Considering the Court System

By Jason Pyles

After watching a movie like this, it’s nearly impossible to resist the temptation to discuss its target, which in this case, is the American justice system. Indeed, the object of movies like this is to antagonize us into some heated debate with one another or ourselves. We are supposed to be emotionally stirred, as well as entertained.

In this way, “And Justice for All” works, though it’s not without its problems. I liked its “day in the life” approach to showing us defense attorney Arthur Kirkland’s challenges. It’s great when a movie can enable us to step outside our lives and see what another person’s problems are.

But because it’s a movie, with limited time to tell its stories, the cases we see are covered with relative brevity and most of them are fantastical. I know it’s not impossibility, but come on, a judge who’s a rapist — and he happens to be our hero’s arch enemy. Movies “swing for the fence” to ensure that we’re sufficiently entertained, but for me this often detracts from my willingness to become emotionally involved because it’s so unlikely. Also, the insufficient coverage of each of his defendants made it more difficult for us to really become emotionally invested in each person’s plight. Consider how much more perverse it all would have seemed had we gotten to know the rape victim better.

I think what is a little unusual about this film is its peculiar tangents, such as the wacky helicopter ride, and Jeffrey Tambor’s plate-chucking extravaganza, and the suicidal judge in general. Now, before anyone writes me, I realize that these two characters’ mental break-downs were supposed to depict the madness that comes from being submerged in such a flawed system. I get it, but it is still a weird depiction.

At times, this movie is unmistakably trying to be funny, which I thought was bizarre. Perhaps the following comment isn’t too unusual, but I’m always surprised when a serious “message movie” like this takes the time to be goofy.

Let me tell you a story that’s not directly related to this movie:

I am a reporter for my local newspaper, and I cover the criminal courts. Recently I covered a high-profile murder case where two young men got in a fight over a woman and one was shot. It was a remarkably ambiguous case with no smoking gun, and to prove that assertion concisely, I heard more than one lawyer say it was the hardest case they’d ever worked on.

After sitting in on the proceedings, taking careful notes, I concluded that the kid was innocent. It was an unfortunate situation of being in the wrong place at the wrong time, and I think it was ultimately an accident or self defense. I personally believe the kid who got shot was the aggressor and the one who brought the gun (which by the way, was never found). But in the end, the jury found the defendant guilty of voluntary manslaughter, which carries a potential sentence of three to 15 years in prison.

When the defendant heard the verdict, his reaction was one I’ll never forget: He was visibly shocked, and it is my opinion that his horrified weeping and utter astonishment was that of an innocent man.

During the trial, it was more or less established that he was a pretty good kid, insomuch that the judge let him go home with his family on probation to await his sentencing. (How often have you heard of someone convicted of murder permitted to stay at home with his family for two months?) I’ll also be covering his sentencing which is set for September.

Anyway, I was appalled, during the trial, to notice members of the jury sleeping in the courtroom during the defense attorney’s remarks. I believe they had already made up their minds or simply didn’t care too much about this young man’s life that was hanging in the balance.

This experience was enough to convince me, as this movie suggested, that our legal system isn’t perfect (which is reason enough to seriously reconsider the death penalty). But as the movie depicted with Pacino’s character, there are still good people who try their best to get it right, like Andy Howell, for instance.

All that being said, though I’m not completely at peace with the way things work in the American legal system, I haven’t been able to come up with a better idea yet, and I believe we typically try our best to give people a fair trial, so I guess it will have to do for now.

See? The movie worked. It got me ranting. Good selection, Karl.

Note: We've got one more week for this movie, then we'll be doing Barrett Hilton's recommendation, which is "Badlands," starting Sunday. And next week, I think we'll probably go back to weekly movies, instead of biweekly.

And Justice for All - When I discovered Actors

I suggested this movie for several reasons that I will bore you with shortly. But this classically late 70's (even though it came out in 1980) gritty drama is near and dear to heart for many reasons.

And now I shall bore thee!

This was the first movie I ever went to in the theater by myself! I was 16 years old (pushing 17) and already being a staunch idealist and an American loving Irish immigrant (I'd been in America 6 years at this point) - I was hoping for a Jimmy Stewart ala Mr. Smith Goes To Washington experience even though I hadn't seen that movie yet and didn't know it existed until I took a film class in college. But my favorite characters and historical heroes have always been those whose stand up for what is right even if they have to stand alone. So from that perspective Al did not disappoint.

