By Robert Sanchez

All of the films selected for the Short Film Competition were excellent.  Three stood out in my mind.  Transgression offered us the story of Norma, a transgendered woman, who told an incredible, heart-wrenching story of her time in the American immigration system.  As a transgendered individual, she was isolated from the general population, placed in solitary confinement “for her own safety,” and even denied medical care.  Nora’s story was carefully crafted, moving, and insightful.  And it hammered home the point that we give civil detainees fewer rights than criminals.

My Piece of Happiness won the day with its story of a man’s journey with his young daughter.  The story was bittersweet, a day of ponies, beaches, and play overlaid with the frantic, concerned mother’s voicemails and reminders of the custody agreement.  This gem was well deserving of the three awards it walked away with – People’s Choice, Best Screenplay, and First Place.

Sweet Mosquito was beautifully shot, using a muted color pallet and slowly building the slightly absurd scenario.  I loved the pale blue uniforms and white pajamas used for the characters.

Little Tombstone featured intricate, stylized animated backdrops and gritty characters.  The showdown at high noon had an unexpected twist that definitely makes this short worth watching.

King’s River had the most interesting legal questions.  Virginia is not the only street with the odd rule that floating on a river in a canoe is legal while standing on the riverbed is trespassing.

Daisy Cutter was completely disturbing, as a commentary on the effect of war should be.  Most of this animated film was a slow, sad walk of a little girl who had lost a close friend.  Her mood improved dramatically when she was able to join her friend at the end of the film, a jarring image of the effects of war.

Schengen was an well-crafted, if frustrating, look at bureaucracy and the power imbalance in immigration situations.

Although the credits were longer than the entire film, Public Nuisance was a delightful bite.  The juxtaposition of state-of-the-art 1930′s technology with the modern classroom created a wonderful visual for the term public nuisance.

All in all a fantastic end to a wonderful film festival.

By Athena Savoglou

If you live or work anywhere in Manhattan, especially on or near the Upper West Side, you have heard the unspeakable tragedies that occurred this past week.  On Columbus Avenue and 75th Street, two small children, Leo and Lucia Krim, ages two and six, were viciously murdered by their nanny.  The children’s mother came home from work on Thursday to find her two babies dead on the bathroom floor, along with the nanny who was in the process of trying to take her own life as well.  The father of the family, who is an executive at CNBC, was out of state and got a flight back to New York when he heard what happened to his children.

The mother of the two children left their lives in the hands of a trusted close friend while she went to work.  That morning, she had no doubt in her mind that she would return home and find her babies safe and sound.  Upon returning home, she saw that her life was gone, forever changed.  The deaths that happened that day were not only the physical deaths of the two small children.  When the mother saw her two babies murdered, she died a spiritual death.  When the father heard his two babies were murdered, he died a spiritual death.  Each of them lost the most important part of their lives, which will never be returned.

The agony of the parents will not get better with time.  It may become dulled with years that go by, but their lives are forever soiled with the blood of their children, taken too soon, with no cause or explanation.  They will always wonder what their babies would have become—what they would have contributed to the world.  Would they have gotten married, had children of their own?  The mother was the writer of a blog, focused only on her children.  She loved her children so much, and she expressed it by recounting their daily lives.  This life she knew is dead and gone.

The nanny, who survived, will only be punished for the physical deaths she caused.  But, what about the spiritual deaths of the parents, and the one sibling who is left?  In our society, these spiritual slayings will go unpunished… but an entire family was slain that day.

By Claudia D.

Last night, the FOLCS film festival presented a screening of the 1933 Marx Brothers’ film Duck Soup, the iconic political farce that provides audiences with a satiric take on the absurdities of politics and war.  The nation of Freedonia has a new leader, Rufus T. Firefly, appointed by the wealthy widow Mrs. Teasdale as a condition for her continued financial support.  The ambassador of the nation of Sylvania aspires to take over Freedonia and employs spies to get any possible dirt on Firefly while trying to woo Mrs. Teasdale. Eventually, the two nations go to war and the anarchic battle results in Sylvania’s surrender as the Marx Brothers bombard him with fruit.

