FEATURES
08 May 2009
Films in focus
Until reaching University, most of today’s legal practitioners chose the law based on second hand impressions, and may have been inspired into the courtroom or the world of the law from seeing it portrayed on screen. But which films about the law still have the power to make your quill tremble?
Many a young solicitor or advocate may have been inspired into the law watching Rumpole or Petrocelli on the TV, or Gregory Peck as Atticus Finch, or Ally McBeal, depending on your vintage. The law is a staple of drama, from the classic ‘Witness for the Prosecution’ through to ‘Twelve Angry Men,’ ‘Jagged Edge’ or even last year’s ‘The New Ten Commandments’, which examined the European Charter of Human Rights. Whether early exposure to the law in film gave you your first thoughts of a career in law, or whether you laughed at Jim Carry in ‘Liar Liar’, films featuring the law resonate with those in the profession, and The Firm wanted to find out just exactly how much. So we asked solicitors and advocates to tell us which films from the rich seam of cinematic gold win their personal Oscars, and why these particular films blew the warm air up their gowns. The omissions are as interesting as the inclusions (no ‘14 Days in May’?) so if you have a choice you would argue for, let us know via email and we’ll post some more online. Meantime, dim the lights, grab your popcorn, and enjoy the show.
DIRTY HARRY
Gavin Grant, Solicitor, Litigation Division, Shepherd and Wedderburn LLP
Dirty Harry is one of my favourite films. It is essentially about a maverick cop hunting a serial killer. Due to the film’s success and the countless imitations which followed, its plot is now considered a cliché. However, the plot in Dirty Harry has an underlying function, and to understand this fully, the film should be considered in context.
US Supreme Court decisions in Escobedo v. Illinois (1964) and the landmark case of Miranda v. Arizona (1966) had sparked a public debate in the States over the rights of accused and the admissibility of evidence in criminal trials. In the wake of Miranda, statements made by accused persons in police custody could only be admissible if it was shown that the police had first informed the accused of their rights against self-incrimination and to legal representation (the Fifth and Sixth Amendments), and also that the accused had understood, and voluntarily waived, these rights.
The Miranda decision was not popular amongst the conservative right in the USA, who felt it would weaken the police if they were required expressly to inform the accused of their rights prior to interrogation. The ensuing socio-political debate became the backdrop for Dirty Harry, released in 1971.
An authentic psychopathic villain was devised, inspired by the real-life Zodiac killer terrorising San Francisco at the time, so that the audience would have little difficulty in routing for the film’s hero. The very first scene involves the villain shooting an innocent woman in her penthouse swimming pool.
Inspector Harry Callahan is tasked with tracking down the killer. Before the hunt begins, we see Harry randomly thwarting a bank robbery and then taunting an injured robber by aiming a .44 Magnum revolver at his head (and asking if he feels lucky). It is clear that Harry is a tad unconventional but, like all good maverick cops, gets results.
In hunting the killer, however, Harry’s methods stray from the unconventional to the illegal. Harry stabs him, tortures a confession out of him, breaks into his house to retrieve the murder weapon and drags him into custody. Unfortunately, the District Attorney declares that none of the evidence collected is admissible and that they cannot hold the killer - “That man had rights”.
Harry’s response - “Well then, the law is crazy”. The killer is released without charge, which is the turning point in the film. We know the killer is guilty, as does Harry. He also knows he must operate outside of the law if he is to catch the killer before he kills again. In the end the killer is stopped. The final scene sees Harry throwing away his badge, acknowledging that he has disregarded the rule of law as a means to a “just” end.
Dirty Harry was seen as a fairly blunt characterisation of the right-wing attitude to the developments in US criminal procedure. The final film was criticised in some quarters as fascist propaganda (the criticism might have been even stronger had the producers gone with the original title, ‘Dead Right’). Whatever the filmmakers’ political views, they had addressed the question of moral consequentialism. In a society where the Zodiac killer can run amok, are there circumstances within which we can justify setting aside the rule of law, if doing so would lead to a morally desirable end? Can such an end justify a dissolute means?
