This year’s Forum Film Festival was a great success. To read about it, check out this coverage in a number of the country’s top publications:
The Economist on “Too Big To Fail.”
The New York Times’ Dealbook on “Wall Street.”
The New York Law School’s Law and Journalism Blog on “Kramer vs. Kramer” and “Wall Street.”
The Forward and The Tablet on “Daniel.”
Capital on “Absence of Malice.”
By Graham Amodeo
With the release of a Blu-Ray version of 12 Angry Men, it is worth revisiting this film, which was part of last year’s Forum Film Festival. U.S. Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor even said that this film had an incredible influence (click on the link and scroll down to her video) on her legal career.
Sidney Lumet’s 12 Angry Men presents an interesting example of the points at which the law and morality diverge. The divergence occurs in what one might think would be an unlikely location: a jury deliberation room. In the film 12 strangers, pressed into public service as jurors, attempt to decide the fate of a young man who is accused of murdering his father. In the process, a legally “correct” result (12 jurors agreeing as to guilt or innocence) nearly results in a moral travesty, until the morally righteous (and nameless, until the very end of the film) protagonist intervenes.
Initially, all but one of the jurors have convinced themselves that the defendant is guilty, despite clearly having failed to weigh the evidence, being preoccupied with other matters, and allowing prejudice to guide their decision making. The nameless protagonist, portrayed by Henry Fonda, demonstrates considerable moral courage by insisting to his colleagues that they take the time to weigh the evidence properly, even as the crowd urges a quick verdict of guilty so that they can proceed with more important things (such as that night’s ball game).
If we assume that the law-school notion of the “reasonable man” test is accurate, and thus that in a given group of people, the majority of them will behave reasonably, then 12 Angry Men illustrates that the staple of law school torts classes is indeed a low bar to satisfy.
In this jury deliberation room, the majority of the people are arguably acting “reasonably” in that they are performing the task assigned to them with minimum effort. Only Fonda’s character, however, is willing to do the morally right thing; to thoroughly examine all the evidence to try to determine what happened on the night in question. In fact, Fonda’s character’s insistence on doing the right thing elicits complaints from his colleagues and suggestions that he is being UN-reasonable.
Of course, in a moral sense, Fonda’s character is the only one being reasonable, by refusing to convict a defendant based on flimsy evidence and prejudice, or at the very least, attempting to thoroughly delve into the case to determine the truth. Luckily for the defendant in this case, Fonda’s character is able to convince his cohorts to follow his lead. How often are similar scenes repeated in jury deliberation rooms, and how many times is a morally righteous individual absent?
By 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.
By Erica Zaragoza
Representative Anthony D. Weiner, a rising star of the Democratic Party, from New York, announced Thursday he would be resigning in the wake of his lewd photo scandal. The salacious activities that have enveloped men of power, on both sides of the isle, have left party leaders with no choice but to denounce personal behavior that negatively effects the reputation of the offices they hold. The moratorium on detrimental personal activities was meant to weed out the disingenuous and corrupt on Capitol Hill.
Being a constituent of Weiner, living only blocks away from his apartment, I had the opportunity to see both sides of the controversy surrounding the Congressman. Many members of my community were outraged that House Dem. leasers Nancy Pelosi and Debbie Wasserman Schultz made public statements urging Weiner to step down immediately. Many of his constituents believe Weiner has precipitated a series of positive changes for Queens and Brooklyn, and that he would continue to fight for those who elected him. The polarization that has subsequently ensued between those who think he should remain our Representative in Congress, and those who believe elected officials should compose themselves with proper decorum at all times caused the dichotomy that may have just ended Weiner’s political career–but is it salvageable?
Bill Clinton, Jim McGreevy, John Edwards, Eliot Spitzer, Arnold Schwarzenegger, Anthony Weiner…these names come to mind without more than a minute of reminiscing on political power houses who engaged in inappropriate relationships that jeopardized their family lives, and abused the offices they held. There is always a public apology followed by a request to respect the family’s privacy. I sincerely hope in the wake of this latest scandal our elected officials learn to respect the American people and serve our governement with integrity.
When Director of the Forum, Thane Rosenbaum, interviewed Eliot Spitzer at A Conversation with Eliot Spitzer, Spitzer referred to his indiscretions as “benching himself.” Well aware of the repercussions the urge just seems to be out of their control at times.
