Blog Seven. The Andersonville Trial (1970). Due by 9 PM.

From the original Broadway production starring George C. Scott who directed the television production above and that we are watching:

Richard Basehart as Capt. Henry Wirz and William Shatner as Col. Norton Chipman

Jack Cassady as Defense Counsel Otis Baker and Wirz

Cameron Mitchell as General Lew Wallace

Camp Sumter aka Andersonville Prison, Andersonville GA

An Andersonville survivor

Graves of Union prisoners at Andersonville National Cemetary

A recreation of how the prisoners lived at Andersonville National Historic Site

 Director: George C. Scott
Writer: Saul Levitt
Telecast on PBS 17 May 1970

Lt. Col. Norton P. Chipman...William Shatner
Maj. General Lew Wallace...Cameron Mitchell
Capt. Henry Wirz...Richard Basehart
Otis Baker...Jack Cassady

Andersonville has become the representation of the mistreatment of prisoners during the Civil War. According to the oracle—Wikepedia—13,000 of the 45,000 Union prisoners held there died of scurvy, diarrhea, and dysentery.  Over 30,000 Union soldiers died in captivity in Confederate prisons while almost 26,000 Confederate prisoners died in Union prisons. Henry Wirz, born in Switzerland, was one of the very few soldiers on either side to be tried for war crimes.

 First: READ Dan's essay on the film.

1. I know this is slow going—it's truly a filmed play—but nonetheless, what moment or scene in today's viewing stayed with you—and why?

2. Col. Chipman vs.Otis  Baker. What do you think of the courtroom opponents? Who do you think is the better advocate and why?

3. I asked in class which of these two have made a better case for their cause. Those of you who talked mostly said Otis Baker. As Avery pointed out, the production puts us in the position of being the jury. So as the prosecution almost finishes its presentation, what would be your verdict at this point? And why?

4. "I was just following orders." How is that for a defense for a soldier, whose job is to...follow orders? Explain your answer.

5. What's a legal—or moral or ethical—question you would like to talk about tomorrow with Dan back from Africa?

I heard some of you laughing at Chipman's dramatics toward the end of the viewing. Well, William Shatner has built a fifty years and more career based on his unique acting style. His Chipman is actually restrained compared to his time on the original Star Trek that ended the year before. Here he is at his most Shatneresque.

See you all tomorrow.  Be sure to welcome Dan back warmly.

Blog Six. The Accused (1988). Due Monday by 9PM.

Director: Jonathan Kaplan
Screenplay: Tom Topor
Released: 14 October 1988
Budget: $6 million
Box Office: $37.7 million

ADA Kathryn Murphy...Kelly McGillis
Sarah Tobias...Jodie Foster (Academy Award Best Actress)
Kenneth Joyce...Bernie Coulson
DA Paul Rudolph...Carmen Argenziano

"I never got to tell nobody nothing. I don't get it. I thought you were on my side. Why'd you do that?"

As I said in class The Accused is loosely based on a real incident that took place in New Bedford, MA, in 1983.  As the oracle says, "the most [prison time] any of the [four] men [convicted] served was 6 1/2 years." This is the second time I've seen the film and it made me much sadder than it did the first time. Maybe I should feel angry—which intellectually I do, given the struggles Sarah Tobias has in the film to be heard and the way her suffering and the crime she endured are so easily belittled because the DA doesn't think they can win the case; but more than anger I felt immensely sad about this young woman and what she had to go through. The film does a great job—or should we say Jodie Foster does a great job—of making us see this young woman as an person worth caring for—as a person we have to care for.

1. Your reaction to the film? What moment or scene stuck with you—and why?

2. This is the first time since Law and Order that we are seeing the case through the eyes of the prosecution, starting with the DA who is reluctant to bring the case to trial.  So what do you think of the prosecution and the way it initially decides how to handle Sarah's rape? Do you agree with their decision? Does it make sense? Explain your answers.

3. The defense.  Think about what Mike Jacobs said yesterday about being a defense attorney: his job is to serve his client, not to judge them.  So what do you think about the defense attorneys we see here? Can you see them the way Mike described their job—serving the Constitution and ensuring that everyone gets a competent defense?  Or do you see them another way? Or are you conflicted? Explain your answers.

4. What did this movie make you feel about our justice system?

5. What questions would you like to ask Ashleigh Merchant, the attorney who will be in class Wednesday, about what you saw in this film—or any other question you have for her?