The themes still resonate today, at their most evident in the debate about the treatment, detention and human rights of terror suspects. Jack Bauer, the fictional hero catching terrorists in the television series ‘24’, has taken on Dirty Harry’s fictional consequentialist mantle. Bauer tortures information out of terror suspects, often to an absurd degree. This does not necessarily mean that the creators endorse the use of torture. They are testing the audience. Most of us like to see evildoers punished, and shows like 24 and Dirty Harry provide that satisfaction while challenging our readiness to justify the morally ambiguous actions of the hero.
I was maybe about 8 when I first saw Dirty Harry. I liked it because the good guy won and the bad guy lost. That it was a gripping crime thriller as well as a pointed comment on topical legal issues, still hotly debated today, is why it is rightly considered a classic.
TO KILL A MOCKINGBIRD
Kathleen Simmonds, Trainee Solicitor, Inksters
For me there is only one true cinematic hero and that is Atticus Finch. The fact that he is a lawyer only makes him more of a hero.
When I was about 11 years old my mum spotted that the film of To Kill a Mockingbird was on television and suggested that I watch it. I remember not being convinced. Watching an old black and white movie on a Saturday afternoon had little appeal, especially one with such gritty and adult subject matter. My mum assured me it was wonderful and as usual she was right.
Great books do not always make great films but the Pakula/Mulligan film of To Kill a Mockingbird would not disappoint fans of Harper Lee’s novel. Atticus is portrayed brilliantly in the film by Gregory Peck, a role for which he won an Oscar. At 11 years old, the film had a huge impact on me and although I did not come to the law until much later on, I would like to think on that afternoon I knew that I would become a lawyer.
The story will be familiar to many of you. Set in a town in America’s Deep South during the Depression, it is a commentary on racial prejudice as seen through the eyes of children. Atticus Finch is the lawyer who is asked to take on the case of Tom Robinson, a black man falsely accused of raping a white woman. Atticus knows that he has no chance of winning the case due to the ugly discrimination that pervades the town and is an endemic part of society at that time.
Atticus’s own self-respect is dependant on the need to do what is right. In the film he explains why he is taking on the case to his young daughter, “If I didn’t I couldn’t hold my head in town. I couldn’t even tell you and Jem not to do something again”.
The children themselves are on a journey that chips away at their innocence. They inhabit a carefree world at the start of the film but become more aware of the realities of the adult world around them as the story progresses. Their curiosity in their father’s position leads to memorable scenes, both at the jailhouse the night before the trial and in the courtroom itself. The trial is, of course, the main point of drama in the film. Atticus, in his pale linen suit, presents his case in the packed and segregated courtroom. It is a great cinematic moment which sees Atticus, in the light of no evidence against his client, imploring the jury to do their duty.
For me, Atticus represents the importance of the choices that we make. This is made apparent in the relationship he has with his children, teaching them to have respect for themselves and for others. The film manages to strike the balance of making a serious commentary on intolerance and injustice while being thoroughly engaging and poignant.
BRIDGET JONES: THE EDGE OF REASON
Maria Robertson, Society of Advocates in Aberdeen
I realised how much I love the Bar Council Dinner scene. I’m not a lawyer and I am always amazed by some of the blinkered views that know nothing outside the law. At the dinner there is a quiz and poor Bridget is terribly bored through all the legal questions - and yes lawyers love law so much that they enjoy a quiz on the subject! It’s only when the last round on popular culture starts that Bridget comes into her own whilst all around her look shocked and bewildered as to how she could know such things. Hilarious.
THE GODFATHER AND GODFATHER II
Ken Forrest, Murray Stable
Tom Hagen, played by Robert Duvall, is in-house lawyer and consigliere to the Corleone family in both magnificent Coppola films, and the range of legal skills on display is breathtaking.
His methods are not conventional - arranging to place a horse’s head on an opponent’s bed at the end of an unsuccessful mediation is not something students of ADR are likely to be taught any time soon. Suggesting to a witness that he kill himself, rather than go to court and give evidence against the family, is certainly an unusual way of taking a precognition.
But they are effective (the opponent who woke up with the horse’s head quickly conceded the point of dispute). Duvall-as-Hagen epitomises the lawyer who understands his client perfectly. He knows his client’s business, and what he wants to achieve. He is prepared to completely immerse himself in his client’s affairs. If a major part of these affairs involves removal of opponents in a rather extreme way, then Hagen will render necessary advice accordingly.
Although only a supporting character, his advice is crucial to everything that happens in the Sicilian saga. Hagen also embraces change, adapting with the re-structure of the business from the New York rackets to gambling in Las Vegas and Cuba.
