Forum Director Thane Rosenbaum wrote piece for The New York Times about justice and vengeance in light of the tragedy in Norway. Read it here and then write us your thoughts in our comments section.
Recent Posts:
Archive for July, 2011
Justice, Vengeance, and Norway
Sunday, July 31st, 2011Art, Museums, and The Public Good
Monday, July 25th, 2011By Ben Falk
Deaccessioning is something most people don’t spend a lot of time thinking about, or even really know is an issue. However, if you happen to work for a museum, in the world of fine art, or just happen to have $104 million lying around to build your art collection, chances are you have given deaccessioning a lot of thought. So for majority of people who have no idea what deaccessioning is, here is the basic concept: deaccessioning is, generally speaking, when a museum sells part of its collection.
The reason for the sale falls into two major categories: to either buy more pieces or works of greater value (i.e. selling one piece to buy two, or selling two pieces to buy one piece of more artistic value) or to pay the museum’s operating costs. It is the second reason that has become very controversial (in certain circles). At the center of the controversy is the simple and accepted fact that museums hold important works of art in public trust, as these works, for the most part, are significant pieces of our cultural history and make-up.
Deaccessioning hasn’t always been particularly controversial and in a lot of situations, it is absolutely useful. However, the recession and New York State Assemblyman Richard Brodsky put a spotlight on this issue last year when he introduced a bill that would prohibit museums from deaccessioning works in order to pay operating costs. Two things prompted the bill: the recession squeezing public museums and the specific example of the Rose Museum at Brandeis University, which was being shuttered and its collection deaccessioned in order to solve the University’s budget crisis.
While the Museum Association of New York helped Brodsky work on the bill, it still managed to incur the wrath of individual museum directors. These museum directors, quite rightly, wanted first and foremost to keep their museums open. If the museums are not open, it really doesn’t matter what is in their collection, as no one will be able to get in the building to see it. On the other hand, museums hold their collection on behalf of the public, for the public benefit, and should not do anything to prevent the public from seeing their own works, like, for example, selling works to private collectors.
How should the law deal with this issue? Should the law allow for important works of art to be held in private hands? Or, should it ensure that those works which comprise a society’s cultural make-up remain in public hands? It is a tough question. However, while Mr. Brodsky and The Museum Association of New York’s hearts were in the right place, their answer to this question was ultimately the wrong one. Selling works off in order to keep museum doors open does serve the public good. It allows museums to remain open in order to display what works remain. Furthermore, allowing art to be held in private hands is not a bad thing. Private collectors are a vital and necessary part of the art market. Without them all the works that must be saved, displayed, and protected would not be. Deaccessioning in order to pay operating costs is the museum acting in the public good. It ensures that museums stay open and those works that are sold-off are cared for and properly protected.
While the New York State Board of Regents, the governmental body charged with regulating museums in New York, does not validate this point, it did loosen the restrictions the Brodsky Bill would have put in place. It recently implemented regulations that allow, among other things, deaccessioning to “refine a museums collection,” which the New York State Bar Association explains could be used as a “get out of jail free card” for a museum director to deaccession works for whatever reason necessary.
It is too early to tell how effective these new regulations will be, as they were only implemented on June 8. But hopefully they will allow museums to do what is necessary to continue operating while ensuring that as many works as possible are available to as many people as possible.
Tim Robbins
Wednesday, July 20th, 2011By Erica Zarazoga
Timothy Robbins, better known as “Tim” Robbins, is an American actor, screenwriter, director, producer, and musician. Robbins grew up with a show business background, and was exposed to the culture by his mother and father. His mother, Mary Robbins, was an actress, and Gil Robbins, his father, was a singer for “The Highwaymen.” Robbins was born in California, but was raised in New York City. He graduated from Stuyvesant High School and after graduation, he moved back to California to study drama at UCLA School of Film, where he graduated with honors. With an itch for acting and the background to support it, he began The Actors’ Gang in 1981. The Actors’ Gang was a group of aspiring actors who combined their experiences and opinions (mostly radical political observations) to form an experimental theater group. Robbins is still revered today as a tried and true liberal activist. He is very involved in political expression, and tends to angle his movies towards conveying a genuine message.