Kelly McGillis, Jonathan Kaplan, and Jodie Foster

See you Tuesday.

Blog Five. Primal Fear (1996).

"On my first day of law school, my professor says two things. First was: from this day forward, when your mother tells you she loves you, get a second opinion [....] If you want justice, go to a whorehouse. If you wanna get fucked, go to court."
—Martin Veil (Richard Gere)

How can you defend these people? Criminal defense lawyers hear this all the time.
—Dan from his essay on the film (PLEASE READ IT)

Director: Gregory Hoblit
Screenplay: Steve Shagan, Ann Biderman, based on the novel by William Diehl
Released: 3 April 1996
Budget: $30 million
Box Office: $102.6 million

Martin Veil...Richard Gere
Janet Venable (the prosecuter)...Laura Linney
Roy/Aaron Stampler...Edward Norton
Judge Shoat...Alfre Woodard
Dr. Molly Arrington...Frances McDormand
Tommy Goodman (Martin's investigator)...Andre Braugher
Naomi Chance (Martin's assistant)...Maura Tierney
John Shaughnessy (the District Attorney)...John Mahoney

Who saw that ending coming—besides Anna Claire who watched it last night?  I'm not sure how "realistic" this movie is, but it sure was entertaining. I know I believed Judge Shoat; I believed Janet the prosecutor—smart and tough and able to resist the charms of Martin (and stressed—I think that was what all her smoking was about). Aaron and Martin...that's another story. So:

1. From our discussions and reading and viewings so far, what struck as "real" in this movie (without talking about Martin)?  Why? What struck you as "unreal"(again, without talking about Martin)—and why?

2. Martin Veil...he's almost a cliche, a stereotype—the hot shot defense attorney in expensive suits driving an expensive car who will defend mobsters and clergy murderers (alleged clergy murderers, that is). He is a long way from Frank Galvin and Vinny Gambini. He's slick and smart and too good looking for his own good.  So do you believe him as a real attorney?  Or is he too much a stereotype? Explain your answer.

3. Let's go back to The Paper Chase. Some of you argued that Kingsfield is preparing his students for being lawyers—Dan made a case that law school prepares you to know the law—not necessarily the same thing perhaps. Martin obviously went to law school. So imagine he was one of the quiet students in Kingsfield's class. Do you see anything from Kingsfield's class in Martin—is what we see Kingsfield teach or model for his students appear in any way, shape, or form in Martin Veil?

4. Finally: what question or questions did this movie bring up for you that Mike Jacobs could answer tomorrow?

See you all then.

Blog Four. The Verdict. Due by 9 PM.

1. Why do you think the jury found in favor of Frank? Given what you have seen in the film, would you have found for him—or gone with Concannon?

2. To the disappointment of some of you, the settlement is never stated—how much money they want the hospital to pay Doneghys. What do you think would have been a fair and just settlement? And why?

3. You're accused of murder: do you hire the Frank Galvin we see win the case or the super duper team of Ed Concannon?  Why?

4. Finally: what question(s) would you want to ask Mike Jacobs, who will talk with us on Thursday, based on your viewing of The Verdict?

Here's a positive review of the film. I would agree it's slow; I also think it's slowness is essential for us to really live in the world of Frank Galvin, who sees how much he has ruined his life through self-pity and alcohol. He's not at all perfect as a man nor as a laywer; that's what makes him interesting—at least to me.

Finally: lovable Vinny Gambini (Joe Pesci)...not so lovable.

Blog Three. The Verdict (1982). Due by 9 PM.

Director: Sidney Lumet
Screenplay: David Mamet, based on the novel by Barry Reed
Released 8 December 1982
Budget: $16 million
Box Office: $54 million

Frank Galvin: Paul Newman
Laura Fischer: Charlotte Rampling
Mickey Morrisey (Frank's friend): Jack Warden
Ed Concannon (the opposing attorney): James Mason
Judge Hoyle: Milo O'Shea
Kaitlin Costello Price: Lindsay Crouse
Bishop Brophy: Edward Binns

From Dan's essay on the film (read the whole essay):

Attorneys are at high risk for substance abuse. Of course this does not mean that every lawyer is going to become a addict, but there are tremendous pressures that come with being an attorney for so many that practice. This is particularly true for Frank Galvin, who is a trial attorney. There are expectations from clients, opposing counsel, the public, and many others that can impose a crushing level of stress that must be managed in a healthy way. As you may recall from The Paper Chase, alcohol is uniquely omnipresent at attorney functions.