This was also the first movie I had ever seen where I learned and realized that an actor alone - can carry a story and in fact make the story. Most of you who've watched this flick for the first time now - will probably not be able to see the "big deal" of what I'm describing because you had to see in the theater with an audience.

The final courtroom scene is now famous and because of the many great performances that have graced the screen since this film by other equally great actors - it may seem quaint at this point in time. But Al's monologue when he finally gets up to deliver his opening statement had me on the edge of my seat. Because up until that point - you truly don't know what he's going to do. You could have heard a pin drop in the theater.

He literally has you hanging by a thread until you see him getting a little emotional and his voice gets a little quieter - he leans into the jury just slightly, and with his eyes watering a bit and an ever so slight quiver in his voice - he delivers that magical line that only Al could - "Because - she's not lyin'!"

At that moment the entire audience - including me - gasped audibly and your gut instinct about him is confirmed; and then, again as only Al could, he finishes what is arguably one of the most famous and rousing monologues in movie history. When he is being dragged out of the courtroom the entire theater was on its feet cheering. And for a few hours afterward you absolutely love and have faith in the American justice system.

I've seen it a dozens times at least and I still get choked up watching it - because (as Andy pointed out) you realize that he gave up his career to do the right thing. I actually delivered that monologue once myself for an acting class in college and it was very easy to feel that emotion.

I'm sure most of you are thinking - "Uh ...what movie did he see?". As I mentioned, by today's standard, it seems a little dated . And I remembering asking a friend of my step-father's at the time who was a recent law school graduate what he thought of the movie; he responded that while it was fairly accurate, he said the odds of a single lawyer going through all that with the different clients would be almost impossible.

Another thing I learned watching this was how great actors can really draw you in. The scene where Author's partner and friend pull him into the bathroom to tell him why Flemming has been arrested - you find yourself laughing as hard as they are not because what they are saying is that funny but because the sincerity of their laughter is completely contagious.

Oddly enough one of the few critics that really liked this movie when it came out was Roger Ebert. A lot of critics thought it was over the top. And they may be right - but for a 16 year old boy in love with truth, justice and the American way - it was bang -on!

And Justice for All, or why I hate attorney movies, by Andy

FYI to the group - I'm very hesitant to give up my hotmail email address in favor of a less-easy-to-remember gmail address, so my posts all go on as Jason's posts. Hopefully he's not too embarrassed by me.....

I hate lawyer movies, but it's not just because they don't get it right. Here's my background: I am an attorney. I am a career public defender. I love it, I have no apologies, and I don't want to do anything else. I do get weary from answering "how do you defend someone you know to be guilty," but I smile and give an answer that I hope will reeducate the inquisitor of our fundamental system of government and justice (that he or she should have learned in 8th grade US History). Yes, I'm a little bit of an elitist when it comes to the subject, and if you ask me, I'll tell you that Jesus was the ultimate public defender.

So here's my problem with lawyer movies: the movies either seem to glorify the defense attorney who fights through the stigma of defending someone he/she knows to be innocent but whom the general public believes to be the worst of all criminals; or, the movies vilify the attorney who practices unethically and gets or attempts to get his client acquitted of criminal charges to which the client is unquestionably guilty. The movies never seem to address the attorney who fights hard, but ethically, for a client who may be guilty but where the evidence is not proof beyond a reasonable doubt. I'm not sure that it would make a good Hollywood story, but I've got several clients/cases with varying outcomes that would accurately depict the one impossibility in our system of justice: determining the truth. In most case that actually go to trial, the truth is impossible to know. As a defense attorney, it is my responsibility and duty to bring to light any and all facts that might present a defense to a charge, or that might cast doubt on the guilt of my client.