During his introduction of the film, the forum’s director Thane Rosenbaum noted that this evening was about the communal movie-watching experience audiences seldom get anymore, and the audience did in fact come together in roaring laughter during some of the film’s best known instances.  After the film, the audience was treated to a conversation with Dick Cavett, the host of The Dick Cavett Show, Groucho Marx’s personal friend, and, according to Rosenbaum, someone who embodies everything the Forum is about.

Cavett talked about Groucho as one of the greatest entertainers of all time because he had the greatest array of gifts of any comedian, including his comedic movement, timing and sensitivity, the tone with which he gave a line, and his rhythm.  He loved to sing, but the thing he loved the most was to write, and once said that of all the talents he had he’d rather be known for his writing.  Groucho was seemingly unaware of his popularity and the effect he had on people.  When Cavett introduced him at Carnegie Hall one night, he recalls that the most touching thing was seeing college kids come in droves, many dressed as the brothers and some who didn’t get in to the sold-out venue who were very content just to stay on the sidewalk outside knowing Groucho was in there.

One of the most poignant moments of the evening occurred when Cavett recalled a letter he received from Groucho’s daughter Miriam thanking him for writing the introduction to her father’s book of letters he wrote to her while she was away at college.  Cavett describes jumping down the page as if magnetically drawn to one of the last lines, where Groucho’s daughter wrote “You meant the world to my father.”  If one thing was clear at the end of the conversation, it was that Groucho also meant the world to Dick Cavett.

The two met at George S. Kaufman’s funeral.  Cavett worked at the Tonight Show and had been sent to the Blue Angel to scout a new comic named Woody Allen who mentioned he was going to the funeral.  Allen never showed, but Cavett went to the funeral and realized that Julius H. Marx was sitting four feet from him with a cigar looking like Groucho Marx.  Cavett made a point of catching him at the corner of 5th Avenue and 81st, going up to him and saying “I’m one of your biggest fans,” to which Marx responded “Well if it gets any hotter, I could use a big fan.” Dick Cavett observed and the rest of us in the audience had to agree: “Where do we get people like that today?”

By Max Herman

The film festival continued yesterday evening with a showing of the 1995 gangster film Clockers, directed by Spike Lee and written by Richard Price.

Following the film, the audience was treated to a discussion between Richard Price and Rich Cohen, writer of several gangster-focused books including Tough Jews. The discussion was moderated by forum director Thane Rosenbaum.

One of the first points of discussion was how the writer becomes familiar with an alien subculture, in this case the mid-90s Brooklyn projects. Mr. Price analogized his process to “look[ing] for rhythm and music in dialogue.” That it isn’t so much an active effort to write in that style, but rather it is that he immerses himself into the nuances of the subculture, much like improv or a method actor.

Interestingly, the first scene of the film centers on the central character and his cohorts participating in a animated discussion. However, between the nuances of the urban dialogue and the oppressively loud gangster music, it is impossible to understand what is being said. Instead, the audience must depend solely upon gesticulation to divine the content of the conversation- curious how the rhythm and music of the dialogue drown out its content.

The discussion then moved on to America’s long-time fascination with transgressors, from Jesse James to Don Corleone and Strike, the central character in Clockers. Richard Cohen noted that the gangster character embodies the ideology of, “these are your rules, not mine,” a rebuke against societal constraints. He went on to say that, “when you follow the rules your entire life, that [ideology] is quite a fantasy.” He elaborated further, stating that gangster stories are allegories “for how everything works,” referring to hierarchies, struggle and subjugation in American life, government, and business.

However, the most stimulating part of the discussion centered on Richard Price’s statement that, “If you are going to make a film about a drug dealer, you’d better show the consequences.” Mr. Price’s frustration with the “romanticization of psychopaths” was evident. Mr. Cohen showed his agreement when, as the discussion turned to Don Corleone’s famous disdain for the narcotics business, he replied, “It’s a myth, the real Corleone dealt in narcotics from the beginning.” Mr. Price elaborated on the notion, saying that it is irresponsible not to show the victims of crime, even where the film or the novel focuses on the criminal. He noted that where artists insert only “token” moments of criminal ramification, there is a failure to see the bigger picture and the realities of the criminal situation.