According to the American Bar Association, "As many as one in five lawyers is a problem drinker—twice the national rate. While it's uncertain why lawyers experience alcohol disorders at a higher rate, it is clear that alcoholism has devastating effects on a lawyer's career and personal life."

It is clear that Frank's alcoholism is having an effect on him: his shaking hands; his arriving late to the meeting with Judge Hoyle and Concannon; his relationship with Laura. We see him in utter panic when he realizes he's lost his only witness: out comes the bottle. In other words, Frank Galvin is a mess. So:

(AND REMEMBER: place your post in the comments section at the bottom of this post!)

1. What image or scene or moment has stuck with you from the movie—and why?

2. How does Frank compare with the lawyers we've seen so far—ADA Stone in Law and Order, Vinny Gambini, the lawyers-to-be and/or Kingsfield in The Paper Chase? Do we see any of these lawyers in Frank? Or is he a completely different animal? AND—do you find him believable as a trial lawyer? 

3. What's the picture of the legal profession that this movie gives us—and what scene or moment really supports your characterization? And do you find this picture a reassuring one—or something else? And how so?

4. Should Frank have taken the settlement? Why or why not?

The opposing lawyers: Concannon vs. Galvin.

See you tomorrow.

From what I have seen of the movie so far, I would say that law school looks extremely difficult. It seems to be a completely immersive experience that is not forgiving to outside interests. It seemed doable but it took group work and talent and a whole lot of studying. A scene that shows how immersed and dedicated to the study was when hart and his girlfriend broke up because he didn’t have time to dedicate to her because of his studying. This is what I expected. My mom went to law school and stopped because she didn’t have time and law school consumed all of her time.

I am very impressed with Harry so far. I think he has done a great job with his studies and entering the “top eshelon.” I know people might be disappointed with his performance as a boyfriend but I think he made the right decision to write the paper for the professor instead of going to cape with his girlfriend. I think he does not have time for her and he should not be with her because it strains their relationship and it hurts his studies. This of course is his conflict. Trying to balance his love life with law school.



“There are those who genuinely believe that their class rank and GPA in law school will follow them around for the rest of their careers.  In some very unique circumstances, this may be the case, but it is far from the rule.”
This statement jumped out at me because from what I saw in the movie, the grades were the most important thing. Also i would like Dan to address dynamics in study groups and if they are usually as tense as the one we saw in the movie. Also what he said about the hazing was interesting because I never saw that in the movie. I only saw one positive interaction with an upper classman.




Finally: this moment in the movie Whiplash reminds me of Kingsfield's class

Blog Two. The Paper Chase (1973)

Director and screenplay: James Bridges
Based on the novel by John Jay Osborn Jr. (1971)

James T. Hart...Timothy Bottoms
Susan Fields...Lindsay Wagner
Professor Charles W. Kingsfield Jr....John Houseman
Ford...Graham Beckel
Kevin Brooks...James Naughton
Anderson...Edward Herrmann
Bell...Craig Richard Nelson
O'Connor...Bob Lydiard
Moss...Lenny Baker
Toombs...David Clennon
Ashley Brooks...Regina Baff
Miss Farranti...Blair Brown

From The University of Chicago Law School:

"It should be one of the functions of a teacher to open vistas before his pupils, showing them the possibility of activities that will be as delightful as they are useful." These words by Bertrand Russell capture what my colleagues and I aspire to do as law professors. Many of us use, at least occasionally, the style of legal pedagogy known as the Socratic Method. Most students have heard of the Socratic Method; some remember Professor Kingsfield from The Paper Chase and the terror his students felt every time they entered his Contracts class. Kingsfield's performance is an exaggerated and outdated caricature of the Socratic Method; this essay will provide you a more accurate picture of the interactions among law professors and students that occur in many University of Chicago Law School classrooms.

From LawSchooli:

This is really the only serious flick about law school life. It’s brooding and intense, perfectly capturing the dynamic between law professor and student. The movie is worth watching just for actor John Houseman’s academy award winning performance as Professor Kingsfield. Every school still has a professor that knows how to absolutely terrify the 1Ls — for us at UChicago, that was Richard “The Hammer” Helmholz.  The Paper Chase’s Professor Kingsfield is like a distillation every one of these scary Arch-villain type professors. I doubt you’ll run into any professor quite as intimidating as Kingsfield, but the movie is still instructive: if watching makes you want to be 500 miles away from a classroom situation like that, you might want to rethink those law school plans! Also, while the depiction of the socratic method may be exaggerated, the movie is deadly accurate in showing what studying for finals is like. Law school finals are all-consuming!