He re-invents his role as the family lawyer in Godfather II and becomes just as important to Pacino’s Michael as he was to Brando’s Vito Corleone. Surely a lesson to all older lawyers: embrace the changes, reinvent your role, and make yourself indispensible to the client. Wisely, Tom Hagen did not make an appearance in Godfather III. Creative lawyers like him know when it is time to retire.
JESUS CHRIST SUPERSTAR
Austin Lafferty, Austin Lafferty Solicitors
The suggestion that Pontius Pilate was born in Scotland is more fanciful than provable. Perhaps the same is true of the feet of Jesus Christ standing upon England’s pastures. But they were main actors in a legal drama that has echoed down the age of Christianity – indeed, caused it.
Of all the accounts of the trial of Jesus by the Romans, my favourite, if that is the right word, is the operatic one. Jesus Christ Superstar the rock opera was made into a highly successful film in 1973. Directed by Norman Jewison, starring Ted Neeley as Christ, and Barry Dennen as Pilate, the setting was part Roman Judea, part Arab-Israeli war. I remember the scene where Christ is off in the desert contemplating, out of the giant sand dune behind him we see a line of vertical black pipes emerging, which develop to be four military tanks. The quiet musical accompaniment is suddenly drowned by a full-volume roaring of the tank engines as they breast the bank and hurtle towards him. Utterly brilliant staging.
But to our trial. Pilate in his seat of authority demanding answers of Jesus, who stands resolutely but mutely, until the Judge is worn down to a softer, more doubting tone – and the accused at last gives evidence – when Pilate tells him he has all the power and Jesus has nothing. They sing at each other debating what real power is – and real truth. The judge is cynical: “What is truth? Is truth unchanging law? We both have truths, are mine the same as yours?”
The jury gets its judgment in first, baying for crucifixion. And it is the worst sort of judgment that Pontius Pilate gives. He knows perfectly well there is no crime here, but panders to the mob – ordering 39 lashes on the superstar. These are meted out to a musical rhythm and Pilate barks out the numbers – breaking down in anguish at the end as he realises that he is committing judicial crime. But even then the mob is not satisfied, and the ultimate penalty ensues.
Whether or not you are Christian, it may be regarded as the Greatest Story Ever … Sung.
BRUBAKER
Anthony Robson, Legal Counsel, IPA Economics
When thinking of ‘legal’ movies those centred on crime and punishment probably figure very highly. And for me prison and Morgan Freeman spring to mind, though you’ve got to cast your mind back 14 years earlier than the conclusion you may have jumped to. To be fair, Freeman’s role in Brubaker was relatively minor in comparison to that played by the star, Robert Redford, in this 1980 movie of a 1960s prison scandal.
Based on real events, the movie looks into the faults of a system trying to apply new methods to prison reform, and the opposition to what amounts to true reform. The real life warden was Tom Murton, and the correctional facility was Tucker and Cummins Prison, though presumably the producers decided ‘Murton’ wouldn’t quite cut it as a film title, and so Redford became Henry Brubaker.
The film’s opening is perhaps the most memorable thing about it, with Redford arriving in the prison as an inmate, seeing first hand the treatment meted out by the guards, many of whom are actually also inmates, in keeping with the experimental nature of the facility. The opening is also the only completely fabricated part of the whole story, but after that the abuses of prisoners, and discovery of corruption ranging from stealing of food to murder and burying of hundreds of bodies, all have basis in reality. This makes for uncomfortable viewing at times, and no shortage of moral outrage at the efforts of the prison board (with approval of the local governor) to silence Brubaker and push him out of the door.
Watching this next to the later Shawshank Redemption you can see where the better-known film borrowed in places. The old man who has served past his time without anyone noticing (whether intentionally or not); the young maverick who plays it all cool but becomes an important ally; the general improvement in life within the prison.
Where this film differs, however, is an absence of a background feeling that everything is going to be alright. And for that, the sense of reality that this brings, fostered in no small part by Tom Murton acting as an advisor on the movie, this ranks as my favourite legal film.
SUTHERLAND'S LAW (TV)
Ross MacKay, Partner, HBJ Gateley Wareing
A favourite of mine is Sutherland’s Law. It’s not a film but a TV series from the 1970s involving a procurator fiscal based in the West Highlands. It is probably about the only film or TV programme where a Scottish lawyer plays the central character, although only those of a certain age will have heard of it of course!