His acting career started as a teenager, when he worked at the Theater for New York City. Later on, he held small roles in plays and TV. It was not until his breakthrough role in Bull Durham, in 1988, that his career took off. Robbins played Ebby Calvin “Nuke” LaLoosh, the dim-witted pitcher, which catapulted his career. This led to other successful roles, most notably his participation in Dead Man Walking (nominated for Best Director), The Shawshank Redemption (the movie was nominated for seven Academy Awards), and Mystic River (an Oscar win for Best Supporting Actor & the SAG Award). Most recently, he played Senator Hammond in the movie Green Lantern, premiering in 2011.
In 1988, Tim Robbins and Susan Sarandon, star of Dead Man Walking, started a 21 year romance that resulted in the birth of their two children John Henry and Miles. The relationship ended in 2009.
He is recognized by the Academy for his contributions as both an actor and director. He currently holds the title as tallest Academy Award winner at 6’5.
“Absence of Malice”: Is Democracy Served?
Wednesday, July 20th, 2011By Ben Falk
Sydney Pollack’s wonderful film, “Absence of Malice,” makes a good, if not slightly depressing, point. At the beginning of the film, The Miami Standard’s lawyer explains to Megan Carter (Sally Field), a reporter at the newspaper, that the subject of her article, Paul Newman’s Michael Gallagher, is unable to do the paper “harm.” “We have no knowledge the story is false, therefore we’re absent malice. We’ve been both reasonable and prudent, therefore we’re not negligent. We can say what we like about him; he can’t do us harm. Democracy is served.” Implicit in this monologue is the question: is this right? The answer, while demonstrated by the events that follow, is stated specifically at the film’s end, when Assistant U.S. Attorney General James Wells (Wilford Brimley) explains,
“You know and I know that we [the law] can’t tell you [the press] what to print or what not to. We hope the press will act responsibly, but when you don’t, there ain’t a lot we can do about it. We can’t have people going around leaking stuff for their own reasons. It ain’t legal. And worse than that, by God, it ain’t right.”
So there’s the answer: it’s not right, but there’s nothing much we can do about it.
The film starts with an investigation. Miami strike force (something like an organized crime task force) leader Eliot Rosen (Bob Balaban) initiates an investigation of Michael Gallagher in order to find out what happened to local labor leader Joey Diaz, who disappeared a few weeks prior. The investigation is not meant to find Diaz, as they have no evidence that Gallagher was involved, but to pressure Gallagher into helping the authorities. All they know is that Gallagher’s father was a mob leader who kept the longshoremen, the union Diaz led, out of Miami for years. In order to put the heat on Gallagher, Rosen leaks news of the investigation to a reporter, Carter, by giving her an opportunity to read an uncompleted file on the investigation. Carter does and without confirming the story, publishes it. This articles, and others, ruin Gallagher’s reputation. They induce the longshoremen who work for Gallagher to strike in support of their lost leader, and lead his best friend to kill herself. Needless to say the articles, which were based on an unconfirmed leak, do some serious damage.
The damage wrought by Carter’s sloppy reporting brings the point of the film into stark relief: when journalists use their immense power – the power to publish pieces of information which the public depend on – irresponsibly, people suffer. This is different than the current “News of the World” scandal unfolding in Britain. There, the paper did something outright illegal, bribing cops and hacking cell-phones, in “Absence of Malice,” everything Carter did was legal, it was just wholly irresponsible.
And that brings up the final and companion point the film hopes to make. That the law does not set out what should be done, only what must be done. Carter followed the law, but she was still wrong. In turn, journalists, a profession with the power to ruin lives, need to take that responsibility seriously and practice their profession with the utmost care and prudence. Only then, contrary to The Standard’s attorney, will the people who make up that democracy be served.
