Dear all,
Prof. Esteban Conde Naranjo, from the University of Huelva (Spain), will be our next guest. He will approach the Law and Cinema field of study from a completely different perspective: I'm sure you will enjoy it!
*
ABSTRACT
*
The lectures will introduce the ‘law and cinema’ contemporary scholarship, trying to look critically (from a european perspective) at some of its premises and results.
Therefore we will focus on underline one of the possible intersections between law and films: that of ‘cinema in law’ (or law on cinema). This approach is by far much less attended (and maybe less ‘funny’, more ‘serious’) than the classical ‘law in cinema’ studies or the (amusing and even ‘worrying’) ‘law as cinema/cinema as law’ debates.
More specifically we will tackle some US Supreme Court decisions (and indecisions) to concisely describe the way in which censorship on films has been –constitutionally and legally- formulated in the twentieth century.
The account should serve as an example –and encouragement- for those students interested in the development of similar subjects, which are not necessarily involved with totalitarian regimes or tendencies.
And above all, it is a proposal –and a provocation- concerning the unavoidable (self)analysis about the (individual, social, juridical, economical) limits and burdens of freedom of speech.
The lectures will introduce the ‘law and cinema’ contemporary scholarship, trying to look critically (from a european perspective) at some of its premises and results.
Therefore we will focus on underline one of the possible intersections between law and films: that of ‘cinema in law’ (or law on cinema). This approach is by far much less attended (and maybe less ‘funny’, more ‘serious’) than the classical ‘law in cinema’ studies or the (amusing and even ‘worrying’) ‘law as cinema/cinema as law’ debates.
More specifically we will tackle some US Supreme Court decisions (and indecisions) to concisely describe the way in which censorship on films has been –constitutionally and legally- formulated in the twentieth century.
The account should serve as an example –and encouragement- for those students interested in the development of similar subjects, which are not necessarily involved with totalitarian regimes or tendencies.
And above all, it is a proposal –and a provocation- concerning the unavoidable (self)analysis about the (individual, social, juridical, economical) limits and burdens of freedom of speech.
*
READINGS
*
A)
- The Yale Law Journal, Vol. 98, No.8, “Popular Legal Culture” (June 1989) (“Introduction”, pp. 1545-1558; Lawrence M. Friedman, “Law, Lawyers, and Popular Culture”, pp. 1579-1606)
A)
- The Yale Law Journal, Vol. 98, No.8, “Popular Legal Culture” (June 1989) (“Introduction”, pp. 1545-1558; Lawrence M. Friedman, “Law, Lawyers, and Popular Culture”, pp. 1579-1606)
- Stefan Machura/Peter Robson (eds.), Journal of Law and Society, Vol. 28, No. 1, “Law and Film” (March 2001). The “Introduction”, pp.1-8, includes a selected bibliography (1986-1999)
B)
B)
- “Motion Pictures and the First Amendment”, The Yale Law Journal, Vol. 60, No. 4. (April 1951), pp. 696-719.
- John Wertheimer, “Mutual Film Reviewed: The Movies, Censorship, and Free Speech in Progressive America”, The American Journal of Legal History, Vol. 37, No. 2. (Apr., 1993), pp. 158-189.
- John Wertheimer, “Mutual Film Reviewed: The Movies, Censorship, and Free Speech in Progressive America”, The American Journal of Legal History, Vol. 37, No. 2. (Apr., 1993), pp. 158-189.
*
Esteban Conde's CV:
*
Esteban Conde (Barcelona, 1971), Legal Historian (Universities of Barcelona –Autónoma- and now Huelva), received his Ph.D. in Law in 2003. He has written two books (1998, 2006) about the main (and constructive) role played by ‘enlightened’ censorship in Spain, and several articles on police power (its metaphores, tradition and development at the end of the Ancien Régime).
Over the past five years, he has used some interdisciplinary approaches as a tool to teach legal history: litterature and law, and more recently cinema and law.
Over the past five years, he has used some interdisciplinary approaches as a tool to teach legal history: litterature and law, and more recently cinema and law.
24 commenti:
I read the documents that we received on our email concerning the law & cinema aspect and I listened to what Prof. Comde had to say today in class.
I think it's very common to be surprised when we first realize how does an italian court room look like comparing it to the luxurious and elegant american court rooms that we see at the cinema! Probably this is just the most superficial aspect that we get, behind this we get a message of justice, of what is right and what is not, we always get the idea that the "bad guy" goes to jail. I'm jus trying to give some examples on how can cinema give influence on a perception of law in a person's mind.
Personally i thought already before our lessons about the message that a movie can transmit about a legal system. I think a movie, specifically for its characteristics of sound and images can be very impressive on the audience's opinion, and often we get to know a foreign legal system through movies so we get an idea of it that someone else chose for us, not really an idea coming from our personal experience.
And i think that there are many aspects of law in cinema even in those movies that apparently don't contain any legal aspect. Anyway
I hope we will have the chance to talk about this tomorrow or on friday in class, since I think there's much much more to say about it.