THE SHAWSHANK REDEMPTION
Emma Miller, Burness
One film which lands firmly in my top ten. Granted it is not entirely focused on courtroom formulas you would find in Grisham films, I never tire of watching Andy Dufresne’s journey unfold from prestigious banker to wronged convict; whilst the dialogue is committed to memory, there are still a few ‘never saw that coming’ moments courtesy of Stephen King and an intelligent screenplay adaptation. Not an influence on my decision to pursue a career in law, but you just can’t help root for Andy to make it to safety following his prison break. Somehow I don’t think many would be quick to liberate another well known banker if he found himself in that pipe!
12 ANGRY MEN
Lianne Lodge, Pagan Osborne
12 Angry Men has to be my all time favourite legal movie. In black and white, with no special effects the story of how one dissenting juror battles against 11 other jurors with their pre conceived ideas and prejudices is special. It takes place almost exclusively in one room on the “hottest day of the year” and it is not just the room but the arguments that heat up as the story progresses. It really struck me that one man could fight so fiercely against his peers to protect the rights of another whom he had never met. It just shows that it is the story not the budget that makes a great film!
MY COUSIN VINNY
R.N. Thomson, Q.C, Terra Firma Chambers
Two student friends bowling along the empty open dusty road in an ancient convertible, and the Fabulous Thunderbirds are playing “Way Down South”. You just know this is going to be a good film. Before you can say ‘miscarriage of justice’ they are in custody for murder. (as if that ever happens in the South...ahem. The Editor) Far from home and moneyless, they call for the assistance of the only lawyer known to either of them: Vincent Gambini, a New York attorney, played by Joe Pesci. Six is a recurrent number in the Vinny’s life. Six years’ study for the bar after law school; six attempts to pass the exams; and he has been in practice almost six weeks. His defence of the hapless pair is hampered by his never having been in court and his failure to learn any court procedure. But with him is his long-time fiancée, an unemployed hairdresser and former motor mechanic.
The film has all the classic elements of a courtroom drama, but with comedy and unorthodox romance added. Tightly constructed and beautifully performed, it is unlike any film of its kind. The natural tendency of lawyers watching such films is to complain that it wouldn’t happen that way in real life. Vinny and his girl, Mona Lisa Vito, make you not care. The wonderful Marisa Tomei stole the show and won her Oscar here. Any court lawyer who has woken in a cold sweat from dreaming of appearing without his papers or without his trousers will feel for Vincent in his tussles with Judge Chamberlain Haller, played by Fred Gwynn. My favourite judge. The film is a delight from beginning to end.
ERIN BROCKOVICH
Emma Boffey, Strathclyde University Law Clinic
You can guarantee most of the profession will have seen this movie at some point, whether like me as an impressionable youngster lusting after a career in the law, or as a qualified solicitor of a more mature vintage, seeking light relief in a tale which is not only engaging and thought provoking, but portrays a true tale of justice triumphing in the face of adversity, all complimented by a sparkling script and electric cast.
What is more engaging is that this tale is based on the true tale of over 600 claimants in Hinkley, California (with the leadership of the real Ms Brockovich) who won the largest ever toxic tort settlement of $333 million in an action against Pacific Gas and Electric Co.
Despite the relative lack of courtroom drama, the film centres around the broad theme of justice, David v Goliath style - taking on a multi-national corporation in a pro bono capacity, and emerging victorious against all the odds. Tugging on the heartstrings forces us to contemplate the harsh reality of practice, and the impact this can have on family and personal relationships. Nonetheless, the film leaves the viewer uplifted, motivated and energised with hope.
Thoroughly entertaining for those who want a light take on the role of law in our communities, and to marvel at the leading lady’s infallible ability to simultaneously empathise with clients, advance legal submissions, butter up the opposition and all while carrying 50 files, tittering in 7 inch snakeskin stilettos.
If Julia Roberts can do this, surely navigating Glasgow Sheriff Court is a piece of cake?!