So, with the right counseling, private family time, and rehabilitation can these men regain their credibility with the American people? There was a time when unmarried politicians couldn’t make it big, or divorcee’s were unwelcomed on the political scene. Now people don’t think twice about how many times Newt Gingrich was married, so have we turned a new page in American society where men who betray our trust can be allowed back into the political arena? Gingrich later confessed that as he sat for the impeachment trial of Bill Clinton, he himself was being unfaithful to his wife. Are we more inclined as an educated electorate to forgive people who make mistakes, but hold an immediate public repentance?
At the Thursday news conference Weiner said, “I am announcing my resignation from Congress, so my colleagues can get back to work, my neighbors can choose a new representative and most important so that my wife and I can continue to heal from the damage I have caused.” How much more damage will be caused by powerful men who abuse their positions?
Only time will tell what happens to this embattled congressman.
Memories from the Forum
Sidney Lumet died Saturday at the age of 86 (see New York Times obituary).
Clip from the Conversation with Sidney Lumet and Tom Fontana.
Clip from the Forum Film Festival with Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor.
See New York Times coverage of Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor at the Forum Film Festival.
Photo of Sidney Lumet at the Forum’s first Conversation with Tony Kushner and E.L. Doctorow.
Photos of Sidney Lumet as the Forum’s Conversation guest (also pictured, Tom Fontana).
Film of Sidney Lumet with Thane Rosenhaum at the 92nd Street Y.
Why Sidney Lumet Fought the Law
April 11, 2011
By Thane Rosenbaum
Legendary New York film director, Sidney Lumet, who had been nominated for five Academy Awards before winning one for lifetime achievement in 2005, died this past Saturday at the age of 86.
He directed over 50 films and another 200 teleplays during Television’s Golden Age in the 1950s, but for many he will be remembered most for his iconic films about the legal system: “12 Angry Men,” “The Verdict,” “Daniel,” “Find Me Guilty” “Night Falls On Manhattan,” along with his television series, “100 Centre Street.”
Read the full article at: http://blogs.wsj.com/speakeasy/2011/04/11/why-sidney-lumet-fought-the-law/
Sidney Lumet: The Prince of New York City
April 12, 2011
By Thane Rosenbaum
Sidney Lumet died this past weekend. By now, with news cycles spinning like centrifuges, Lumet’s death will soon be old news. That would be a shame. This is one of those losses that should linger for a little while longer, and surely not be forgotten.
This is actually my second Sidney Lumet remembrance. Sidney Lumet was my friend, and that’s what friends do for each other, especially when one of them is gone.
Read the full article at: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/thane-rosenbaum/sidney-lumet-a-remembrance_b_847866.html
Full-length Conversation with Sidney Lumet and Tom Fontana.
I thought the conversation with Dylan McDermott last night was a great event and huge success.
I wanted to share an observation briefly on the conversation itself. I thought there was an interesting change that happened relatively early into the program. For the first 5-10 minutes it seemed very much like you were interviewing Dylan McDermott the television and film star. That conversation had certain limitations for the forum (Forum) you were in. He came across as a man with little to say. But then Dylan McDermott the artist showed up and everything changed very quickly. Suddenly he appeared as a man who thought deeply about the world and his place in it. The moment in the conversation that it happened was when he invoked his trip to the Congo. After that exchange his answers began to explore the ideas that one would associate with the Forum and with a man who is dedicated to exploring the human condition through his art and craft. I imagine it is a credit to your interviewing skills that you were able to coax the artist out. But I suspect that the interviewee must have sensed on some level that the audience was eager to meet the artist, after having had a few minutes with the famous person from TV. We were lucky to be there when he decided to engage on a deeper level, and I am sure he is constantly walking a fine line between keeping his guard up and allowing the public to see a bit of who he really is. I suspect there is an interesting transcript floating around somewhere in his head of the negotiation he went through with himself before he introduced the subject of genocide into the conversation. After that, there was no looking back.
Peter Rossi
I just wanted to thank you for the wonderful Dylan McDermott program last night. It was my first Forum event, and I hope to attend many more from now on.
The interview was quite illuminating, and the clips reminded me of how brilliant
the writing was on The Practice, which managed to crystallize the best arguments on both sides of a pressing social issue, using powerful dialectic dialogue and scintillating closing argument monologues.
I think I can speak for all in attendance in saying that it was a very enjoyable and enlightening event!