Bye everyone
Pietro Giuliani
Hi!
The link between law and cinema born when born cinema; when the society started to be representative not only with literature or theatre but also with movie.
The first point of view is more technical: it gather copyright and intellectual property or contractual relationship. In this way the link is evident. Law became the way for disciplinary this area. I disagree whit my colleagues when they said that it’s boring…this is our future job, don’t forget!
Second, many movies have like object law and lawyers: for example law and order or Perry Mason. Into this ones, law became the first element around which rotate the movie and the story. Law became very interesting for directors because, for my opinion, this argument touch more or less everyone. Cinema is the way for speaks about something that isn’t only into tribunals but became “popular”.
This link with law and society is the element that stress the relationship by law cinema and public opinion. And I think not always in good way. Lawyer became cynic and rich in most of movies and people begin to think that all lawyer are the same that in the movie. But is also true that p.o is only a part of society and the really work that lawyer make isn’t the same in the movie. This is only a representation.
P.o influence a lot law because opinions of society represent what a part of society want. So is impossible divided them. And cinema is the mirror of this change, like literature was before cinema.
Besides, cinema became faster way for know what happen in the society then literature. And in the age of globalization and in the speedy society it’s became the first expression of relationship that law has with other disciplines.
Daniela D’Annibale
Hello!
Today we started to learn something about "Law and Cinema" with Prof. Esteban Conde and we realized how similar was his first approach to the topic to that of Prof. Skeel in "Law and Literature".
Infact, one of the common points we noticed between "Law&Cinema" and "Law&Literature" was the presence of the "Critical Legal Studies" movement, aimed at showing the incoherent side of law and, for this reason, opposed to the scientific idea of law.
We also analysed how law was more influenced by public opinion in America than in Europe and, if it's true that this influence can be useful to make the lawyer aware of the main problems and feelings of the society, it could be difficult to choose and verify the reliability of the different opinions of people. If you remember this is the same question we faced with Prof. Skeel when, talking about the influence of novels on law and the importance of novels to understand the differences between people, he underlined the problem of deciding the criteria to choose a novel instead of another to not lose the objective side of law.
Thank you and good night!
Alessandra Simeoni
Law in Cinema.
Portraits of different popular law’s perceptions.
During the lesson we underline a lot of aspects about “Law in Cinema” as a way to portray the popular perception of law by movies. I think that it’s true, because Cinema could be an important reading key of what people think about law. And different legal movies from different contries, have different styles and contents for this reason.
Last week we saw the movie “12 angry men”. For me this is an example of the American perception of law, procedures and courts in the period of 1940-50. There are a lot of movies like this one ( To kill a mockingbird, Sacco and Vanzetti, etc.). It's quite important that this movies represent law as a serious thing. In “12 angry men” there isn't any parodistic or comic scene. All parts of this movie are serious. Surely it's a movie that wants underline aspects like prejudice, real truth vs. procedure's truth – according to the strict procedure's mechanics that can influenced and forced the facts-, honesty, and so on. But if I must define the popular law's perception of U.S. people influenced by the American movies, I can say that American people feel law as a serious thing, despite it sometimes doesn’t work. This perception is also testified by other movies during the following years. For example movies like J.F.K., In the name of the father, Sleepers, The good fellas, Erin Brockovich, Philadelphia ,etc. Also telefilms like Maverick, Law and Order, J.A.G., are great examples of this serious perception.
I haven't a big knowledge of Cinema, so what I'm writing could be an enormous “heresy”.But I thing that in Italy the relation between “law in cinema”, in different periods, has been very strange. I have seen a movie of Vittorio De Sica, done after the Second World War, that represent the uneasy relation between people and law: Umberto D.. It's a story about an old pensioner that has big economic problems, and who tries to survive in Italy after the Second World War. De Sica wanted to portray the big Italian System's problems of previdential law, labor law and administrative law, that weren't able to solve popular problems like poverty. So this is a realistic approach that portrays a serious popular perception of law, despite it's not much optimistic, because the end of this movie is very sad.
After this, more italian movies done during 1970-80 reproduce an other aspect of law. For my impression, in this period the movie’s production was characterized by parodistic movie. There were several comedy ambiented in courts, that represented strange episodes. In this case, Cinema portrays the popular perception of law, but in a different way, representing law, trials, procedure system and courts as a thing that doesn’t work very well. There are a lot of examples of these comedies, featuring by Lino Banfi, Pippo Franco, Gigi Proietti, etc. This field of Cinema that is commonly named “cinema trash”, use court like a place where people do strange thing, show their ridiculous aspect, have grotesque behaviour.
Recently, more italian telefilms changes this tendency, and represent court, lawyer and law in a serious way; for example telefilms like “Diritto di difesa” e “Un caso di cosienza”- probably there are other telefilms, but I don’t know its. Is this change, characterized by a serious approach, influenced by a different perception of law? It’s possible, but it’s very strange that in this telefilms a lawyer, in the court and in a cross-examination says : “obiezione!”. Sometimes the producers should read a bit of italian criminal procedure - we aren’t in common law!