Sydney Pollack
Wednesday, July 13th, 2011By Chloe Sarnoff
Syndey Pollack is a cinematic icon. Over the course of his lifetime, he was a soldier, teacher, actor, writer, producer and Academy Award winning director. Mr. Pollack was born in Indiana, in the early 1930’s. His parents were Russian-Jewish immigrants and had absolutely nothing to do with the world of entertainment. As a young man, Mr. Pollack moved to New York to study acting, and even eventually taught acting, after he returned from fighting overseas. In one of his earliest films, War Hunt, Mr. Pollack acted alongside Robert Redford, and the two established a friendship that would last a lifetime. Robert Redford even starred in two of Mr. Pollack’s most successful movies, Out of Africa and The Way We Were. Out of Africa received eleven Academy Awards nominations and an astonishing seven awards, including Best Direction for Mr. Pollack’s work. Mr. Pollack also proved that he could give the audience a few laughs when he directed and acted in Tootsie, which received ten Academy Award nominations. Mr. Pollack went on to produce popular films like The Talented Mr. Ripley and Cold Mountain. Mr. Pollack is particularly interesting to the Forum because he directed the complex and thrilling film, Absence of Malice, which will be shown in our 2011 Forum Film Festival.
Innocent in the Eyes of the Jury
Tuesday, July 12th, 2011By Erica Zaragoza
It is the case that has captivated the hearts of people across the nation – the brutal, senseless murder of 2 year old Caylee Marie Anthony. I first heard about the trial from my best friend who, after one briefing of the evidence and facts, was completely enveloped in the story. There was not a single doubt in her mind that Casey Anthony had premeditated and executed the murder of her own daughter. This sentiment seemed to be the consensus among most people following the case. The evidence: Facebook and Twitter were buzzing with less than friendly remarks about the jurors, and Casey, once the verdict was read. Onlookers called them to the dumbest jury since the OJ Simpson trial. Why did a nobody, like Casey Anthony, cause such controversy in the media and pull the heart strings of America?
Was it the crime itself? Casey’s personality and seeming lack of remorse? A family in shambles? An adorable little girl? It may be a combination of it all. All that’s certain is the curiosity surrounding this case has yet to die down. Just last night I watched “Investigation Discovery: Casey Anthony: Behind the Verdict.” Now than ever, more people are questioning our justice system and its competence in prosecuting the guilty. Forum Director, Thane Rosenbaum, touches upon the concept that obvious guilt may not be able to stand trial against the reasonable doubt standard, in his Huffington Post article. As jurors entered a contentious environment, post verdict, they fervently tried to explain that they did their duty according to law, and thus had to acquit Casey Anthony. Individual jurors went to the media to make the distinction: no one said she wasn’t guilty, all we said was we couldn’t prove it.
Inconsistencies in Casey’s story – neglect to report a missing person for 31 days – stolen car that smelled like a dead body – partying – stealing money – internet searches of Chloroform – the evidence seemed to be mounting towards a guilty verdict for Casey Anthony. But, according to the jurors, the evidence directly linking Casey to the murder was simply not there. No eyewitness testimony – no forensic evidence, nothing conclusively stating “Casey Anthony is the mother who murdered her child.” And, simply put, the circumstantial evidence just could not hold up the house for a guilty verdict. Nothing directly implicated Casey Anthony as the murderer of her child, despite her various statements and wildly inconsistent behavior.
It’s been proven that pretrial publicity is a definite determinant in the outcome of a case, despite meticulous jury selection. However, photos of scantily clad Casey Anthony were plastered across news media in all forms proving that the law sometimes trumps exposure, and rightfully so. In a court of law, simply surmising guilt will just not cut it. No matter what side you fall on in this case, justice was done in the eyes of our system.
