants who have poured into Britain. Loach wisely avoids condemning Angie directly and instead depicts her as somebody who is both a victim of the system and somebody who has been driven hard and cruel by it. However, her actions aren’t excusable either and Loach reveals her to be complicit in the process that reduces individual people into depersonalised human resources.
See you tomorrow.
M.Petriccione
Hello!
Today we watched some significant scenes of "12 angry men" regarding how the jury behaves during the trial in question.
We concentrated on the analysis of one of the jurors, who manages to convince the others of the innocence of the defendant, even though they all consider him guilty. This is a relevant aspect: try to think how, even nowadays, the society needs to find, to see and to criticize "the guilty": by punishing him we use to convince ourselves that something has been solved, but it's not always so easy!
We considered how a great emotional stress could have some influence on the way the defendant answered the questions: it can also happens to us...even when we are taking an exam and we are not able to control our feelings and emotions!
Finally, I'd like to remind you of another movie I saw, involving the role of the jury, which is "Runaway jury"(2003), with John Cusack, Gene Hackman and Dustin Hoffman. It's about the battle of the two parties of the trial "for the hearts and minds of the jury", but there is also someone on the inside, someone of the jury itself who tries to lead the verdict because of the need of justice for something personal that happened in the past.
Thank you and good night!
See you tomorrow!
Alessandra Simeoni
I everybody,
I'm really upset becouse today I've got to work and I can not enjoy the last lesson of prof. The Fremant.
At the first sight I'd like to say that law and cinema is very interesting and very actual link because in our every day life we can watch on tv ficions and series about law and also a lot of films about legal themes.
During the lessons we keep analizing and discussing the film " 12 angry men".
I really appreciate the direction and the characters acting in a typical american old style.
According to me, in order to analize this film has been very useful to attend the preavius lessons, expecially the ones about law and architecture and law and literature.
The begin of the film and its first part reminds me the stories and the settings of Franz Kafka.
Is a paradoxal situation that the director exaggerated and made full of elements that make us think about how dangerous and unfair could be to let the common people deal out justice.
Well, according to me, in the real life a situation like this could not happens,because I'm quite sure that uman kind is just not full of superficial and stupid persons like the jurors of this film.
But I also think the end of the film is too optimistic because in real trials is almost impossible for one man (maybe not if he is Henry Fonda!) to change 11 minds.
Anyway I think that sometimes we need the message of an happy ending like this.
It makes us think , or better hope, that even in a such superficial and material world there is still place for justice.
Good morning
I was thinking about the film "12 angry", about the modalities of the decision: the way the jury analyzed again all the case, all the proofs.
It's a very strange way of acting for me. What I want to say it's that in a formal, merely technical, point of view the way they acted could be considered wrong, also invalid. They did more than their duty in this sense. I'm not saying they made a bad thing trying to save the life of a guy using properly the reasonable dubt concept but the way they acted it's more based on equity than on form. Infact they re-analyzed all the proofs, not only verbally. They made also some tests in order to verify the credibility of the testimonies and of the reconstructions of the facts. The protagonist of Fonda acted as a lawyer more than a juryman (we said it also during the lesson) and the other members of the jury act sometimes like pubblic accusation, sometimes like judges, sometimes as pubblic opinioner and in a few cases as jurymen. In a certain way they, supposing the defense was negligent, did the process again. This is pure equity!! So, probably, in a substantial way they can be considered as the best kind of jurymen, they embodied the pure spirit and sense of this popular institute.
Francesco Mambrini
Good morning.
Today I would like to talk about the lessons of yesterday and Monday. In the movie "12 Angry Man", a film show exceptional and very well done.
The first stage covers the entrance of the court. This is represented by a rebound from the bottom up, and the main door in the foreground. How to give a feeling of omnipotence to the people.
The law, at the beginning of the film, as well as justice, are seen on the same level, because both are static and impassive in relation to the facts. The fact that so far seem obvious, they are not at all: the facts alleged patricide against a boy of eighteen.
Then, as we said in class, the scene moves inside the atrium of the court .. a scene very confusing and chaotic, the symbol of the confusion of courts and, perhaps figuratively, of justice in general.
Finally, and here the director does not go over the outside of the jury room, framing a judge summarizing the case. But a judge seems tired and used to treat the same criminal problems.
Inside the jury room, the jurors are 12, but not all agree on the guilt of the boy.
Only one (played by Henry Fonda) is not, and we know that only if all are favorable, the electric chair is certain.
In the second lesson, we discussed the role of this single juror. He convinces as all the others with thin psychological games.
The opinion does not favorably Fonda, concerns a character who, as we see in the film, look outside.
The outside was for me a very important meaning. The exterior is another kind of justice, a justice that goes beyond suspicion. A justice that does not affect the consolidated views. It is also a justice that seeks to move from the Kafkaesque justice, ie justice that accused persons without any reason. That sends, if you talk about the American penal system and other systems in the world, death to the guilty, without any kind of search for evidence.
Fonda is represented by Lumet, as a character that goes beyond suspicion, which are symbolized by the other jurors, who sat much in a position of inferiority compared to the protagonist, who, from his position, seeks to jury to instill a balanced justice, but that is based on real evidence and research, what interests me highlight of DOUBT..