So for my impression “Law in Cinema” its a very important subject, linked with Sociology of law, that could emphasize the different perceptions of law from different cultures and Coutries.
See you tomorrow!
Giuseppe Cacciotti
Some examples of “different law’s portraits” :
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KwoakFvvLIo
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kfzgDKXItNY
Hi everybody!
I'd like to say something about professor Conde's lesson.
In particular I'd like to focus on the question that professor Conde raised talking about "jurisprudence of appereance", i.e. What happen when trial is seen as a show?
Well, this is a anglo-american theory, made on anglo-american trial, but I think it's comparable to what happen in Italy in some ways.
For example, I would like to mention "il processo al mostro di firenze". That was a case of murders committed in countryside near Florence, something horrible.
Anyway, during the process there were some funny moments, for example when pacciani started to read poems written by himself or when vanni, asked by the pm what was his job, answerd that he had some meals with pacciani.
That's definitely one of the risks, as prof. Conde told us, of seeing trials like shows.
Another risk it's making no differentiation of media images from life experience.
I think that it's a big problem of italian justice that implies damage of presumption of innocence (art.27, II Comma Cost:"L'imputato non è considerato colpevole sino alla condanna definitiva").
In my opinion, when media show investigation results or trial scenes, even if the susoect is not guilty, public opinion would regard him as guilty. Noone would offer him/her a job, nooene would engage with him/her and so on.
(I can mention for example il Delitto di Garlasco or il delitto di Perugia).
That's a very huge wound in suspect's processual rights.
Good night, see you tomorrow!
Andrea Marangoni
Hi all,
In Italy are too much exploited by the mass-media the judicial facts that provoke great sensation in the national conscience for the brutality with which are done determined crimes and for the personality of the murder or the victims.
Above all the problem is that the media are worried only about the listening and they are indifferent to the real importance of the news.
The problem, I think, it is not so much spectacular show of the trials, but the true problem is the real quality of the information, considering that we are at the 77th place in the world for liberty of information.
People unfortunately, conditioned by reality show, believe that everything is a reality show and I believe that everyone nowdays would be very happy to can judge from house with the vote about the guilt or the innocence of the protagonists of the chronicle fact more in fashion to the moment!!
Everybody knows that people are always ready to express unquestionable judgments on other people's facts and newspapers reflect society and give people what they want.
We must not forget that the problem of the presumption of innocence up to the third degree of judgment in Italy is an it double cut arm in the hands of the political class that uses it in a clammy way as it want. Because how Paolo Borsellino said: “The misunderstanding that we often use is this: we said that a political is near to a “Mafioso”, that political has been accused of having convergent affairs with the criminal organizations, however the magistracy has not condemned him, therefore that political is a honest man. AND NO! this discourse doesn't go[…]this guy has never been condemned, therefore he is a honest man. But tell me, you don't know of people that is deceitful, that has not been condemned never because there are not the sentence to condemn him, however there is the big suspicion that would owe, just to induce above all the political parties to do big cleaning, not only to be honest, but to appear honest, doing cleaning to their inside of all those people who are however reached from episodes or from anxious facts, even if not constituent crimes.”
Contartese Antonio
Hi!
I red the article about Mutual Film Reviewed and this interesting case.
In this one the supreme court of USA in 1915 decided that movies aren’t an expression of freedom of speech- guaranteed by constitution- and was created a censorship and if the movie isn’t adequate at the commission’s decision, it couldn’t be show and director must be arrest.
The cause that the court give for his interpretation is that same scene of the movies could be interpret in a not correct way, and could be a awful example for public opinion. In particular for young person.
This is a typical form of censorship in a country that all of us consider really “democratic”…I not completely disagree whit this decision. In fact, I think that, like in our constitution, movies, books, newspapers are the way for diffuse ideas and it’s the most democratic way that I know..but is really too, that some scene of same films are very hard and difficult to explain at who doesn’t know what really happened in a normal contest.
In Italy these movies couldn’t be looking by person who haven’t 18 year. But the danger of emulation is really present. And it’s because someone uses internet for diffuse only a few imagine that out of their contest could be dangerous.
So, if we create a censorship the problem isn’t solve. I remember that during the prohibition in America, even if the law prohibited sell or produce alcoholic beverages it were sold and produced the same one.
A correct law mustn’t only prohibit but must explain causes. And is possible that some movies could help law in this one.
Is important stress that in 1952 court annul his decision in a case Joseph Burstyn v. Wilson (source wikipedia).
Daniela D’Annibale
The movie of today really impressed me because I found a lot of symbolism inside that let me think about the christian religion since the very beginnig of the film.
The first part of the movie, when the Saint appears to the wonderful Anna Magnani, really resembles the ancient religious estasis and it recall to my mind a lot of iconographical symbols...It made think about the virginity of Maria, symbol of the Christanity but even made me think about the mythological stories of the classical culture about the Ninfa's verginity, such as the story of DANAE,a beautiful young lady(incredibly represented bu Klimt) that when sleeping was "abused" by Zeus, transformed into a liquid gold rain.