Farewell to “In the Arena”
Monday, July 11th, 2011By Chloe Sarnoff
Recently, CNN announced that Eliot Spitzer‘s show, “In the Arena” will be cancelled and replaced by “Anderson Cooper’s 360,” which will be moved into the 8pm time slot. Spitzer’s show has been around since October of 2010 and was originally entitled “Parker Spitzer,” and was co-hosted by Kathleen Parker. Parker was fired from the show when ratings proved to be less than desirable and the title was changed to “In the Arena”. Ratings are also to blame for CNN’s decision to cancel “In the Arena.” Unfortunately, Spitzer’s quick and interesting approach to his show seems to have been unable to appeal to a wide enough audience. The cancellation of “In the Arena” is a true loss to anyone and everyone who is able to appreciate the smart, thorough and insightful interviews that Spitzer held over the course of the past year. The Forum, who hosted Spitzer as a guest right as his show was beginning to air, will miss “In the Arena” and the inspiration that its content generated. Watch Mr. Spitzer discuss the birth of his show in an interview with Forum Director, Thane Rosenbaum below.
Eliot Spitzer Discusses “Parker Spitzer“ from Forum on Law, Culture & Society on Vimeo.
Or watch the Conversation on WFUV’s page. The station just replayed our Forum’s Conversation with Mr. Spitzer in the wake of “In The Arena” being cancelled. Click here.
Why We Watched
Monday, July 11th, 2011By Ben Falk
There are a few cases, that didn’t star a celebrity, which managed to catch our collective attention quite like Casey Anthony’s. Mary-Kay Letourneau’s trial is an example, but its weirdness (and its oddly happy ending) is probably the reason why we watched. The Oklahoma City Bombers’ trial is another, but the tragedy and magnitude of their crimes place it in a different category all together. Outside of those two, I just don’t know of another case that touched a nerve in quite the same way.
So the question remains: why? I imagine the pundits are correct, we watched because she was relatable, she seemed like one of us, and she led (so we thought) a fairly normal life. Perhaps, shockingly and horrifyingly, we saw some of ourselves in her.
Unfortunately however, when we watched Casey Anthony’s case as closely as we did we ended up not liking what we saw. The Forum’s Executive Producer, Thane Rosenbaum, explained in The Huffington Post that the Casey Anthony case demonstrated the difference between legal and moral justice. Yet while the trial may have produced a legally “just” result, we are still left morally outraged. And there lies, I think, the most convincing reason why we watched the trial so intently: we wanted vengeance, we wanted to feel superior, and we wanted to be a part of the punishment our justice system was supposed to enact.
Revenge is an ugly, uncomplicated, sometimes necessary emotion. We felt Casey Anthony did wrong and we wanted to watch our court system right it. And watching the trial and hoping for a guilty verdict was the closest each of us could get to getting revenge without breaking the law.
This blood lust would also explain our outrage at the verdict. We were deprived of revenge by the very system that was supposed to get it. But then there’s where we were wrong. Our legal system is not designed for revenge. Its goal is to look for truth, and when the truth is too hard to discern it would rather see a guilty person walk free than imprison someone innocent. And we are all better off because of it.
Nuclear Fusion & Wall Street: Money Never Sleeps
Monday, July 11th, 2011By Chloe Sarnoff
With the tremendous number of movies that hit the box office each year, comes a dire need for writers and directors to give the audience something they haven’t seen before. Whether it be a flying car, man-eating robot or antidote to a terrible disease, we go to the movies to be entertained and see a world that is different from our everyday lives. However, sometimes the seemingly impossible ideas we see on the screen are actually feasible. The New York Times just published an article describing the concept of nuclear fusion which appeared in Oliver Stone’s, Wall Street: Money Never Sleeps. To read this article click here. To learn more about Oliver Stone and his film, Wall Street: Money Never Sleeps, click here for the Forum’s take on the movie and the man behind it.
Can’t get enough of Casey Anthony?
Thursday, July 7th, 2011By Chloe Sarnoff
All anyone can talk about these days is Casey Anthony’s trial and the fact that she managed to achieve the impossible: get off scot free. This case has something for everyone. It has intrigue, suspicion, unanswered questions, and more drama than one article can handle. To help quench your thirst for more of the Casey Anthony trial, click here to read Forum Director, Thane Rosenbaum’s article in The Huffington Post.
© Forum on Law, Culture & Society / 140 West 62nd Street, New York, NY 10023 / tel 212.636.6945 / cultureforum@law.fordham.edu