He says, who asked the boy if he is guilty: "I do not know" .. and who told him why, he replied: "I just want to talk ..". The problem is that he, outside of a court and a jury, which is now addressed in one direction, you make it, although after that much time has been found guilty, the truth is never absolute, and must be reasonable doubt.
Then there is one thing that I noticed while watching this first part of the film. It may seem ridiculous, but it is not. If you note at the beginning of the film, it is hot, do not see the outside world. But if you move into the jury room, after a while 'of time that men begin the debate begins to rain, but continues to warm. One of the two jurors began to sweat, but behind him there is the window of the room that shows the rain falling incessantly.
This is a scene often used in the history of cinema: the rain has always had the meaning of uncertainty and the threat of something gripping people's lives.
There is a film that I consider the absolute masterpiece of film history, 1950. Akira Kurosawa directed that in "Rashomon." In this masterpiece is represented a scene of a forest in whose veins the Japanese committed a murder. Collected in the court-viewer, are interviewed all the characters in the film, showing a different version the one from the other, including the spirit of the dead.
Then in the Kurosawa film you want to understand that the truth is not one, but more than one, assigned according to the needs of the people.
Even in his films from the rain until the end of the film.
This shows that even in "12 Angry Men, the rain means that the world, but also justice, are never perfectly safe places. That there is always something that kills the hopes of the people.
However, as often happens, the facts inverse change in the positive existence. At the end of the film of Kurosawa, the advent of a child re-creates confidence in people, as a new ray of light and sun. That sun that manages the clouds before the court when the verdict will not be more than the death penalty in 12 Angry Men.
See you
hi!!!
Law and cinema...
In the our world the cinema is a big instrument of comunication, maybe the biggest...
the cinema does to unite the people, it shows the life, but ...what but? The cinema doesn't show always the real life, sometimes..often this representation is altered and hides itself.So, in tv we can look numerous lawyers,judges,policemen...for example, in few time they resolve the problems, the cases, in few days or months the trials finish...but, for we that live the real life these times and these "superheroes" are only, the characters of a comedy...
i don't want only to criticize the cinema because it's a my big mistake, but want to restructure its merits: it's important for the show, for its popularity and for the comunication, in a moment it can arrive all the world...but, it is a fiction, too. Often narrates for to like and not for to teach...
Valentina Carafa
Hello!
Thanks Dott.ssa Gialdroni for the clarification ... I can say that today also the Professor Froment helped me to understand the meaning of the movie and he explained it very well.
"It's a free world" reflects the reality and I admit that in reality (in fact) everywhere you look you see people doing illegal work (black work),and was said in class, one example of this are the many foreign carers!
I think that the message of the movie is not positive, it doesn't end well and it doesn't an eulogy of justice and of respect for the rules; and also if the reality is this and the director couldn't represent it in best way, I prefer those films where "the bad in the end is discovered and the justice makes its way", because I think that a positive message like: "sooner or later everything comes out and everyone will face the law", is a better message than: "so the reality will always be this!" ... even if (with a little pessimism) probably it will be like this...
Bye
Giorgia Ciucci
Hi everybody!
This week we have talked during the lectures about the relationship between law and cinema whit Charles de Froment. I agree with him when he says that law is suited for movies and that movies captures law in an interesting way also because a plot is very similar to how law works: according to me, a movie is better than literature or art to understand law because it makes simply a difficult legal concept, and we can't say the same for others humanistic art.
In order to understand well this concept that I have affirmed, we can't forget the influence that society has not only on law, but also on cinema! Why? Simply, because a movie is a complex art, different from a poetry, a novel or a painting that are made by an only man, so cinema needs to find a collective vision, a Social vision, and I find in this feature of cinema the most closeness point to law: I don't see a lot of differences between a director and a legislator.
Regarding the first movie we have seen, “12 angry man” by Sidney Lumet, I want to say that it is simply fantastic. Charles de Froment during the lecture says to us to think like a newbie of cinema: well I think that is very difficult to set all the movie in the same location (a jury room, with the exception of the first and last two minutes) not making it stressful and boring like a drama rather than a film... Lumet instead gives the right dynamism and pathos to the entire movie, thanks to the different temperament and social position of characters.
Ettore Scola also made a movie in a similar way, it is completely set in an apartment and however it is not boring: the movie is “Una giornata particolare”, with Marcello Mastroianni and Sophia Loren (nice movie but the argument is different).
Going Back to our film: Henry Fonda, the juryman who insinuates the “reasonable doubt” in all the jury, is able not only to subvert the judgment but also to let all the jurymen judge themselves: their characters, their social and cultural conflicts, their prejudices against “strangers”, including the accused: the playbill of this movie indeed says about the 12 jurymen: Life is in their hands, death is in their minds...
See you soon for a comment of Loach's movie...
Pierluigi Oddone
Hi to everybody
I am very enthusiastic of the matter that we have treated this week around law and cinema, because I believe that this can give us inspiration for some reflection.
Besides I have found very interesting the projection in class on "the free world" and on "12 angry man."