Another element, I think relevant, is the one that is expressed into the second scene of the movie when the female characters suffers from hunger and is completely rapt by the vision of a red apple as if she was an Adam into the Garden rapt by the original sin..
I think that this movie talk about law just in the way it shows law.Nowdays we have a very rigid piramidal position of law sources, where there are in a apical position the Constitution and the European regulations, the internal regulation and in the end what we call traditions..I think it's really interesting to analyze the differences between the nowdays reality, when the law tries to be as much more international as possibile, and the 50's reality, when a young pregnant lady had been seen as a miracle or a fool.
It recalls to my mind what Epicuro said..the religion is not only a beautiful way to interpretate life but can also be something dangerous, when identified with popular fears, superstitions and false truths, when it coincides with "relegation"...and as it was paradoxically said today the movie can be de dimonstration that if Jesus would have been still alive today he would be crucify once again.
I attach to all of you a page I found about the movie in the IMDB website, the most well known movie database in the world!
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0040092/maindetails
It has some curiosities about the movie!
See you!
Emanuela Hernandez
Dear all,
I’m talking about the movie “ Il miracolo “ written by Rossellini, with Fellini’s art direction ( 1948).
The first scene is set on a cliff.
The main character of this movie is Nannina, interpreted by Anna Magnani.
She is a young shepherdness with no home , always alone with herself, wondering on the mountain and surrounding of the near village.
On the top of the cliff she meets a wonderer, who looks at her no saying anything.
She is convinced that he is S. Giuseppe who appears to her in a miracle.
The religious element is very strong in this movie . Anna Magnani is a poor and very religious woman, who regularly goes to church and believes in God, in the divine redemption and in paradise.
For these reasons she is deeply convinced that the S.Giuseppe’s apparition is a God ‘s sign.
She asks to S. Giuseppe to bring her with him in paradise, but he doesn’t answer and he only offers her a bottle of wine.
This movie is a very contemporary portrait of 1950’s, Nannina isn’t attached to life and if possible she would rather go quickly to paradise instead living in her reality.
It’s possible to recognize from one hand the Christian vision of life, but from the other hand also a deeply human desire to change her life in a positive way.
She thinks that the only way to change her life is leaving it, as she is aware of her loneliness, poverty and desolation.
S. Giuseppe’s apparition is not real. She only meets a man on the top of the cliff, who she thinks is S. Giuseppe.
The man take advantage of the situation, he offers her more and more wine and makes Nannina drunk, then he forces her and get her pregnant.
When she wakes up, she finds herself alone, and this persuades her that what happened was true miracle.
The woman doesn’t remember anything, she only remembers that she had an apparition who give her a grace, so her soon is a God’s sign.
After her “ miracle “ she becomes more attached to life, because for her now she has a divine aim.
She is an outsider, and people’s reactions are very different.
Some people want to help her, others make fun and look her like a completely crazy person.
Anyway Nannina is alone, but she accepts her situation, even if she is lonely, with no home, with only a blanket. She keeps the dignity of a person that has now accepted her life.
In this movie is not possible to find a legal elements, and it is dominated by a concept of moral and social justice ( or better iniquity), but it makes us thinking about our concept of legal justice.
Laura Di Bartolomeo
IL MIRACOLO
This short film is representative of a certain product of a religious society, specifically a christian catholic one.
The protagonist is obviously a woman perticularly lonely and marginalized from the little town she lives in. She is not part of the social community and the people, including a homeless man, have a perception of her as a fool.
That's why I don't think we can consider her as an expression of a society, because even in that old time she is marginalized and people don't take her seriously, she looks more like a degeneration of a social aspect like religion. Obviously it would be probably impossible to imagine such a character living in Norway or Sweden! But still she is.. too much!
We can read several messages coming from thi work, we tried to speak about some after watching it.
We even mentioned some sort of parallel between this woman and the figure of Jesus.
Right now i can't think of any connection with law, maybe tomorrow some more will come out.
Bye
Pietro Giuliani
Good evening
The history of cinema, has had an impact as far as my opinion, as to persons, their costumes and customs. It is true that the society had long been a radical change thanks to the biggest in the history of the World: the experience. And that is to say that thanks to new technologies, the advent of historical events and so on, humans have developed, both in positive and in negative. Surely, a development of the people has been the evolution of cinema, art, science, literature. It has been many developments which have led to see the cinema as an expression of free thought and instructive as a message, depends, it is clear what type of message sends. Yesterday we saw the film with the extraordinary Anna Magnani, "Il Miracolo". Today it is discussed mainly on the regulation of cinema and its various legislative changes in America and Italy. Ended the lesson with a question on what influence the visual world, such as cinema, television and video games in the modern world. And we note that even if the laws and amendments were often pro-freedom of speech and expression, however, the Constitution did not have a decree for the implementation of that right. So all that was decided in relation to films that raised the scandal, was not a legal response. And what was done by the Catholic Church, was a constant complaint in the'30s. The Miracle of the film with Anna Magnani was a scandal in Italy and initially also in America, the accomplice that the fellow and director of the film in which he had worked, Roberto Rossellini, has a relationship with another actress, Ingrid Bergman, whose released on bond Stroboli film, in 1952 approximately. The film "miracle" was a sensation in Italy, where the Vatican tried to boycott the exit, with the request by the blocking of funds, but without result. Cardinal Spellman in New York said that it was even a "sacrilegious" and "mockery of our faith," while the NY Education Department said it was "obscene, indecent, inhumane ...", even though the New York critics had described as "vastly compassionate comprehension of flebleness" and the best film ever.