Dana M
As the public’s fascination with the law and judicial process increases so does the curiosity to study those legal films thought to exhibit the quintessential trials and tribulations of the legal profession. The ABA Journal satisfied this curiosity, in 2008, when it published its top 25 greatest law films ever made. The Forum on Law Culture and Society complements our culture’s inquiry by featuring pertinent legal films during the annual Forum Film Festival at Fordham Law. The Forum and ABA Journal are definitely in agreement about the existential appeal that exists to the drama, morality, curiosity, and honorable side of lawyers. Many heads despondently shake when “lawyer” and “honorable” are used in the same sentence, but alas, the legendary Atticus Finch from To Kill a Mockingbird, nominated by the ABA Journal as the best classic legal film ever produced, and the Forum’s 2007 feature movie. Atticus Finch depicts a morally sound lawyer fighting for unadulterated justice free of prejudice for his client. Since 2006, the Forum has featured 30 films depicting the transformative power of the law. From Atticus Finch to Vincent Gambini, My Cousin Vinny, different characters have demonstrated various aspects of the law that has intrigued the interest of consumers.
However, the real question here is…does the Film Festival at Fordham Law hit the mark according to the ABA Journal when choosing films considered classics?
(In rank order)
1. To Kill a Mockingbird – check.
2. 12 Angry Men – check.
3. My Cousin Vinny – check.
4. Anatomy of a Murderer – check.
8. Philadelphia – check.
9. Erin Brockovich – check.
12. Judgment at Nuremberg – check.
17. The Paper Chase – check.
18. Reversal of Fortune – check.
20. And Justice for All – check.
22. A Civil Action – check.
24. Amistad – check.
I think it’s safe to say the Film Festival has done an exceptional job representing the most classic legal films of all time.
For the complete list of 25 visit: http://www.abajournal.com/magazine/article/the_25_greatest_legal_movies/
The Film Festival at Fordham Law combines classic legal films while still reflecting the ever-changing culture by featuring new documentaries.
For a complete list of all the films shown at the Film Festival visit:
http://www.forumonlawcultureandsociety.org/film-festival/2010
-Erica Zaragoza
Author: Michael Cromer
The Parker Spitzer show has posted weak numbers since the show’s start
in October 2010. While CNN hoped the numbers would improve, the
Parker Spitzer show is only averaging 468,000 viewers. At the same 8
PM time slot that Parker Spitzer airs, Fox News is averaging 2.6
millions viewers and MSNBC is averaging 874,000 viewers.
Interestingly, while Parker was out for a week due to a lung
infection, the overall viewership for the Parker Spitzer show doubled.
Although the turmoil in Egypt may have had to do with the increase in
viewership, this was without a doubt the show’s strongest viewership
since it launched in October. There can be no denying that the
numbers have increased since Parker’s absence and there has been much
speculation that CNN may be looking for a replacement.
It seems to me that it’s time to make a change with the Parker Spitzer
show. In order to keep up with the other 8 PM time slots, CNN needs to
replace Parker and give a spark to the struggling program. The
numbers were there when Spitzer ran the show by himself and if CNN is
able to find a solid replacement for Parker, this program should have
a chance of doing well.
If you would like to see how well spoken and interesting Eliot Spitzer
can be, this video of Eliot Spitzer and Thane
Rosenbaum during the last Forum Conversation.
A Conversation with Eliot Spitzer from Fordham Law School on Vimeo.
WWD.com covered Jack Kevorkian’s appearance at the Fordham Law Film Festival.
The full article follows or you can read it here.
“You never think you’re going to get old until you’re old.”
Kind of a curious statement coming from Jack Kevorkian, as he teetered down a flight of stairs at the HBO Theater recently for the Fordham Law Film Festival. But however diminishing his balance might be, his right-to-die crusade hasn’t waned one bit.
In fact, the man who estimated 125 to 130 people killed themselves with his euthanasia devices is now questioning why there are so many living beings here to begin with. His latest book, “When the People Bubble POPs” tackles overpopulation, but not from the human aspect, “from nature’s aspect. That’s what counts — nature — not us, not we.”
Even at 82, Kevorkian demonstrates he is still prone to shouting, finger-pointing and pressing on the arms of a chair to lift his legs from a seat to make a point. However, when not riled by a question, Kevorkian is affable as can be, self-conscious about his grammar and apologetic for not wearing a tie. Dressed in a sky blue cashmere sweater, dark blue suit and black thick rubber-soled shoes, he whispers, “I hope it’s OK I didn’t wear a tie. I think it’s a silly custom,” as a photographer fires away.
Watching as a reporter leafs through his three books, he says, “Boy, look at the number of trees that I’m guilty of destroying.” Having served eight years and two months of a 10- to 25-year prison sentence, Kevorkian is more than willing to speak his peace. During an interview with WWD Eye Scoop, he sounds off on all sorts of subjects. Fans of his art can view his paintings at the Armenian Library and Museum of America’s “The Doctor is Out: The Art of Jack Kevorkian” exhibition outside of Boston.