I think that both these filmses are very realistic above all the first one I have found him for some aspects very next to our world, above all that of the job.
Especially in "the free world" we can see a parallelism among past, present and future.
Actually the past is represented by the father of the protagonist, the old right, the present young ambitious woman and perhaps cynic, the new right, and finally the future her child, Jamie, that can perhaps be the incarnation of a hope or who knows of a best justice.
If we still look toward the American world or English we realize there that we can find a lot of other examples in which the law and the cinema but also telefilmses go together;to make some examples that surely all of my colleagues know I report me to "Ally Mc Beel" or you have film-documentaries of Micheal Moore or still to the more riselentes lawyer "Perry Mason", in short who more it has of it more puts of it.
In reality I think that enough it looks at our world, also in Italy especially in the last years there has been a to proliferate of fiction or of having talkshow to object the right, the crime, the justice.
Words and very different concepts among them but that they express a to feel common and that is to know what rights are up to us and what no or it would be better perhaps to say to whom are up to and to whom no or to what obligations we must carry out being city of the Italian republic and still to title of thing we respond if we commit a crime, all want to know.
Surely the films, the cinema, the television they often represent a way to express an inherent malcontent in every society and in every population.
I wonder then me if this can also concern the right, I make sense of better me.
We often turn on the tv and we see transmissions to whose center of the discussions is found laws therefore I wonder me if everybody this attention that the media but also directors of fiction prepare to the other right is not whether to bring states of mind of the citizen that perhaps of these times don't believe a lot of law.
It is often looked for to blame the law, but I believe that the true guilt is not of the laws, that can surely be correct or wrong, but rather both of those “people” and the law “they must interpret her”.
Besides I think that before accepting the other juridical systems is necessary to make things clear and to know very better ours.
I perhaps believe this I place to be wrong me.
Talk to you soon a regard to all of you.
Federica Meglio
Dear all,
The link between law and cinema is the argument of this week:
I found these lectures amazing and very interesting because of the way this link was explained! So, I would like to thank doct. De Froment! Moreover, I’ve never seen before the movies recommended and I have appreciated both in different way. About the movie “twelve angry men” I found the plot optimistic ( the H.Fonda’s character is able to change all the other’s opinion trough a logical argument )and the characters were fantastic! A jury made of very normal people, a good mixture of the medium citizens… H. Fonda acted like a lawyer in the core scenes and he was the only person who had the “reasonable doubt” (a very juridical complicate concept) pointed out at the beginning by the judge in a certain way like a “boundary” to state if the guy was guilty or not. In this sense law and movie are connected, movie can let understand some aspects of law to lay people but it can also denounce other ones: in this movie for example, I had the impression that the trial was very quick but not in a positive sense! In fact, the reconstruction of the story by H. Fonda appeared more accurate than the one by the real office lawyer of the boy. I think that cinema represent the side of dynamic law, when it is actuated, during a trial, not in the static way when the law is written in our code. At the same time, law is embodied to cinema for the structure of a trial: both tell a story with a beginning, a core and a conclusion, and in a process everyone owns a part. Doct De Froment began his lesson on Wednesday asking what is law and cinema and he concluded in the same way; well, I think this relationship is a way to give an opinion, to show the society as it is or as it should be, giving an ideal image… the director is telling us a story and law is a tool to understand and to show the society.
See you soon!
Silvia Faranca
It’s true: through the Cinema we can to observe carefully a complex social phenomenon.
I’ve found very interesting Ken Loach’s film “It’s a free world” about exploitation of immigrant workers in UK. Really, in this film are treated two different but linked themes: black work’s utilization and slavery of immigrant workers (regulars and illegal immigrants) in UK.
But about it, UK situation isn’t worse that in Italy: in fact, Angie may get on very well here…
In Italy immigration of extra-communitarian workers is regulated since 2002 by the Bossi-Fini Act, that replaced the Turco-Napolitano Act.
There are two papers for extra-communitarian immigrants: “Permesso di Soggiorno” (a temporary Residence Permit) and “Carta di Soggiorno” (a Residence Permit without end that you can to obtain after 6 years of continuative residence in this country).
Well, with the Bossi-Fini Act, the Residence Permit is granted for two years only to immigrants with a job: the absurd is that they have to find a job before they arrive in Italy! The family’s rejoining (“ricongiungimento familiare”) is very difficult now and then, if extra-communitarian workers lose their job and after only three months they haven’t found a new job, they must to return immediately in their country. In this way, regular immigrants can to become suddenly irregulars and this condition is “perfect” for to end up in black work’s illegal market and to become a slave that unscrupulous businessmen can to exploit working on the fear of repatriation.
Besides, when there was Turco-Napolitano Act, extra-communitarian workers leaving our country can to obtain immediately the payment of their pension contribution with an additional increase of 5% for year: in fact, money is very important to start a business and a new life in their own country. Instead now they can’t to ask at once the payment of their pension contribution leaving this country, but they have to wait till they are 65 years old… They can’t to have before cash money.