What is interesting is that the film, as follow the rules of business, however, is an excellent medium for the communication of ideas as a "body" of the public to entertain and inform d.
The freedom that is left now to the cinema, however resulted in violence and the representation of gender, through a crisis of values in a language and voted to the aggressivity hatred, since 80 90s
I remember when I was a little boy, that the cartoons that I watched as my peers, were inspired to violence and often we repeated movements of the characters.
Today we say to the newspapers that many events, including murders, suicides and the changing values of society, are due to the film. This is not true, especially when you consider that in fact these acts are carried out for other reasons. The ethics of a nation should not be assessed on the basis of a simple film. When in fact the crisis of values is a general and not just a isolated case.
And so I am very opposed to censorship, which has boycotted the free expression, and not to analyze certain facts, even the ones that describe the events as a result of which is to attempt to censure them.
The state must not do anything against the dissemination of ideas, even in film. As E. Comde says, it is due of families, schools, try to correct some attitudes. Instead it is due to the politicians, decrease or reduce certain social issues such as corruption, poverty, or the rehabilitation of the economy.
Alessandro Festucci
Hi
I would like to share some considerations of mine about the movie we have seen yesterday.
I had been very impressed by it, I think it's absolutely a neo-realistic film exspecially for its emotional impact. Although what I think is that no one of us can completely understand the real sense and the real emotions that the auctors wanted to express.
Our society is so changed now, we can't imagine the poverty (the real theme of the movie, I think) as it was in the 50s in our country. Also the religion, that is very present in the story (also symbolically) is only an excuse for the total poverty, also intellectual and moral. Religion so merely looks like one part of a more composite popular tradition generated by social isolation, poverty and ignorance. There isn't any public institution; the Church had the control of a lot of what we consider now a public task.
It's for this reasons that is not possible for us to understand. Also the poorest person nowadays is not like that. He or she is in a certain sense inserted in a determinated contest that it's the our one - even if he/she lives in its limit. We can see him or her as one who hasn't been so lucky or "intelligent" like us but it's not the same felling, the contest is another one, also in the actual italian countryside. I don't want to say that now a poor lives better than in the past (even if it could be the truth) but only that is different. See you next week.
Francesco Mambrini
Hello!
I would like to dwell on some points covered during the lectures of Prof. Conde.
Once recognized that cinema is currently the most important form of popular art and a great way to understand the cultural values of a society, it's important to know that there are three different ways to approach the relationship between law and cinema.
"Law in cinema", that focuses on how legal issues are played and portrayed in films; " Law as cinema", regardings the legal practices as a specific type of cinematic practice ( and " cinema as law" regarding the cinematic practices as a specific type of practices that perform law-making functions)and " Law on cinema", that is less popular and concerns the way in which the law tries to concretise the moving image within its regulatory.
Important in view of "Law and cinema" was Richard Sherwin, "When the law goes pop"(University of Chicago Press 2000), where it seems to institutionalize in descriptive way the audience's appetite for legal stories in popular cultural forms.
Sherwin recognizes some values of interdisciplinary study of law.
Important was also John Denvir (which is an example of law as cinema), legal realism, "Movie as a legal text" (Chicago, University of Illinois, Press 1996).
It's focused on the symbiosis between law and popular culture and law as a consciousness that permeates American culture.
The films are dissimilar from the normal legal trilogy of constitutions, codes and cases,but there are also similarities between films and the traditional legal canon.
Denvir thinks that the study of popular legal culture has another major virtue: it promise to be fun!
Interesting lessons!
Bye
Giorgia Ciucci
Hi everybody!
During this week we had the opportunity to partecipate to prof. Conde's lessons about the connection between law and cinema. I found very interesting the "game" that we have done with the use of the proposition in the first lesson. Infact, there is a three ways-connection: law IN cinema, law AS cinema (and vice versa) and law ON cinema. I would like to focus my thoughts on the last aspect, the role of the law on cinema. Regarding this topic, we had the opportunity to see a very short movie of the 1950s, "The Miracle", by Roberto Rossellini, starring Anna Magnani. Maybe now I can say that this film is so beatiful only because Anna Magnani, the best actress ever seen in this world, is the main carachter. But we have to go beyond the simple viewing of the film, and we have to stress the consequences of this motion picture in the world. We know that this movie as been object of an attempt of censorship when it came in the Usa, expecially by the catholic autorithies. In 1952, "The Miracle" arrived to the Supreme Court, in the case Berstyn v. Wilson. Here the judges made a revolutionary decision, saying that "the State has non interest to protect any religious doctrine". This is a very important moment, because it is the firs step towards the abolition of the censorship.