Many a young solicitor or advocate may have been inspired into the law watching Rumpole or Petrocelli on the TV, or Gregory Peck as Atticus Finch, or Ally McBeal, depending on your vintage. The law is a staple of drama, from the classic ‘Witness for the Prosecution’ through to ‘Twelve Angry Men,’ ‘Jagged Edge’ or even last year’s ‘The New Ten Commandments’, which examined the European Charter of Human Rights. Whether early exposure to the law in film gave you your first thoughts of a career in law, or whether you laughed at Jim Carry in ‘Liar Liar’, films featuring the law resonate with those in the profession, and The Firm wanted to find out just exactly how much. So we asked solicitors and advocates to tell us which films from the rich seam of cinematic gold win their personal Oscars, and why these particular films blew the warm air up their gowns. The omissions are as interesting as the inclusions (no ‘14 Days in May’?) so if you have a choice you would argue for, let us know via email and we’ll post some more online. Meantime, dim the lights, grab your popcorn, and enjoy the show.
DIRTY HARRY
Gavin Grant, Solicitor, Litigation Division, Shepherd and Wedderburn LLP
Dirty Harry is one of my favourite films. It is essentially about a maverick cop hunting a serial killer. Due to the film’s success and the countless imitations which followed, its plot is now considered a cliché. However, the plot in Dirty Harry has an underlying function, and to understand this fully, the film should be considered in context.
US Supreme Court decisions in Escobedo v. Illinois (1964) and the landmark case of Miranda v. Arizona (1966) had sparked a public debate in the States over the rights of accused and the admissibility of evidence in criminal trials. In the wake of Miranda, statements made by accused persons in police custody could only be admissible if it was shown that the police had first informed the accused of their rights against self-incrimination and to legal representation (the Fifth and Sixth Amendments), and also that the accused had understood, and voluntarily waived, these rights.
The Miranda decision was not popular amongst the conservative right in the USA, who felt it would weaken the police if they were required expressly to inform the accused of their rights prior to interrogation. The ensuing socio-political debate became the backdrop for Dirty Harry, released in 1971.
An authentic psychopathic villain was devised, inspired by the real-life Zodiac killer terrorising San Francisco at the time, so that the audience would have little difficulty in routing for the film’s hero. The very first scene involves the villain shooting an innocent woman in her penthouse swimming pool.
Inspector Harry Callahan is tasked with tracking down the killer. Before the hunt begins, we see Harry randomly thwarting a bank robbery and then taunting an injured robber by aiming a .44 Magnum revolver at his head (and asking if he feels lucky). It is clear that Harry is a tad unconventional but, like all good maverick cops, gets results.
In hunting the killer, however, Harry’s methods stray from the unconventional to the illegal. Harry stabs him, tortures a confession out of him, breaks into his house to retrieve the murder weapon and drags him into custody. Unfortunately, the District Attorney declares that none of the evidence collected is admissible and that they cannot hold the killer - “That man had rights”.
Harry’s response - “Well then, the law is crazy”. The killer is released without charge, which is the turning point in the film. We know the killer is guilty, as does Harry. He also knows he must operate outside of the law if he is to catch the killer before he kills again. In the end the killer is stopped. The final scene sees Harry throwing away his badge, acknowledging that he has disregarded the rule of law as a means to a “just” end.
Dirty Harry was seen as a fairly blunt characterisation of the right-wing attitude to the developments in US criminal procedure. The final film was criticised in some quarters as fascist propaganda (the criticism might have been even stronger had the producers gone with the original title, ‘Dead Right’). Whatever the filmmakers’ political views, they had addressed the question of moral consequentialism. In a society where the Zodiac killer can run amok, are there circumstances within which we can justify setting aside the rule of law, if doing so would lead to a morally desirable end? Can such an end justify a dissolute means?
The themes still resonate today, at their most evident in the debate about the treatment, detention and human rights of terror suspects. Jack Bauer, the fictional hero catching terrorists in the television series ‘24’, has taken on Dirty Harry’s fictional consequentialist mantle. Bauer tortures information out of terror suspects, often to an absurd degree. This does not necessarily mean that the creators endorse the use of torture. They are testing the audience. Most of us like to see evildoers punished, and shows like 24 and Dirty Harry provide that satisfaction while challenging our readiness to justify the morally ambiguous actions of the hero.
I was maybe about 8 when I first saw Dirty Harry. I liked it because the good guy won and the bad guy lost. That it was a gripping crime thriller as well as a pointed comment on topical legal issues, still hotly debated today, is why it is rightly considered a classic.