Then, in Italy is very difficult to obtain the citizenship because you have to wait for 10 years and it’s difficult also for sons of immigrants born in Italy because, as in Germany, there is the principle of “Jus Sanguinis” (you have Italian citizenship if your parents are Italians, also only one of them) while the principle of “Jus Soli” finds concrete application only in some particular cases: so, in Italy isn’t sufficient for to obtain citizenship that you are born in this country.
Finally, we have also the illegal immigration’s “crime” (we have imported this particular “crime” from French legal system) and in hospitals now, doctors “can” to denounce irregular immigrants: so, irregular immigrants are scared (it’s logic) and they don’t want any more to go in hospital when they are ills, with serious and dangerous consequences for them and also for Public Health!
This is the shameful situation in our country.
Perhaps, we have forgotten that in a recent past Italy was a land of emigration towards America and Northern Europe: but we have to remember it, always.
See you!
Valerio Marinelli
Hi!
I agree with the comment of the young democrat (and a friend of mine too) Valerio Marinelli. The immigrants situation is shameful not only for our country but in for all Europe.
The immigrants are sourronded by thousands of prejudices and clishes and hypocrisy. I would like to remark, in Ken Loach's movie, the dialogue between Angie and her father. What they say is very significant.
People think that immigrants "steal their job" or "rape their daughters, mothers, aunts" and so on. The situation is not so simple.
It's a fact that labour world is changing. Probably we are not going to do the same job for all our life, signing just one contract, as it was, for example, in japanese labour culture.
But one thing is flexibility, one thing is walking on worker's dignity. That's what often employers do,speculating, and people seems to forget that.
It's interesting that one of typical labour contracts, in Italy but also among all Europe, is staff leasing. Just the name underline the high repleacibility between workers, expecially between immigrant.
Anyway these xenofobic feelings are very dangeourous not only for "everyday life" but also for the process of european integration and the archieving for free market.
For example, these feeling brought in France and Netherlands to refuse European Costitution.
Newspapers called it "Romenian Hydraulic's Fear". That's a very powerful image!
See you soon!
Andrea Marangoni
Hello everybody!
This week with Dr. Charles De Froment we have talked about the link between Law and Cinema, and I must say that the classes were very engaging and interactive.
He said that the link between law and cinema is younger than the link between law and history, law and literature because literature, history and architecture have ancient origins more than cinema, which is a form of modern art was born at the end of the nineteenth century.
We have analysed, through the vision of two movies entitled: “It’s a Free World” of Ken Loach and “Twelve angry men” of Sidney Lumet, the connection between law and something that happen in the society. We have talked about the effect that have the movies that faced legal themes on law. The problem is that in the films the law is a fiction, isn’t the real law and the people can easily mistake the fiction with the reality.
In class we have seen some scenes of 12 angry men ( in Italian: “La parola ai giurati”, recently brought in theatre by the famous actor and director Alessandro Gassman),in which I have immediately remarked a difference, on the one hand, between the austere and solemn entry of the Court with high and solid columns, which symbolize the justice and dark and gloomy room where the trial was in progress, while, in the other hand, there is the Judge almost bored and indifferent regard to the decision that must to be taken. For him decide about the life of a man is an ordinary job, is a work as many. Also for the jury (except a jury), which met to decide the fate of the young boy accused of parricide, seems obvious his guilty and the decision to condemn him to death is immediate. This scene in my opinion was shocking. How can you make a decision with such superficiality of the life of a man?
Very interesting is also the another film proposed by Dr. De Froment, which I have seen Wednesday after the lesson, entitled: "It's a free world" by Ken Loach. This film have faced an important social issues: it's a hard story of work and immigration.
The title of the film is ironic and it is a message that says that we aren’t in a free world, are so many the rules to follow and many are the compromises that many people have to accept. Symbolic, is for me, a scene of the film between the protagonist Angie and the head of a company but also his friend, which for help her in a time of economic difficulty with her recruiting agency that effort to engage, suggests her to take the immigrants without regular documents because for fear to be discovered by authorities and repatriated, they work hard and are cheap. Practically Angie should give them the minimum wage and keep the rest for herself. So a real exploitation.
At first Angie refuses because she doesn’t want to commit illegal acts, but his friend reassures her and shows her some documents concerning a case of a famous boss, guilty of exploitation of immigration and discovered by authorities but punished by law with a simple warning. At that point I asked myself: where is the law? But above all I think that just because a person have committed an illegal act that hasn’t been punished as deserved can’t be an example or an excuse for making another crime.
See you next week!
D'Antona V.
Hi all,
this week we told about the relationship between law and cinema.
I think that the movies are a new shape of literature, and these also may represent something of legal. Currently, the some movies have replaced the books, because life is very frenetic and people prefer to learn new knowledge quickly. Indeed the movies give an immediate representation of what director wants to tell, as a writer.
Often the movies are based on literary works but not only. There are many movies and fiction that taking place in a courtroom or whose protagonist is a lawyer.
We saw two movies: “12 Angry men” and “It’s a free world”, latter is directed by Ken Loach, which often tells about social problems, he describes the lives of poor people because he doesn’t believe in capitalism.
1) “12 Angry men” tells the story about a young guy waiting for verdict of the jury. He is accused of first-degree murder his father. The judge seems bored and indolent while he makes the recommendations to jury, and he remembers them that the guy will be condemned if they will achieve unanimity.