Spike Lee’s film pulls no punches when showing the full realities of the criminal situation. As it opens, the audience views a morbid slideshow – actual photos of the bodies of young men and women, mangled and breathless. What appear to be formerly ominous and threatening “clockers,” stare lifelessly into camera lenses. One can’t help but meditate upon the fact that those men and women had mothers and fathers. They had holidays, snow days, and first days of school. They were kids once.

By Fionna Sciame

It was another great evening at the Festival last night.  The film was excellent and the guests engaging.

The film, Good Night, And Good Luck, starring David Strathairn portrays an epic moment in journalistic history.  The film captures an authentic look at journalist Edward R. Murrow’s heroic exposure of Senator Joseph McCarthy’s extremist anti-Communist crusade.  This period of time, often referred to as the Red Scare, created a nationwide fear of radical leftists.  Everyone was a suspect and civil liberties no longer applied.  It was an aggressive political climate, where innocent United States citizens were ostracized by society, imprisoned without due process, and driven to suicide by fear.  It was a modern day witch-hunt – a time when anyone who dared question the McCarthy policies were instantly deemed a suspect.

Murrow and his CBS News “Boys” refused to surrender to the hype. He was a journalist through and through, and as a man of principle it was his duty to report the truth.  In his first defying broadcast, Murrow exposed the story of Milo Radulovich, a man dismissed from the Air Force because of his sister’s left leaning politics and his father’s subscription to a Serbian newspaper.  Murrow used raw footage of McCarthy’s irrational claims against Radulovich in order to expose the madness taking over Washington.   Murrow knew the consequences of such a broadcast, and yet he never faltered.  As anticipated, McCarthy responded to the broadcast by calling Murrow a Communist.  Even this was not enough to stop Murrow from continuing his efforts to expose the truth.  In the end, Murrow lost the battle, but he certainly won the war.

After the film, Thane Rosenbaum moderated a discussion with the Emmy-winning and Oscar-nominated star of the film, David Strathairn, Emmy-winning TV Correspondent for CBS News’ 60 Minutes, Bob Simon, and New York Times Urban Affairs Correspondent, Sam Roberts.  All agreed that this film depicts a truly transformative time in journalism history.  Murrow is considered by many to be the first television personality, although each member of the panel wondered whether someone like him could even survive in today’s newsroom climate.  Each of the guests compared Murrow’s broadcasts to today’s election coverage where shame is vastly overrated, and truth just doesn’t seem to matter anymore.  In Murrow’s day, fact-based journalism meant something.  Today broadcasting is merely a performance competition.

As the discussion continued, Rosenbaum made an interesting comparison – he suggested a parallel between Murrow and Atticus Finch, Harper Lee’s moral attorney in To Kill a Mockingbird.  Like Atticus, Murrow was part of a defining moment in history.  The stakes were high and the headwind exceedingly strong.  Yet Murrow, like Atticus, was determined to report the truth because he believed it was his moral obligation to do so, without regard to any reward or personal consequence.  Murrow, like Atticus, never faltered on this road to righteousness. Murrow once said, “American traditions and the American ethic require us to be truthful, but the most important reason is that truth is the best propaganda and lies are the worst.  To be persuasive we must be believable; to be believable we must be credible; to be credible we must be truthful. It is as simple as that.”

This film is a profound tribute to Murrow’s unwavering determination to report the news, to report the truth, and to do the right thing – a lost art among many journalists today.

“Good Night, And Good Luck.”

It was a Good Night for the Forum (actually an exceptional night), and Good Luck to us indeed, should we choose to take the road not often traveled and join Murrow’s remarkable journey towards truth and righteousness.

By Tova Friedman

In the past month there have been several stories of national interest centering on issues of free speech. One incident that received much media attention arose following the NFL Baltimore Ravens player, Brendon Ayanbadejo’s words of support for a Maryland ballot initiative that would legalize gay marriage. In response, Maryland state delegate Emmett C. Burns Jr. (also a minister) wrote a letter to Ravens owner Steve Bisciotti, that he found it “inconceivable that one of [his] players . . . would endorse same-sex marriage,” noting that “many of [his] fans are opposed to such a view and feel it has no place in a sport that is strictly for pride, entertainment, and excitement.” What I found most interesting is that he also urged Bisciotti to “inhibit such expressions from your employee.” (available at http://sports.yahoo.com/news/nfl–maryland-politician’s-letter-denouncing-brendon-ayanbadejo’s-support-of-gay-marriage.html).