TO KILL A MOCKINGBIRD
Kathleen Simmonds, Trainee Solicitor, Inksters
For me there is only one true cinematic hero and that is Atticus Finch. The fact that he is a lawyer only makes him more of a hero.
When I was about 11 years old my mum spotted that the film of To Kill a Mockingbird was on television and suggested that I watch it. I remember not being convinced. Watching an old black and white movie on a Saturday afternoon had little appeal, especially one with such gritty and adult subject matter. My mum assured me it was wonderful and as usual she was right.
Great books do not always make great films but the Pakula/Mulligan film of To Kill a Mockingbird would not disappoint fans of Harper Lee’s novel. Atticus is portrayed brilliantly in the film by Gregory Peck, a role for which he won an Oscar. At 11 years old, the film had a huge impact on me and although I did not come to the law until much later on, I would like to think on that afternoon I knew that I would become a lawyer.
The story will be familiar to many of you. Set in a town in America’s Deep South during the Depression, it is a commentary on racial prejudice as seen through the eyes of children. Atticus Finch is the lawyer who is asked to take on the case of Tom Robinson, a black man falsely accused of raping a white woman. Atticus knows that he has no chance of winning the case due to the ugly discrimination that pervades the town and is an endemic part of society at that time.
Atticus’s own self-respect is dependant on the need to do what is right. In the film he explains why he is taking on the case to his young daughter, “If I didn’t I couldn’t hold my head in town. I couldn’t even tell you and Jem not to do something again”.
The children themselves are on a journey that chips away at their innocence. They inhabit a carefree world at the start of the film but become more aware of the realities of the adult world around them as the story progresses. Their curiosity in their father’s position leads to memorable scenes, both at the jailhouse the night before the trial and in the courtroom itself. The trial is, of course, the main point of drama in the film. Atticus, in his pale linen suit, presents his case in the packed and segregated courtroom. It is a great cinematic moment which sees Atticus, in the light of no evidence against his client, imploring the jury to do their duty.
For me, Atticus represents the importance of the choices that we make. This is made apparent in the relationship he has with his children, teaching them to have respect for themselves and for others. The film manages to strike the balance of making a serious commentary on intolerance and injustice while being thoroughly engaging and poignant.
BRIDGET JONES: THE EDGE OF REASON
Maria Robertson, Society of Advocates in Aberdeen
I realised how much I love the Bar Council Dinner scene. I’m not a lawyer and I am always amazed by some of the blinkered views that know nothing outside the law. At the dinner there is a quiz and poor Bridget is terribly bored through all the legal questions - and yes lawyers love law so much that they enjoy a quiz on the subject! It’s only when the last round on popular culture starts that Bridget comes into her own whilst all around her look shocked and bewildered as to how she could know such things. Hilarious.
THE GODFATHER AND GODFATHER II
Ken Forrest, Murray Stable
Tom Hagen, played by Robert Duvall, is in-house lawyer and consigliere to the Corleone family in both magnificent Coppola films, and the range of legal skills on display is breathtaking.
His methods are not conventional - arranging to place a horse’s head on an opponent’s bed at the end of an unsuccessful mediation is not something students of ADR are likely to be taught any time soon. Suggesting to a witness that he kill himself, rather than go to court and give evidence against the family, is certainly an unusual way of taking a precognition.
But they are effective (the opponent who woke up with the horse’s head quickly conceded the point of dispute). Duvall-as-Hagen epitomises the lawyer who understands his client perfectly. He knows his client’s business, and what he wants to achieve. He is prepared to completely immerse himself in his client’s affairs. If a major part of these affairs involves removal of opponents in a rather extreme way, then Hagen will render necessary advice accordingly.
Although only a supporting character, his advice is crucial to everything that happens in the Sicilian saga. Hagen also embraces change, adapting with the re-structure of the business from the New York rackets to gambling in Las Vegas and Cuba.
He re-invents his role as the family lawyer in Godfather II and becomes just as important to Pacino’s Michael as he was to Brando’s Vito Corleone. Surely a lesson to all older lawyers: embrace the changes, reinvent your role, and make yourself indispensible to the client. Wisely, Tom Hagen did not make an appearance in Godfather III. Creative lawyers like him know when it is time to retire.