The jury proceeds to first vote, and 11 jurors out of 12 consider the boy guilty. Only a juror is not sure of guilt and he is attacked by the other, because he asks to discuss the case as there is a life at stake. He analyzes the facts and he denounces the incompetence of lawyer ; in fact he begins to dismantle the prosecution insinuating doubt on the accusation and on testimonials and he shows the opposite. Slowly other jurors begin to doubt to guilt and after various discussions all consider the boy innocent.
The movie shows the importance of principle of reasonable doubt, that imposes the release of accused if the guilt isn’t certain. In particular, in my opinion, this principle is very important in the American legal system, in which is applicable the death penalty for atrocious crimes as murders.
2) “It’s a free world” tells about the problem of illegal labor and immigration.
The protagonist is a woman, which has been dismissed, she decides to open a company employment for foreigners with her friend. After she begins to exploit and she doesn’t pay these workers, which rebel and menace her.
The movie shows the discomfort of foreigners and the gain easy of the bosses. This is a very important topic of our times, because immigration is one of the most important question in universal politic debates. But I think that a law and cinema example is something quite different from this movie, because I think that the link is stronger in a movie like “12 angry men”.
see you
Vanessa Malizia
Hello everybody!
I'd like to say something regarding to Ken Loach's movie “It's a free world” and about its theme: temporary and black work. Loach let us see the exploitation praxis of temporary and immigrants workers through Angie's character, the leading actor of this movie: Angie has a lot of energy, received from continuous working disappointments, desire of ransom, cool determination, and thanks to this energy she is able to be successful also in a men's world.
In my opinion Loach uses women's figures to make more shocking the movie's theme, because he is not pessimistic, he is only realistic: the way in which Angie behaves is the way in which our society wants she to behave, for this reason I don't fell like condemning she, or at least not at all, as Loach makes and as dr. Stefania Gialdroni rightly says too!
About dr. Gialdroni's question I think the answer is the same argument I've already explained in my post about the movie 12 angry man: “we can't forget the influence that society has not only on law, but also on cinema! Why? Simply, because a movie is a complex art, different from a poetry, a novel or a painting that are made by an only man, so cinema needs to find a collective vision, a Social vision, and I find in this feature of cinema the most closeness point to law: I don't see a lot of differences between a director and a legislator.”
During the lectures we saied that the movie's topic is the result of Thatcher's liberal era and I agree with it: an era in which there were only contractor's unscrupulousness and competition, in which everything was considered goods to exchange!
Charles de Froment also asks to us the meaning of the character of Angie's father: well, in my opinion he is the mirror in which Loach let Angie looks at herself. His father doesn't understand her because he is an old style labour, he had made the same work for 30 years, while instead Angie has lost 30 different works in few years! Of course, at the age of his father there was talk about proletariat, reduction in slavery; today we talk about black works, works “ad interim”, but the meaning is always the same... unfortunately...
See you next week,
Pierluigi Oddone
Hi
I would like to make a short comment on the film 12 angry men.
I had the great pleasure of watching entirely this masterpiece of Lumet.
The antagonist of Henry Fonda, played by George C. Scott is confident with Him, during a period not fellow of the film, he was abandoned by his father, tenderly shows the picture with him and dad.
What is striking is that as you understand the drama that is passing the boy accused of patricide, want to vent against him all his tension and frustration. It continues to accuse, but without explaining the reasons.
And when all the other jurors the side of him that he was disadvantaged party in respect of the whole jury, Scott kneels prey to the tension and despair, until the last supports the guilty, from which bursts into tears, including plight of the young man, conscious of having passed an identical and parallel situation of the guy, and surrenders to his innocence and says "not guilty" in a sea of tears ..
At the end Fonda remains alone with Scott,nand passes the jacket on his shoulders as a sign of respect and understanding like he was the father that Scott never had...
And the sun shone again on the law and the society.
A. Festucci
Finally my favourite class!
I love cinema and I've lively partecipated to the lessons.
Awfully I missed the last day, but the plummer does not wait!
I'm sorry because I've prepared a list with all my favourite movies about law, and, I'm not jocking, at the top of the charge I put "Legally Blonde" (obviously 1 and 2).
Then follow The Reader, Un borghese piccolo piccolo,starring a wonderful Alberto Sordi that talks about private justice, La guerra dei Roses, Birdy, Sleepers, Fuga di mezzanotte and many many others.
I just wanted to say that I've found very interesting all the lessons and now I hope to attend an exam that deserves the professors that we've met.
Have a nice day.
G.Casini
Hi everybody!
I liked very much the module concerning law and cinema because I love watching films and reflect about them.
During the lessons we underlined some common aspects between a trial and a film that I found very interesting: in a film you have the plot, sometimes very confuse, and in the end you have the solution, a clearer vision of the story; also in a trial you have a very confuse vision of what really happened and finally you have the judge’s decision which resolves the fact. In my opinion also actors and lawyers have something similar in the way both have to be expressive to have a good result. The audience on one side and the judge and the jury on the other are conditioned in their judgment by the actor and lawyer’s performance.