Oh that's right....I was writing about a movie. "And Justice for All" really tries to show the many facets of a law practice. He has an innocent client for whom he is desperately trying to exonerate. He's got a client who has participated in a crime, but for whom a level of culpability was not certain (the tranny). And then he's got the unrealistic high-profile bad man who wants him to cheat and be unethical. The latter, in my experience, doesn't generally exist. I and my fellow defense attorneys do not and would not fabricate evidence or allow its introduction, nor would we knowingly allow our client to perpetrate a fraud on the court. We just wouldn't do it. As much as we believe in the constitution and in protecting people charged with crimes, we believe in law and order. I like cops and prosecutors, and as a citizen, I want them to do a great job and properly prosecute those charged with crimes.

So what really bugs me about this movie is that the story ends with Pacino deciding between continuing with his career (and in so doing cheating through a rape trial) or divulging that his client is guilty and the scum of the earth (and in so doing violating his client's confidentiality and causing his disbarment from the legal profession). It's ridiculous. It never has to be that way, but I grow weary of attorney movies that suppose the dilemma. By the way, the resolve in "The Firm" is a perfect example of how it should work (though I am not ready to comment further on that film).

I also didn't care for the arc of the friend who loses it when a guy he gets off of a murder charge "because of a technicality (or as I like to call it the "constitution")" turns around and kills a couple of kids. Preposterous, but without the underlying facts it's too difficult to make an appropriate comment.

Beyond those small little complaints that nobody else will care about, the movie was fascinating. I loved the many arcs that the movie carried, and I thought Pacino was masterful. The movie was delightfully uncomplicated despite its many twists and turns.

Nice pick Karl. Great movie- especially if you are almost legally insane and feel the urge to chuck plates down a corridor at various government officials.

Sunrise, finally?

With the exception of Jason and Karl, I've never met the contributing members of the discussion group. I'm not a film critic, student, or even a well-read ("seen" as it were) cinema goer. Frankly, I only picked "Sunset" because I saw it recently (in my pursuit to watch the AFI 100) and I wanted to appear somewhat sophisticated. How did I do?

I've been busy, but my delay in writing a comment about "Sunrise" was mostly due to failing to come up with something interesting to say. Obviously it's a brilliant film. I thought it was daring of the film team to write a story about a man wishing to kill his wife and get away with the murder so he could live with his paramour. It all seemed too 21st century to me, and my wife. Who hasn't thought about murdering their spouse for the insurance money? I mean, it would be so easy, right? Yeah, the cops always suspect the spouse, but if you just planned well enough...and got a little lucky....and were patient and appropriately bereaved...

The brilliance, for me, of "Sunrise," was that I started watching the film believing the wife would be killed and the story would be about whether husband got away with the crime, and I was pleasantly surprised the story went in the opposite direction. In its silent glory, the cast was able to convey a sense of innocent beauty on the initially unsuspecting wife, who, although sensed there was difficulty in her marriage, loved her husband and was almost immediately willing to forgive and trust her husband. I'm not sure that kind of relationship exists today, but it was heart warming, if not dangerously ridiculous.

So there you have it. My brilliant comment. I do enjoy silent films, and although I concede a silent film would never make it with today's viewership, I do think several silent films are among the best films I will ever see (if you have any doubt, watch some Charlie Chaplin and/or "The General").

Perhaps Travis Was Right ...

Well, maybe Travis and Andrew had a point: Maybe we should try a two-week rotation for each movie, as opposed to just one week. We hardly had any comments on "Dancer in the Dark," and it's quite discussion-worthy. And this last week, I was the only one who commented on "Sunrise." In fact, even those two films' "recommenders" didn't have a chance to comment yet.

Besides, I didn't read where anyone else wanted to keep it on a weekly rotation. So, I'll humble my over-zealous self and see if an extra week helps. Maybe no one had anything to say about the last two films, but I doubt that.

And I know what you mean: I'm pretty busy, too, working two jobs, a kid, lawn care, etc. It was even tough for me to watch and comment on "Sunrise" before today. So, whenever you get a chance, enjoy "Dancer in the Dark" and "Sunrise." The latter is available for your viewing pleasure two posts back.

Thanks again for your useful suggestions. You all are the best.
Jason

F.W. Murnau: A Pioneering, Germanic Coen Brother

by Jason Pyles

First, I’d like to welcome Casey Hicks and Josh Ligairi to our film discussions. I’m happy to have their contributions.