JESUS CHRIST SUPERSTAR
Austin Lafferty, Austin Lafferty Solicitors
The suggestion that Pontius Pilate was born in Scotland is more fanciful than provable. Perhaps the same is true of the feet of Jesus Christ standing upon England’s pastures. But they were main actors in a legal drama that has echoed down the age of Christianity – indeed, caused it.
Of all the accounts of the trial of Jesus by the Romans, my favourite, if that is the right word, is the operatic one. Jesus Christ Superstar the rock opera was made into a highly successful film in 1973. Directed by Norman Jewison, starring Ted Neeley as Christ, and Barry Dennen as Pilate, the setting was part Roman Judea, part Arab-Israeli war. I remember the scene where Christ is off in the desert contemplating, out of the giant sand dune behind him we see a line of vertical black pipes emerging, which develop to be four military tanks. The quiet musical accompaniment is suddenly drowned by a full-volume roaring of the tank engines as they breast the bank and hurtle towards him. Utterly brilliant staging.
But to our trial. Pilate in his seat of authority demanding answers of Jesus, who stands resolutely but mutely, until the Judge is worn down to a softer, more doubting tone – and the accused at last gives evidence – when Pilate tells him he has all the power and Jesus has nothing. They sing at each other debating what real power is – and real truth. The judge is cynical: “What is truth? Is truth unchanging law? We both have truths, are mine the same as yours?”
The jury gets its judgment in first, baying for crucifixion. And it is the worst sort of judgment that Pontius Pilate gives. He knows perfectly well there is no crime here, but panders to the mob – ordering 39 lashes on the superstar. These are meted out to a musical rhythm and Pilate barks out the numbers – breaking down in anguish at the end as he realises that he is committing judicial crime. But even then the mob is not satisfied, and the ultimate penalty ensues.
Whether or not you are Christian, it may be regarded as the Greatest Story Ever … Sung.
BRUBAKER
Anthony Robson, Legal Counsel, IPA Economics
When thinking of ‘legal’ movies those centred on crime and punishment probably figure very highly. And for me prison and Morgan Freeman spring to mind, though you’ve got to cast your mind back 14 years earlier than the conclusion you may have jumped to. To be fair, Freeman’s role in Brubaker was relatively minor in comparison to that played by the star, Robert Redford, in this 1980 movie of a 1960s prison scandal.
Based on real events, the movie looks into the faults of a system trying to apply new methods to prison reform, and the opposition to what amounts to true reform. The real life warden was Tom Murton, and the correctional facility was Tucker and Cummins Prison, though presumably the producers decided ‘Murton’ wouldn’t quite cut it as a film title, and so Redford became Henry Brubaker.
The film’s opening is perhaps the most memorable thing about it, with Redford arriving in the prison as an inmate, seeing first hand the treatment meted out by the guards, many of whom are actually also inmates, in keeping with the experimental nature of the facility. The opening is also the only completely fabricated part of the whole story, but after that the abuses of prisoners, and discovery of corruption ranging from stealing of food to murder and burying of hundreds of bodies, all have basis in reality. This makes for uncomfortable viewing at times, and no shortage of moral outrage at the efforts of the prison board (with approval of the local governor) to silence Brubaker and push him out of the door.
Watching this next to the later Shawshank Redemption you can see where the better-known film borrowed in places. The old man who has served past his time without anyone noticing (whether intentionally or not); the young maverick who plays it all cool but becomes an important ally; the general improvement in life within the prison.
Where this film differs, however, is an absence of a background feeling that everything is going to be alright. And for that, the sense of reality that this brings, fostered in no small part by Tom Murton acting as an advisor on the movie, this ranks as my favourite legal film.
SUTHERLAND'S LAW (TV)
Ross MacKay, Partner, HBJ Gateley Wareing
A favourite of mine is Sutherland’s Law. It’s not a film but a TV series from the 1970s involving a procurator fiscal based in the West Highlands. It is probably about the only film or TV programme where a Scottish lawyer plays the central character, although only those of a certain age will have heard of it of course!