In our times, we have the rating systems, that is a way to classify a lot of products like films and videogames, for example, and to address them to the appropriate age. I think that this system is already obsolete. You can imagine a father who prevents his baby to see a film non rated for children. Ok, but I can see the child, the next day, surfing on the internet, maybe on youtube, seeing the same film that he couldn't see in television!
Besides, I want to talk about the examples that a lot of films, or videogames, seem to give to the people. Lets talk about the case of two boys, here in Italy, that killed one friend because of a little loan not paid. Well, I remember that in every newspaper, the day after, there were a lot of images of three videogames played by this two killers. For the public opinion this was the true reason of this killer instinct. So I thought: "I played all the three games in question, but I've never had killer instincts like that!". This was an example to say that, in our fast and global society, is very easy to give the fault to violent films or videogames, and not to particular familiar situations, or to kinds of psychological blocks for those orrible happenings.
In the end, let me comment the reference that prof. Conte did about tv programs like "Grande Fratello" or "Uomini e Donne" or something like this. I think that a lot of people, including most of the high-school students, want to follow those orrible carachters because the tv spots call those programs "reality shows". Well, it's very hard, for a boy without a critical mind, to differenciate reality to fiction when this one is called "reality show". To heal our tv system, we can begin using the rigth terms!
See you wednsday!
Andrea Severini
Hi all,
This week we told again about law and cinema. In particular we saw, with professor Conde, three different approaches:
LAW IN CINEMA: it highlights how law is portrayed in cinema.
LAW AS CINEMA: legal practices as a specific type of cinematic/dramatic practices.
LAW ON CINEMA: it’s on legal regulation of cinema and it shows which kind of cinema is legally possible.
With reference to the latter approach, we saw a movie
“The Miracle” directed by Roberto Rossellini in 1948, and interpreted by Anna Magnani, that is a fantastic actress. This movie is based on story written by Fellini.
This movie tells the story about a shepherdess, that thinks to have met San Giuseppe, but it is not so, and shortly after she realizes that she is pregnant. For this reason she becomes the scandal of the country, and all make a mockery to her.
In particular it’s an important film for constitutional right, because when it was seen in U.S.A. there were a lot of controversies. This movie was censored because it would tend to corrupt the principles of morality, it is contrary to religious rules. Indeed the Cardinal Spellman declared it sacrilegious and mockery of our faith, and he give it’s a new title: “woman further defamed”.
In 1952 “the miracle” arrives to the Supreme Court (Burstyn vs Wilson). This sentence affirms that pictures are a significant medium for the communication of ideal. The importance of motion picture as an organ of public opinion is not lessened by the fact they are played to give entertainment, besides is underlined that the cinema is not a business of government.
This case is very important, because it recognizes the principle of free-speech and it is a step forward for American liberties. In this way the sentence (Mutual Film Corporation vs Industrial Commission) is passed. This latter considers the cinema as a business, and it legitimizes the censor.
bye bye
Vanessa Malizia
Hi everybody!
I have already talked about censorship at the beginning of this course, when we talked about Law and Italian literature and I gave the example of Pasolini's “Ragazzi di vita”. Well now we are talking about cinema, especially about law ON cinema and I think that in Italy the situation is similar to law on literature: we have ever had the heavy influence of Politics and of Church (this more than in other countries for a simple reason: State of Vaticano is in Italy, and not in Spain or in France for example, where there isn't all this influence).
I'd like to explain the situation of Italian censorship with 2 cinematographic examples:
An example of politics influence on cinema can be considered Giulio Andreotti's idea of “Ladri di Biciclette”, a neorealistic movie of Vittorio De Sica, Oscar as best stranger film in 1950 and considered the third best film in the world. Well, only Andreotti hate it, saying at the end of the movie: I panni sporchi sarebbe meglio lavarli in casa! ("Laundries must be washed at own home")
Of course not a specific cinematic opinion...
An example, instead, of the influence of the Church on cinema is a wonderful film of Giuseppe Tornatore, the Sicilian director who won an Oscar with his first work: “Nuovo Cinema Paradiso”. In this film we can see Don Adelfio who watch movies in preview and orders to cut some scenes in which actors kiss each others...
And the better answer to this stupid censorship is offered by the same Tornatore at the end of this movie, when Alfredo, the projectionist, give to Salvatore as a gift a reel in which he had set all the censored parts of movie...
I'm sorry for those of you who want to see this movie because I have told you the end, but I hope I have made you curious!
See you next week...
Pierluigi Oddone
Hello everybody!
This week the professor Conde has talked about law and cinema scholarship and in particular of anglo-american scholarship. The lectures were fascinating and full of interesting facts.