In America there are many films set in courts and I think it depends on the practical approach that the Americans have in the study of law and the centrality of the lawyers in American society. So I think that in American universities is useful watching films about law to learn it but in our system films are useful for our personal culture, to reason about legal problems(like we did with the film “in a free world” )but not to learn law, even if it should be very pleasant.We have too abstract legal concepts that are difficult to find in a film!
Bye
see you tomorrow
Giorgia Melia
I really liked De Froment's speaking about law and cinema.Even if it's dangerous to compare such a two different elements like the law and the cinema because they're not standing on the same level,it's important to see how movies capture law and bring it in to the popular culture.Infact people gets his idea of law from popular legal culture which,off course,is made up by cinema too.Obviously It cannot be taken as an accurate mirror because it is a distorted conception by ignorance that,at the same time,plays the important role to transmit values to the people.We began watching some scenes from "twelve angry men" useful to us to underscore some law aspects and its links to society.What really stroke me was the idea of justice factory(la fabric du loi) where the judge doesn't seems to be so involved in his role of law administrator,he's just a bureaucrat even if the trial is on a boy's life.Other link between law and cinema,the best one I think,in this movie is the jury:the human tribunal where the justice is given to normal people who doesn't care about that and has other things to think about as the ball game for example.De Froment's course has been the opportunity to watch "It's a free world" by ken loach and "dirty harry".About the first one I'd say was interesting its relationship with the problem of precarious work which concerns our country too.In england,as in Italy,the goal,since Thatcher's time,was to give more flexibility to the market and the world of work inventing new form of contract and leaving behind the idea of steady job.Came out a big chaos which ruined human relationships and attention to workers rights.That's what I noticed in loach movie:the struggle of a lonely mother against a world that gives her no opportunity to create her own family.By her point of view she's justified to take advantage of illegal workers and the bitter ending shows us that she haven't learnt anything by her troubles.It was worth watching it in the afternoon!
Hi everybody!!!
I want do a comment about the relationship between law and cinema...
In my previous comment i criticized this relationship but now, I want talk about its good qualities.The cinema is as a God, it's similar to Hermes, comunication's divinity, we can talk that it is in the centre of market and for this place it can listen to all and talk to all,too.
The cinema knows, can knows and than, it can show and sometimes, directly to teach.
There are many worlds that are distant by we and the cinema's machine drows near them.Often we don't know the realty of Iran or similar towns and so, the cinema is a bridge...
Sometimes, it narrates sad realities, cruel laws, difficult truths and in that moment we must to be right to know, to interpretate and to criticize these imagines.
The jurist's eye must to enter in the film, in the show and than, when it's inside it can move in distant realty by him...
Valentina Carafa
Hi everybody,
the first lectures about law and cinema have been very particular, because of the cinema, for its charachteristics gives us interesting food for thought ( in fact in the movie there is the description of a continuos reality which to confront with, differently from a book in which the reality can just be imagined) and also because of the way in which the DR. Charles de Froment set up the lectures. During these lectures we have always seen parts of movies that were useful to understand the different meanings and concept that should have been analyzed. The vision of the movie « 12 angry men » has been really interesting. The story focus on the juryman n.8 that was interpreted by Henry Fonda, he is a man, a member of the jury called to take a decision against a young man accused to be the killer of his father. From the unanimous decision of the jury depends the absolution or the death sentence for the boy. The protagonist slowly disassembles the accuses and persuade the other jurymen that the one who is accused is not so easly the guilty as he seems to be.
In his thoughts there are some elements. First of all he underlines how the defence didn’t perform adeguately the task, because they didn ‘t use correctly the deposals and didn t try to provide details able to show that the tests were unreliable witness. It s clear in the movie the negative attitude of many of the jurymen. Some of them belive in the authenticity of the tests only because they made oath. Others decide the culpability of the accused not analyzing the real facts but because of their prejudices or because of they want to reach the solution in the shortest time possible, to think to their affairs ( football match, their job) and they forget that the obiective of the debate is the human life and that they should not condemn none if they are not sure about the culpability.
The room in which the decision has to be taken has some affinities with the places descibes by Kafka in the Process, as underlined also by some my collegues. The common element is the terrible warm weather, so terrible that there can be some difficulties to breath, the same situation in which Josef K is when he goes to the Tribunal.
Riccardo Varano
Something else about law and cinema.
I wanted to write a little bit more about law and cinema, specially about the movie “it’s a free world£. I liked very much that movie, it’s quite sad, but at the end of the movie we realize that the reality sometimes is really sad. I liked very much a scene of the movie, when Angie goes where all the immigrants live and there she realize that the third world is in England. I wonder about how many third world are in our country, and what we really do for that part of world that is really close to us but that it seems not exist. I liked very much even the dialogue about the law, their way of thinking about the law, it’s a very economic way to think bout it, they don’t think that doing something illegal is wrong in anyway, there’s no a civil thought, but they think that if there’s nothing to pay, there’s no prison for that crime, they could commit it. I think that the law is really powerful when it teach us to live in a civil world, and to live in a civil way, not because we think about that we could go in prison if we commit a crime, but because we all know that if we commit a crime we can lost part of our civilization. The law should be made by us, we live in a democratic country, so we had decided that something is wrong and that something is right, we had decided what is a crime and what is legal, so not to commit a crime it should means to keep faith to our choices. If we want to find a way to violate the law it means that we don’t think to be a part of that law, we don’t think that we had decided that law.