THE SHAWSHANK REDEMPTION
Emma Miller, Burness
One film which lands firmly in my top ten. Granted it is not entirely focused on courtroom formulas you would find in Grisham films, I never tire of watching Andy Dufresne’s journey unfold from prestigious banker to wronged convict; whilst the dialogue is committed to memory, there are still a few ‘never saw that coming’ moments courtesy of Stephen King and an intelligent screenplay adaptation. Not an influence on my decision to pursue a career in law, but you just can’t help root for Andy to make it to safety following his prison break. Somehow I don’t think many would be quick to liberate another well known banker if he found himself in that pipe!
12 ANGRY MEN
Lianne Lodge, Pagan Osborne
12 Angry Men has to be my all time favourite legal movie. In black and white, with no special effects the story of how one dissenting juror battles against 11 other jurors with their pre conceived ideas and prejudices is special. It takes place almost exclusively in one room on the “hottest day of the year” and it is not just the room but the arguments that heat up as the story progresses. It really struck me that one man could fight so fiercely against his peers to protect the rights of another whom he had never met. It just shows that it is the story not the budget that makes a great film!
MY COUSIN VINNY
R.N. Thomson, Q.C, Terra Firma Chambers
Two student friends bowling along the empty open dusty road in an ancient convertible, and the Fabulous Thunderbirds are playing “Way Down South”. You just know this is going to be a good film. Before you can say ‘miscarriage of justice’ they are in custody for murder. (as if that ever happens in the South...ahem. The Editor) Far from home and moneyless, they call for the assistance of the only lawyer known to either of them: Vincent Gambini, a New York attorney, played by Joe Pesci. Six is a recurrent number in the Vinny’s life. Six years’ study for the bar after law school; six attempts to pass the exams; and he has been in practice almost six weeks. His defence of the hapless pair is hampered by his never having been in court and his failure to learn any court procedure. But with him is his long-time fiancée, an unemployed hairdresser and former motor mechanic.
The film has all the classic elements of a courtroom drama, but with comedy and unorthodox romance added. Tightly constructed and beautifully performed, it is unlike any film of its kind. The natural tendency of lawyers watching such films is to complain that it wouldn’t happen that way in real life. Vinny and his girl, Mona Lisa Vito, make you not care. The wonderful Marisa Tomei stole the show and won her Oscar here. Any court lawyer who has woken in a cold sweat from dreaming of appearing without his papers or without his trousers will feel for Vincent in his tussles with Judge Chamberlain Haller, played by Fred Gwynn. My favourite judge. The film is a delight from beginning to end.
ERIN BROCKOVICH
Emma Boffey, Strathclyde University Law Clinic
You can guarantee most of the profession will have seen this movie at some point, whether like me as an impressionable youngster lusting after a career in the law, or as a qualified solicitor of a more mature vintage, seeking light relief in a tale which is not only engaging and thought provoking, but portrays a true tale of justice triumphing in the face of adversity, all complimented by a sparkling script and electric cast.
What is more engaging is that this tale is based on the true tale of over 600 claimants in Hinkley, California (with the leadership of the real Ms Brockovich) who won the largest ever toxic tort settlement of $333 million in an action against Pacific Gas and Electric Co.
Despite the relative lack of courtroom drama, the film centres around the broad theme of justice, David v Goliath style - taking on a multi-national corporation in a pro bono capacity, and emerging victorious against all the odds. Tugging on the heartstrings forces us to contemplate the harsh reality of practice, and the impact this can have on family and personal relationships. Nonetheless, the film leaves the viewer uplifted, motivated and energised with hope.
Thoroughly entertaining for those who want a light take on the role of law in our communities, and to marvel at the leading lady’s infallible ability to simultaneously empathise with clients, advance legal submissions, butter up the opposition and all while carrying 50 files, tittering in 7 inch snakeskin stilettos.
If Julia Roberts can do this, surely navigating Glasgow Sheriff Court is a piece of cake?!
Next Feature : Proof or dare
Previous Feature : Whither to twitter a bit
LATEST NEWS
Exclusive: Dailly replies to Lorna Jack - 17 Mar 2010
Thorntons scoop ex-D&W IP solicitor - 15 Mar 2010
LATEST FEATURES
FEATURED JOBS
Award winning PR consultancy with fantastic culture and reputation are looking for a highly...
Location:
Salary: £30,000 - £39,999
Salary: £30,000 - £39,999
LATEST JOBS
Award winning PR consultancy with fantastic culture and reputation are looking for a highly...
Location:
Salary: £30,000 - £39,999
Salary: £30,000 - £39,999