He said that is most important the concept of popular legal culture as like the legal imagination to understand the scholarship law and cinema because the term popular legal culture can be refer to books, songs, movies, plays and tv, shows which are about law or lawyers, and which are aimed at a general audience.
It possible also distinguish three different ways which rules cinema can be actually related or reported and these are: law in cinema (that is how legal issues are portrayed in cinema), law as cinema ( faced instead legal practices as a specific type of cinematic or dramatic practices), cinema as law (refer to cinematic practices as a specific type of practices that perform law-making functions), and law on cinema (refer instead at legal regulation of cinema as old as cinema itself but equally universal) and traces the way in which law tries to concretise the moving.
Reference to law on cinema, Paul C. Weiler (professor of law at Harvard Law School) has written a book entitled: “ Entertainment, Media and the Law”, which provides both high quality analysis of topical issues and through surveys of key areas of practise: talk about intellectual property (for example copyright protection, social rights), contractual relations, industry organization (as corporate law, international law), and legal restraints ( as privacy and individual rights).
Reference instead to law in or as cinema and cinema as law are published some periodicals in Law School of U.S. but especially in 1982 can be mentioned the Journal of law and society which collect essays and books which offers an interdisciplinary approach. It’s committed to achieving a broad international appeal, attracting contributions and addressing issues from a range of legal cultures.
The professor Conde has also said that in United States there are some critical scholarship and an exponent is Richard Sherwin (professor of law in USA), which has written: “When law goes pop”, a book about law and popular culture. Sherwin argues that in the past few decades the legal American system is entered in the American popular culture like never before and this is a dangerous development because could turn the law into spectacle and don’t more credible in the eyes of people. The Conde’s opinion is that this critical scholarship “ seems to institutionalize in neutral, descriptive ways the audience’s appetite for legal stories in popular cultural forms”.
Therefore while the law is a serious thing, the prosecution of criminal defendants is a serious business, the popular culture instead is an entertainment. The two things mustn’t be confused.
The professor has moreover talked about the First Amendment to the U.S. Federal Constitution (1791) which said as follow: “Government shall make no law… abridging the freedom of speech or of the press and so on”. This is the part of the U.S. Bill of Rights that expressly prohibits the U.S. Congress from making laws “respecting an establishment of religion or that prohibits the free exercise of religion”. Now instead is pertinent the section 11, article 1 (1851) of the Ohio Constitution that guarantees all people certain inalienable rights as freedom of speech, of the press, of libels and so on.
The professor Conde has also said that in 1913, the State of Ohio passed a Statute creating a board of Censor that had to approve all motion-picture censorship in advance of their exhibition in that state. The Statute said that only films of “moral, educational or amusing and harmless character would be approved by the board. For instance famous was in U.S. the case of Mutual film Corporation vs. Industrial Commission of Ohio (1915) because the Court of U.S. has banned the film and stated that: “the free speech protection of the Ohio Constitution didn’t extend to motion pictures because the exhibition of moving pictures is a business, pure and simple, originated and conducted for profit”.
See you next week!
D’Antona V.
Hi everybody,
This week we talked about the link between law and cinema in a different perspective from the last week’s lectures: especially, I want to point out my impressions about the motion picture “The Miracle” which we have seen in class. This movie is particular because at first it seems not linked with the law, or at least, not in the perspective “law in cinema”…
Nevertheless, the connection is clear if we think at “law on cinema”. In fact, this film have introduced the censorship’s topic; it is a very interesting and actual argument and I found this passage of recommended reading useful to explain my opinion: “The argument for censorship is usually protection of community morality; but in fact, broad statutory language and limited judicial review make possible the elimination of films on the basis of a highly subjective view of morality...”
Who decides what is moral and what is not? And, it is sure that censorship is always a tool to protect citizens and not anything else? Nowadays, laws on cinema are increasingly frequent but the censorship’s power is in the hands of politicians and it’s something which interests all the movie’s production, not only the ones which talk about social and political themes; in the last years, many movies have been censored, very often in the eastern European countries. A last remark about a possible parallelism between law and cinema and law and literature: I think that the two fields aren’t so far... In fact, also in literature today there are some books “censored” by the political authorities, a recent example is the unreported censorship in Russia or the strict rules about movies and literature in China.See you next week!
Silvia Faranca
last week we had the second strand of lessons about the very young field of study law and cinema.Professor Conde gave us some readings that,as the De Froment's ones,explain the connections between high legal culture and low popular culture as a bridge which plays an important role in the formation of lay people's legal imagination.Differently from De Froment,Conde began with a three-party(exists,I found it on the dictionary!) conception about different relationships between law and cinema.We had law IN cinema, concerning how legal issues are portrayed in cinema;law AS cinema-cinema AS law(most prudent definition) regarding legal practices as a specific type of cinematica practice or vice versa cinematic practices as a specific type of practice and Law ON cinema which is the regulation of cinema.Since the 80s in the US born an interest about the representation of lawyers in cinema.This conception is the product of the anglo-american way of law.A big part of lawyers support the idea of the unstoppable mixing between law and pop culture in force of the interdisciplinariy and porousity of law,just pay attention to the seriousness of law and the pop culture which is made up by parody,cynism,superficiality,it's just entertainment!We watched Il Miracolo di Rossellini not so much related to the law in my opinion.This movie represents the life in a tiny town in the south of italy.People have no idea of the meaning of the word open-minded and exclude a woman(she was a maladjusted person today anyway)who believes to have conceived a son with s.giuseppe.It's symbolic movie with a mistery:whic is its legal issue?