In that movie the law seems wrong only because it doesn’t reflect the interest of Angie, she thinks to be a good person because she helps a lot of persons, but we understand very well that what she does for them isn’t an help but an economic speculation. At the end of the movie there is the representation of the illegal world, there’s no more the law but the other rules: the son of Angie is kidnapped, an eye for an eye.
I really don’t know why but this movie made me think about the phrase “arbeit macht frei”, I think that there’s something Nazi in thinking that a job can solve all the problem of a person, that it’s enough to have a job to be free…Is it a free world? I think that it’s a world, sometimes free but we should take care an pay attention to what we are free.
Maria Buonanno
Hi Everybody!
This week we anylized the relationship between law and cinema, in particular we focused on "12 angry men" by by Sidney Lumet and "It's a free world" by Ken Loach.
I'd like to say something about them.
About "12 angry men": I found some interesting topics in this movie. At the beginning for example, the camera shows the columns of the tribunal. They seems to be very tall in front of a man. That's a very kafkian topic, linked with the parabol of the gatekeeper.
Then I found very interesting than only at the end, H.Fonda and the old man introduced themselves.
The jurors are not particular characters, but they could
be every american citizen.
Last but not least, I found very interesting the contrapposition between H.Fonda and, I think, his nemesi, the man with glasses. He's the only one that accuse the guy with rational arguments.
The others are often took by rage and irrational feelings.
I liked very much "baseball man" character. I think there are often people like him in american juries. Changing their mind like a pendulum swing.
Aboout "It's a free world": I was schocked by the scene when angie calls "ufficio immigrazione" just to send immigrant out of the roulottes and send in her uKrainian workers.
That's a very powerful scene. This movie talks about the relationship between law and society, that's definitely what Charles De Froment speaked about.
English labour law is quite different from italian one, but the field where it grow up it's quite the same. The fear of who is different from us.
That's the reason of the hostility for italian workers that we heard few weeks ago. This is not different from what we read on italian newspapers.
Bye LORENZO LIBRANDI
Hi!
"It's a free world" by Ken Loach speaks about some current issues, such as immigration, work exploitation and intolerance. The main character is Angie, victim and executioner at same time. She is good and evil; she also has most cold and deadly determination. In my point of view, however, the real mean of this film is an implicit criticism of system, where the basic message seems to be that the aim justifies the means ( i don’t know if it is the right traslation...), a system that consider social-climber as the best: he is a winner, and he win against equality, solidarity and no discrimination principles. In this background, law plays a fundamental role: it may be in fact the only way to assure the personal right. Unfortunately, in my opinion, law is often used to reinforce wrong concepts; concepts for witch what really matters is only the profit, even at the associates’ detriment. In fact, the role of law should be much more a leading role in society and a means for rights affirmation. I think the cinema with social message is very important in this context: it is a powerful tool for information and education and allows people to known problems that most ignore: In this sense, it can contribute to the affirmation of legality in the world.
see you soon
Enrico Veri
In the other film that we have seen at lesson, "12 angry men" by Sidney Lumet, the legal world is the backdrop for a strange and interesting, sometimes funny story. The topics covered are very important: The character of this film are twelve men that have to decide about the guilt of a boy accused of his father’s murder. American law requires in these cases that the jury decided unanimously. The first vote will be solved with nothing: eleven of the twelve jurors vote for guilt of the boy and only one vote for his innocence. So begins a debate among the jurors that will evolve to a gradual change of votes until the final vote in which they decide for the innocence of the boy. The legal issues in this film are different: the topic of the jury, of due process, of death penalty, are all very important topics. I believe in this film the viewer should judge those who judge: during the plot evolution we know life and personality of these characters, but which is studied by the viewer is not the jury itself , whose components are not even said the name, but the system of popular opinion, perhaps a little too not technical and not reliable to decide for man’s life or death.
Enrico Veri
Hi all!
I think that the relationship between law and cinema is useful to observe how law is considered by society. Of course in films or series we have only a caricature of law , but as said by Friedman ”caricatures are always caricatures of something”. Cinema, and medias in general, can enlarge our point of view about the world that surrounds laws and in which laws live every day. The perception of common people cannot be ignored by all of us either we’re law students or lawyers. During Dott.Charles de Froment’s lectures we’ve seen and discussed two films: “twelve angry men” and “it’s a free world”. Twelve angry men shows us how in the U.S. a criminal trial is decided by a jury of normal people, which don’t have any specific juridical knowledge. This fact seems strange and weird from an Italian point of view, but it’s considered an important constitutional guarantee in the states, the fifth amendment in fact states:” No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury” (grand jury is composed by peers, normal citizens). The film also give us some indications about the problems that could derive from that. This is clear from the beginning, when almost all the members of the jury act frivolously even if their decision regards a young man’s life. In the end, when Henry Fonda’s arguments persuade them not to condemn the man, the ideal of justice triumphs and a wrong decision is avoided, so we can consider the movie very ”optimistic” about the American juridical system.