I really like F.W. Murnau. How could you not like him? This German director gave us cinematic gems like “Nosferatu” (1922), “The Last Laugh” (1924) and “Faust” (1926)—and, of course, “Sunrise: A Song of Two Humans” (1927). Supposedly, Murnau was extremely tall, somewhere around 6’9’’ (though many people say he was 7-feet tall), and a closet homosexual. Murnau was killed in a car wreck on his way to Paramount Studios in 1931 and did not get to see the premiere of his last film, “Tabu: A Story of the South Seas.”

I had to smile at the beginning of “Sunrise” when I read on the title card that this story is one we might hear “anywhere at any time.” Then, two title cards later, we’re informed that this takes place during “summertime … vacation time.” It struck me funny that the point was made that this story was universally applicable in its time and setting, then Katherine Hilliker and H.H. Caldwell, who created the titles, proceed to establish the specifics of when it took place. Not a big deal, just peculiar.

Though “Sunrise” is a silent film, there are scenes where sound creeps in, particularly in segment 5 of these YouTube excerpts, where Anses and Indre are scolded with screaming and honking for disrupting traffic. I don’t know much about these insertions of sound to comment intelligently on them, but I can say this: “Sunrise” was made at the height of the silent filmmakers’ powers, just as sound film was clumsily taking the stage. Right around this time period, films like “The Jazz Singer” (1927) were intriguing audiences by implementing scenes demonstrating sound. But I cannot say whether the sound portions of “Sunrise” were inserted when this film was made or later. Does anyone else know?

“Sunrise” is remarkable for a number of reasons: It has flashbacks, like the one of the good old days, when two newlyweds were blissfully in love, when the husband paused with the oxen to shake the baby. It has scenes that depict the characters envisioning or imagining something, like the pre-meditation of pushing Indre out of the boat to “drowned” her. There are a few superimposed scenes, as well as what appears to be a zoomed-in close-up of the villainous bulrushes. (Was that shoot really zoomed? Surely not.) And the bulrushes, by the way, end up being the object of a set-up and pay-off, where the filmmakers have us take note of something earlier in the film that later comes to have additional significance.

The dog in this movie might be the first great animal actor; the pig reaches a little, and overacts. I’m only kidding. I like the shots of Indre in the boat. The camera angle is high, shooting down on her, filling the remainder of the screen with water, giving us the impression that she is hopelessly surrounded by water. It seemed to me that while riding in the trolley car, especially the first time, the passing scenery was back-projected and not actually the goings-on filmed outside the streetcar, right? Could one of you filmmakers explain that famous scene where they wander through the traffic, lovingly looking into each other’s eyes as the cars whiz past them (not the first “Frogger” street-crossing, but the second one).

“Sunrise” is neat because we see the husband change his mind. He sees the aggressive dangers of the not-so-innocent city when contrasted with his sweet, timid, innocent wife. It is a nice touch when they attend the wedding and more or less decide to renew their wedding vows. As they depart the church in place of the real bride and groom, it is as if it’s their own wedding day again.

This films is also unusual in its tone. Much like “Fargo,” “Sunrise” has sobering moments, such as the husband’s deadly threat to his wife on the boat, then it turns to comedy and give us a drunken pig. As the couple rediscovers their love, “Sunrise” turns into a playful, joyous comedy. We have a ghost pig, sliding pig and even a musical dance number. “Sunrise” even gives us a wardrobe malfunction scene that is meant to be humorous. Later the film returns to a solemn tone with its fairly convincing stormy water and what seems to be the fatal loss of Indre.

Yes, with its shifting tones, humor, horror and oddities, I might go so far as to say that the Coen brothers could be considered somewhat “Murnau-esque.” In any case, “Sunrise” is a wonderful film from the semi-silent era and a great recommendation for our discussion on Considering the Cinema. Thanks, Andy. Nice pick.

P.S. I loved the roller coaster, too.

View "Sunrise" (1927) Here

Thanks to a brilliant YouTuber who calls himself or herself "SilentFilmDemocracy" (and thanks to YouTube, of course), you can still watch this week's film selection, even if you're in a film history-less town like mine.

SilentFilmDemocracy, who gets all the glory for this, divided the film into nine parts. I've posted them all below. Enjoy. My post on this movie will come soon.

JASON

1/9


2/9


3/9


4/9


5/9


6/9


7/9


8/9


9/9