            Burns’ comments not only reveal a great personal bigotry, but they also a general trend of public silencing of the right to freedom of speech (by just about anyone who disagrees) that has shown to accompany anyone who has a wide enough platform nowadays. Today, celebrities—actors, musicians, and athletes are given a greater a wider stage than ever to espouse their personal opinions to the world, on account of society’s increased utilization and the broad reach of the internet and social media. In the past, Bob Marley, Marvin Gaye, Bob Dylan, and Bruce Springsteen all wrote and publicly performed socio-politically-charged songs to conveying their personal beliefs, and no one objected. Today, however, songwriters are able to inject their personal belief into their music, but if you are hungry for more, you can always become a facebook fan or subscribe to their twitter feed, which enables the reach of a platform to a far greater audience.

            But with all that exposure, it is routinely (and hotly) contested—who is really doing the talking? Can certain celebrities be trusted to speak to the public on their own, or is it a PR person speaking on their behalf? Today, when a celebrity use the public spotlight they created with their own célèbre, they are routinely not able to simply speak their mind completely—rather their words are filtered by publicists and silenced by the crush of ‘political correctness.’  In today’s culture, having a wide platform to espouse your own views comes along with a politically-motivated filter. And lest someone say something offensive to any person (or group) who disagrees! It is typically followed by immediate retraction of the statements along with a public apology.

            In class, we have seen that the legal always trumps the moral, but the political sometimes trumps the legal. Burns wrote his letter to the Ravens owner, backed by an invisible constituency of angry football fans (perhaps, who consider themselves to be ‘the reasonable man’??) who were “appalled and aghast” by Ayanbadejo’s support of the legalization of gay marriage in his state. The delegate attempted to intimidate the Ravens as an institution, using his political power to force the moral man, Ayanbadejo, to retract statements made in favor for what he believes in.

            When Burns requested that the Ravens player’s freedom of expression be inhibited, it appears that the legal ultimately trumped the political here, when another professional football player Chris Kluwe of the Minnesota Vikings, spoke out even more virulently in support of the gay marriage bill, and against this sort of political silencing as rooted in every individual’s freedom of expression. (available at http://deadspin.com/5941348/they-wont-magically-turn-you-into-a-lustful-cockmonster-chris-kluwe-explains-gay-marriage-to-the-politician-who-is-offended-by-an-nfl-player-supporting-it). What is ultimately clear from this incident is that the moral, legal, and political operate in dissonance from each other. In the wake of Kluwe’s response letter to Burns, the NFL Players Association president and former Terrapins and Ravens cornerback, Domonique Foxworth, and Steelers linebacker LaMarr Woodley have also voiced their support for Ayanbadejo’s freedom of expression. If Burns cannot bear to hear an opinion that doesn’t match his own, maybe he does not have a place in politics.  He must appreciate that every individual, regardless of whether they have the platform and ability to sway public opinion, has the right to freedom of speech under the First Amendment—and the Maryland legislator must come to terms with the fact that although this might not be the “moral” outcome (at least in his eyes), it is the legal one.

By Danique Lammerts van Bueren

Francesco Rosi’s The Truce is based on Primo Levi’s second book ‘La Tregua’, in the United States know as ‘The Reawakening.’

The film starts where most movies about the Holocaust stop, at the liberation of the camps. It describes Primo Levi’s journey trying to find his way back to Turin (Italy) after being liberated from Auschwitz by the Russians. But it is not just a movie about the practical difficulties of finding a way back home in a destroyed Europe. It shows the journey of a man ‘gradually returning to life’, the journey of a man’s reawakening. After having survived the horrors of Auschwitz you see Primo Levi, played by John Turturro, rediscovering the joy of music, the beauty of nature and his ability to laugh. But you also see a man who wants to tell his story to people but they refuse to listen. A man who protects a girl even though she ‘collaborated’ with the Germans. And a man trying to deal with his former suppressors. You ultimately see a man reclaiming his sense of self.