Hi,
I wanted to stress the purely religious feature of the film: "IL MIRACOLO".
Anne Magnani plays a central role in the film: his religious beliefs is the unique feature that it leads to see or hear things are not real.
A figure, to the Magnani, in contrast between Sin and Faith. Where is even humiliated by the people of its small mountain town.
A last feature implicit in the movie is the mountain as a place of refuge from the sins from the temptations as contemplation which combines the top of the skies down the ground world where charge the human figure in contrast as a tense rope between good and evil.
Michele Viti
Hi,
with the prof. Esteban Conde we continued to analyze the relationship between law and cinema. The first lecture was an introduction and gave us a vision about the theme. We initially underlined the different characteritics of the 2 words. In fact we notized how there are some different disciplienes and scholars from legal studies and film studies and morover how the insitutions and pratices of high culture for law and for cinema, mass media low and popular culture, and finally how the low is characterized by the literary while the cinema by the visual. We saw that, also if they are different,, as element they have the same function in the moment when they have to influence the public opinion.
The prof. Conde let us notice that the relationship between law and cinema can be analyzed with 3 different approches:
- Law in cinema
- Law as cinema
- Law on cinema
In the second lecture we saw the episode ”the Miracle” interpreted by Federico Fellini, took from the movie The love of Rossellini (1948)
By this movie, that made me interested because of the dramatic aspect that characterize the whole happening and because of the Realism of it, we analyzed the Law on Cinema. This approach Is characterized by the analyses of the legal regulation of the cinema.
This movie, because of the theme in it, had important consequences from the point of view of the censure in USA. In fact the cardinal Spellman wanted to change the Title of the movie because of the religious reference that , in the Title and in the movie were seen like a sacrilegy against the religion. About the censure, in that period, there have been 2 famous sentences in USA. The first one, in 1915, considered the cinema only intertainment and business, and excluded it from the liberties of the First Amendment to the U.S. Federal Constitution. Consequence of this sentence was that the censure was unsindacable and characterized by arbitrariness. With the second sentence in 1952 (Burstyn vs Wilson)the cinema is in a part of the first emendment, thus the censure on it must be done by objective criterions and will be sindacable every time in which criterions are not respected.
Riccardo Varano
To kill a mockingbird. I have no words to say how much I liked that movie.
According to me in this movie we can clearly see the relationship between law and cinema.
Is the law the big screen of our society? Well I think so, I think that the tribunal is the mirror of our society! I liked everything of this movie, I liked the representation of the tribunal: it’s like a theatre with it’s actors and the people is represented just as a public, there are some shots on the people that are in the tribunal, the sons of Atticus, the jury and so on, that gave me the impression as they were watching a movie and not the reality! I liked very much the description of the tribunal by the friend of the two sons of Atticus, he gave a wonderful description of the tribunal for a child: boring place, an annoyed judge, a man the accuse another one! Very simple description, very real description!
I liked very much even the pleading of Atticus, when he says that we are all equal beyond the law, I have to say that I found a little bit strange those words, it’s like to say that even if we think that the black people are different from us, in a tribunal we can’t say so, and as a lawyer I think that it’s quite a weak argument to defend a client, I don’t mean that it’s not right, or that it’ not true that we are all the same beyond the law, but I also think that we don’t have to forget that in a tribunal there is the society, good or not, we have our society, and there’s no law that can eliminate this thing! If our society is racist, well we’ll have racist judgments, specially if to judge is called a jury made of “simple” people! To kill a mockingbird is the representation of the difference between the what we are and what we should be, the difference between what the law asks to us and what we answer to it’s request of justice! It’s wonderful that Atticus during his final speech says that he’s not an idealistic man because he wants that even a black man is judged as a white man, but I think that it’s really an idealistic thought to think that we are all the same beyond the law! It’s an idealistic thing because from the begging we have different parts: we have the prosecutors, we have the defendant, they start from different positions, they defend different position, well we are different specially in a tribunal! Maybe what I say it could seem quite absurd, but I always thought that to thin that we are all to say it’s like to say “eye for an eye”. At the end of the movie we have another injustice because the guilty man that killed the father of the alleged victim will not be prosecuted! Is this the real justice? Maybe it is, but not for the law…there something different between the justice of the law and the justice of the man, sometimes they walk together and an innocent is free or a guilty is in jail, sometimes they are apart and a guilty man, for the law, is free!
I’m sorry to have written only now about this wonderful movie but my pc was out of use!
Maria Buonanno
Posta un commento