It’s a free world talks about a very actual problem in modern western societies: the exploitation of immigrants’ work and immigration in general. Certainly we now are assisting to a known historical phenomenon: the migration of populations from poor to richer parts of the world. The desperate conditions of these people makes them vulnerable to every kind of exploitation. As said from my friends Valerio and Andrea, Italian situation from this point of view is worse than the English one. The Italian immigration laws are chaotic and need a serious revision.
During Prof. Conde’s the last lecture, starting from the American situation, we’ve discussed about movie censorship, and then about the larger theme of freedom of speech. At this regard, I think that a liberal society must limit censorship as more as possible, leaving citizens free speech as much as possible. But the problem is not so simple! Often the boundary between free speech and defamation is very fleeting and must be carefully evaluated, balancing two important constitutional principles: freedom of speech and human dignity.
See you Wednesday!!
Massimo Manzo
12 ANGRY MEN
About this film I analyzed the psychological profiles of the characters.
We have an homicide and there is a jury. This jury must decide about the life of a boy. There are many proofs on him, but Henry Fonda proves that the accusation is unfounded.
1) Lee J. Jacob: he is a fascinating character who takes the trial very seriously and shows his frustration in an impartial judgment. He hates the youths because his own son run away from home.
2) Martin Balsam: the leader of the jury, tries to be the director of the discussion.
3) Jack Klugman: he is accustomed to living in slums and not judging the guy for his social class. Initially, he considers him guilty, but changed his verdict and gives the explanation of the use of the knife.
4) Jack Warner: a man indifferent and without of ideas who votes guilty in order to finish the discussion so that he can go to the match.
5) Henry Fonda: jurist who followed the evidence very carefully and, doubting the ability of the trial lawyers, asked himself numerous questions on the fact and the evidence given by the witnesses.
6) E.G. Marshall: men who is a broker and keeps scrupulously to the testimony of the jury, agreeing with them all at first but changing his opinion, convinced by the reasoning of Henry Fonda. For example: the testimony of the women who claimed to have seen the crime through the windows of a passing train, without her habitual glasses, and the testimony of the old man who could not have seen in the time stated.
7) John Fiedler: a bank clerk; one of the first to change opinion.
8) Edward Binns: a workman who contests the old man’s evidence because he could not have heard the voices clearly above the noise of the train.
9) Joseph Sweeney: is elderly juror who disbelieves the testimony of the old man and points out that the woman usually wore glasses. The woman had not declared to the jury that she wore glasses so her testimony was less valid.
“12 Angry Men” is a film that had interested me very much because it analyzes the way in which people face the death penalty.
See you tomorrow
Lorenzo Librandi
Hello,
IT’S FREE WORLD
For first I wanted to summarize the film.
Angie works as a recruiting officer abroad for labour from eastern European countries. During one of her trips she is physically assaulted by one of her bosses and she reacts by throwing a glass of beer on his face and gets the sack. Together with her friend Rose, acting as secretary, she decides to open her own agency for recruiting and she succeeds. In order to compete with the established firms, they start paying lower wages and the lodgings and means of transport are of very low quality. In order to survive the workers are treated like animals and the degradation learned from their bosses is applied by the girls.
Angy begins to have problems with her son who is suffering from her absence because she is working clandestinely at night and he becomes delinquent thus involving the police and the social worker who investigate the child’s home background.
Unfortunately because of economic difficulties, her clients cannot pay her so she cannot pay her dependents who rebel and threaten her. In fact they beat her and kidnap her son. She will continue to work to pay back her debts.
This is a film that reflects the state of the Eastern countries and the exploitation that is behind this human trafficking. It is very shocking to see how England can have the same problems that many countries have with less civic sense and with a slower justice like Italy.
See you
Lorenzo Librandi
Hi everybody,
Commento di “It’s free world” modificata e corretta la finale.
IT’S FREE WORLD
For first I wanted to summarize the film.
Angie works as a recruiting officer abroad for labour from eastern European countries. During one of her trips she is physically assaulted by one of her bosses and she reacts by throwing a glass of beer on his face and gets the sack. Together with her friend Rose, acting as secretary, she decides to open her own agency for recruiting and she succeeds. In order to compete with the established firms, they start paying lower wages and the lodgings and means of transport are of very low quality. In order to survive the workers are treated like animals and the degradation learned from their bosses is applied by the girls.
Angie begins to have problems with her son who is suffering from her absence because she is working clandestinely at night and he becomes delinquent thus involving the police and the social work who investigate the child home background.
Unfortunately because of economic difficulties, her clients cannot pay her so she cannot pay her dependents who rebel and threaten her. In fact they beat her and kidnap her son. She will continue to work to pay back her debts.
This is a film that reflects the state of the Eastern countries and the exploitation that is behind this human trafficking. It is very shocking to see how England, a country that it is generally efficient in managing the social problems and in the security of its country, cannot resolve with effectiveness the problem of the black work bound to the immigration.
See you tomorrow
Lorenzo Librandi
Posta un commento