After the screening Professor Thane Rosenbaum introduced John Turturro, Emmy-winning actor and star of The Truce, and Elie Wiesel, recipient of the 1986 Nobel Peace Prize, author of numerous books, including Night, and a good friend of Primo Levi. The discussion that followed focused on the difficult task a director faces when turning a novel into a screenplay, the loss of details, artistic liberties and how it is simply impossible to capture the horrors of Auschwitz on film. It also focused on the suicide of Mr. Levi. A man known for his positivism, who wrote about life affirming things, in the end committed suicide. Both Mr. Turturro as Mr. Wiesel gave incredible insights in the life of Primo Levi and his final act.

But for me the most striking part of the discussion was the story of Mr. Wiesel. Mr. Wiesel and Primo Levi actually lived in the same barrack in Auschwitz, but did not know each other. ‘Because’, as Mr. Wiesel pointed out, ‘Levi was important, he was a chemist and I was a teenage boy.’ A teenage boy who, like most Holocaust survivors, was all by himself with nowhere to go after being liberated, while Primo Levi returned to Turin where he was welcomed by his mother and sister. Mr. Wiesel’s story is impossible to describe in just a few words and any attempt will not only fail, but will be an insult to the importance of his story. I however can say that I found it an incredible honor to listen to Mr. Wiesel’s story.

Like Mr. Turturro said, when speaking of his first day of filming on the Auschwitz set: ‘When you are standing behind the barbed wire, you feel that it is impossible to understand the experience, because you are ultimately free.’ I think Mr. Turturro is right, but I would like to add that even though we may never understand, telling these stories makes sure we will never forget.

By James McEvoy

“If I don’t make a dent in this world, then all I am is a merchant of despair,” noted Eugene Jarecki, writer and director of the documentary “The House I Live In.”  The documentary, which aired last night at the Forum on Law, Culture & Society Forum Film Festival, explores the failures of America’s war on drugs through discussions with inmates, prison guards, journalists, and professors.  It also examines the war through Jarecki’s personal connections, namely his “second mother”, Nanny Jetter, who lost her son to AIDS brought on through heroin abuse.

As such, David Denby, film critic for the New Yorker, remarked during the post-screening discussion that Jarecki’s ability to provide a social analysis ,while showing just how deeply the war on drugs has impacted families, really held the documentary together.  Further, Fordham Law Professor Deborah Denno praised Jarecki’s ability to handle such a complex subject, identifying that in the two-hour documentary, Jarecki shows the legal, social, political, economic, and cultural effects of forty years of drug policy.

While the film offered many insights into America’s tumultuous drug policies, Jarecki pointed out one in particular.  Throughout the filming Jarecki became friends with “Larry the Neo Nazi,” an inmate who killed a man during a drug deal gone bad.  In the film, Larry states, “Prison is the best thing that ever happened to me.”  Jarecki contrasted Larry with Mike Carpenter, a prison guard who, though he states that he loves his job, compares America’s drug polices to a class discrimination war with parallels to Nazi Germany.

Moments like these, Jarecki said, could have derailed a documentary in which Jarecki hoped to show the hopelessness of those incarcerated by the war on drugs, and the mercilessness of those in charge of keeping them locked up.  Instead, however, such moments lead us to see a dark truth, providing a deeper insight into just how screwed up our drug policy is.  When the overseer recognizes the system’s futility, yet the prisoner welcomes it, Jarecki said, something is just not right.

By Katie Klamann

Fordham Law’s Forum Film Festival opened on Friday night with the first episode of the HBO miniseries, John Adams.

The film took us through the beginning of John Adams’ involvement with the revolutionary movement. It depicted Adams as a struggling lawyer who is given the opportunity to defend the British officers involved in the Boston Massacre. With Atticus Finch-like dedication to the law, Adams proves they acted in self-defense and they are acquitted. Afterward, Adams is reluctant to join the revolutionary cause until the Crown issues the Coercive Acts. The episode concludes, four years after it began, with Adams riding out of Boston on his way to represent Massachusetts as a delegate to the Continental Congress.