Here, a few of his views:
“Everyone always asks how much money I made on the film. I didn’t have anything to do with it. But I like Pacino. He’s a nice guy, down-to-earth….For the movie, the London Symphony Orchestra performed a flute duet I composed — part of it is so sad it sounds like a funeral dirge. You play that at a wake or something, and it will bring tears to your eyes.”
“If you’re creative and you know you’re not a criminal, prison isn’t that tough to take. It’s tough, but not that tough. Boring — boring and snoring.
“I served more time than any of the guys in Washington who are really criminals. That’s because that’s how much they hated me. I can see why. I did what [Henry David] Thoreau and [Nelson] Mandela did and that bothers these tyrants of ours. We’re all in a tyranny, but people don’t know it because you’re comfortable. They make sure you’re comfortable. Look at all the amusements we have — soccer, football, television — they make sure people’s minds are not on something important.”
“We’re still in the Dark Ages, but we’re headed for real Dark Ages. This economic downturn is just a touch of it. They call it a recession — they know darn well it’s a depression. You just don’t see people selling apples on street corners. That’s all.”
“It’s being done wrong. A doctor can’t do it. That’s like saying birth, no, you can’t have a doctor at birth. How far would that get?”
“The Ninth Amendment said you have all the natural rights. Susan B. Anthony and the Women’s Movement went through all that hell for nothing.”
“I’ll top that. King George V…If it’s good enough for the king, why isn’t it good enough for the garbage collector, which, by the way, are pretty similar, the king and the garbage collector.”
“Wake the people up. I’m recommending a revolution. Talking to the right people anywhere [will help.] I stop on the street, if people ask me a question.”
“It’s your business. But obviously how can I believe something, when I’m a scientist? I don’t believe in mythology. I believe in reality, nature. That’s why we’re in a mess in this world and that’s why we’re killing this earth, and the planet and all the animals. And why we’re so greedy and everyone lies so much. Everybody lies all the time.”
“Actually, I don’t lie, either. But every once in a while if you don’t want to hurt someone’s feelings, you do say a little lie. It’s got to be a prudent lie, a reasoned lie, not to win a selfish point but it’s for the other person. That’s benevolent.”
“I call myself a radical. Everyone thinks that implies violence. They don’t know what the word means, because they never look in the dictionary. Radical means you get to the root of a problem. That’s why radishes are called radishes.”
“Who cares? The thing is an embryo, isn’t a living human and it doesn’t matter. You’re going to throw it away anyway. Where’s the problem? Religion.”
“I think a vote is silly. Thoreau said that. People think they’re doing something when they’re voting — they’re not. It’s all prearranged. You should know that. That’s how they keep you controlled. You think you’re doing something. William Penn, now you know he was a nice guy, he was a Quaker and a lawyer. He said let the people think they govern and they will be governed.”
I saw 12 Angry Men for the fourth or fifth time at the Fordham Law Film
Festival. Oddy, this was the first time that prompted me to think about how
differently the deliberations might have gone had the jury been partially made
up of women, or even all women. Perhaps in the past I had taken for granted the
fact that in the1950’s, when the film was made, it was par for the course that
juries would be comprised of men. Indeed, during the discussion after
the screening, Justice Sotomayor noted that in recent history, women could
excuse themselves as jurors simply because they were female.
If the jury had been co-ed, would the result have been different? Would the vote
have broken down along gender lines?It is hard to say, especially since it would
be important to take the traditional gender roles of the 1950’s into account.
Would the women have been more sympathetic to the defendant? Would they have
empathized with his difficult upbringing? Or, would they have been subservient
to the views of the men and been easily convinced to vote guilty? Further, how
would the men on the jury have reacted to the women? I wonder if the fair
exchange of ideas (when the men took turns around the table expressing their
opinions) would have taken place at all. These questions clearly play into the
stereotypical views of men and women, but considering the time period in which
the movie takes place, they are likely somewhat relevant.
And what about a jury comprised entirely of women? Would any of them have taken
on any of the same roles played by the men in the movie? This hypothetical
reminds me of the traditional arguments in favor of single-sex education for
women: without men in the picture, women are more free to take on any role,
whether gender-normative or not. Perhaps, then, a room full of twelve women may
have operated similarly to Lumet’s room of 12 men.
A. Wyllie