Just as interesting as the film itself, was the discussion after the screening.  Second Circuit Judge (and Fordham Law alum) Denny Chin and screenwriter of John Adams, Kirk Ellis, joined the Forum, with the discussion facilitated by Professor Thane Rosenbaum.  Mr. Ellis’ startling array of knowledge and insight into the revolutionary period was fascinating.  He shared numerous examples and excerpts from original documentary evidence from the period, even revealing that one scene, the scene in which Abigail Adams is reading over John’s summation, was taken from a similar exchange between himself and his wife.  Judge Chin’s knowledge of the period and the man (John Adams) was also pretty surprising. Additionally, he acted as a great bridge to dealing with modern day political heat, as he discussed his sentencing of one of the most despised men in New York, Bernie Madoff. When asked if his 150-year sentencing of Mr. Madoff was influenced at all by public pressure, Judge Chin replied that he felt the pressure but his decision was ultimately symbolic.  He believed a sentence of 150 years reflected the egregious nature of Mr. Madoff’s crime.

All in all, the night was a great success and the Forum Film Festival kicked off its seventh year with an inspiring depiction of one of our country’s most famous and beloved figures, a “man of the law”, John Adams.

By Hannah F.
Since Mayor Bloomberg has taken office, he has imposed new restrictions aimed at making New Yorkers healthier.  This includes a smoking ban in all restaurants, stores, parks, and beaches, restrictions on vending machines in schools, and the banning of trans-fats at all restaurants.  The latest target of his health crusade is the size of large sugary beverages in New York City.  New York City’s Board of Health passed a rule banning super-sized sugary drinks, defined as over 16-ounces.  The ban will not only affect New York City restaurants, but also concession stands, fast-food chains, office cafeterias, theaters, and delis.  However, 16-ounce and larger sugary beverages will still be sold in New York City’s supermarkets and convenience stores.

Proponents of the ban argue that as New Yorkers, and a larger American society, we are suffering from an epidemic of diabetes, heart disease, and obesity.  Mayor Bloomberg supporters might also argue that while the public had qualms about the cigarette ban initially, it has proven to be very popular amongst New Yorkers in the long run and it has even served as a model throughout the country and the world.  Furthermore, many New Yorkers have cited that as Mayor Bloomberg purposefully raised the taxes on cigarettes, from about one dollar a pack to about ten dollars a pack, this was a motivating factor in their decision to quit smoking because the cost simply became too prohibitive.

Is Mayor Bloomberg now banning sugary drinks over 16-ounces in the hopes that it will have a similar effect on soda lovers/ obese New Yorkers outside of restaurants and other public eating spaces? Perhaps, Mayor Bloomberg’s logic is that if a New Yorker cannot drink a soda over 16-ounces in a restaurant, then maybe, when that same New Yorker goes home, he will no longer crave a super-sized sugary beverage and in the long run, he will even swear off sugary drinks entirely.  While this may be wishful thinking in the short term, Mayor Bloomberg supporters would argue that the cigarette ban and increased tax had such an effect on smoking New Yorkers and that it is about time that the New York City Board of Health take bold action to fight diabetes and obesity.  For the time being, however, New Yorkers are left to ponder the deeper implications of this new health initiative without yet knowing for sure if it will result in improved public health.   Yet even if the new law is effective in reducing obesity, New Yorkers must ask themselves whether the benefits of this new health initiative are still worth the sacrifices in individual choice and self-control?

The initiative also begs the question of whether the sugary drink ban is taking the nanny-state to a whole new level.  On Friday, October 12, the American soft-drink industry joined forces with New York restaurants and businesses to file suit against the Mayor’s proposal. In the suit, the plaintiffs charge that the Board of Health, which approved the Mayor’s soft-drink ban unilaterally in September 2012, did not have the requisite authority to do so.

More interesting than this legal technicality is the larger question of why otherwise law-abiding adults would no longer be able to choose the size of their soft drinks at New York City restaurants?  This also leads to two other important questions: (1) At what point has Mayor Bloomberg gone too far with his regulations? (2) At what point should individual responsibility/autonomy take precedence?