And from Dan DeWoskin, Esq. Read his entire comment. It's also available on my teacher page.

This film operates best in demonstrating the pressures that exist for 1Ls and the dangers that these pressures pose.  There were several people who began law school with me at Georgia State who later dropped out. One of them is a very close friend of mine.  She transitioned to a Masters in Public Administration and is successful, warm, well-adjusted person. Although nobody I went to law school with committed suicide, there are those who have sadly had those feelings and acted on them.  There are many who abuse drugs and alcohol to try to cope, or drugs to try to focus and keep an edge. There are books written specifically to advise students how to cope with law school itself. At Emory, they bring in dogs into the law library to alleviate the stress that students feel during exam time. 

From the film: Socratic Method:

What happens when a student is unprepared:

Studying for finals (where your whole grade depends on it):

And how law school can rule your life. 

So: 

1. How would you describe law school as depicted in this movie? What word or phrase would best
characterize it in your mind—and what scene or scenes best support this characterization. Plus: is this 
what you expected? If so—why? If not—why not? If you want to be a lawyer, does this make you 
second guess that desire?

2 A.  Would Caroline, Avery, Cal, Layney, Evan, Taylor, and Madeleine address this question: what do 
do you think of Hart? Characterize him and what supports this? And—being an English teacher for a
second—what is his conflict? Why is this movie about Hart and not Ford or Bell or Anderson...or 
Kevin?

2B. Anna Claire, Victoria, Tate, Daniel, Noah, Rainey, Emma, and Kaiya: what do you think of
Kingsfield? Characterize him and what supports this? Finally: is he a good teacher? Why or 
why not?

3. Everyone: after reading Dan's essay on this movie, what particular point in it jumped
out at you—and why? Go ahead and quote from his essay in your response. Please don't repeat
what others have said—or add something new to what they said. And what specifically would 
you like him to address in our discussion of the movie and law school tomorrow—what question
or questions would you like him to address?

Finally: this moment in the movie Whiplash reminds me of Kingsfield's class.
 

We'll finish the movie and see what happens: will Hart and Ford pass their tests? Will Hart
continue to worship Kingsfield?  Will Susan take Hart back?  Is HLS worth $297,000? Stay
turned.

In the parts of the movie I’ve seen so far, I loved it, especially the running gags that stick around throughout the movie. Some of my favorites are the classic fish out of water jokes, like the scene with Vinny trying grits, and how they’re constantly woken up at five. One of the biggest surprises though was how the police spun Bill Gambini’s interrogation. For anyone who had actually seen it take place, it would be obvious that Bill didn’t have a single clue what he’s being asked about. When he said, “I shot the clerk,” he was surprised, almost alarmed, at how he had been testifying the wrong thing, but in court it was a different story. The cop delivered those four words without any emotion. It  turned from a simple exclamation into a false confession. By comparison to law and order, where evidence was removed from the case because the police overstepped, it was surprising to see that the police could use evidence in such a way without context.

As far as realism goes, at first glance I’d go with law and order, but only because it’s in a serious setting. In New York, there aren’t any slapstick gags, but at the same time it’s overdramatic and romanticized. They don’t look for solid evidence, and just grasp at thin air until they catch something. I was especially surprised that they entered the killer’s apartment completely warrantless, and there was no scene where they arrested him. One day, he was just suddenly on trial. Even though My Cousin Vinny may be a comedy, the police and lawyers, aside from Vinny, seem more real. One of the things that stood out to me the most is the judge’s personality. Very often a judge’s personality has a lot to do with how the courtroom functions, and sometimes they will take it to extremes, such as one specific judge in Cleveland threatening jail time for having children while on probation. When Dan mentioned how the one Dekalb judge prided herself on efficiency it made me notice a lot more of how the judge in the movie acted, and how he was more of a real person.

Blog 1. My Cousin Vinny (1992). Due Tonight by 9PM.

Director: Jonathan Lynn
Writer: Dale Launer

Vincent LaGuardia "Vinny" Gambini...Joe Pesci
Mona Lisa Vito...Marisa Tomei (Academy Award Best Supporting Actress)
Bill Gambini...Ralph Macchio
Stan Rothenstein...Mitchell Whitfield
Judge Chamberain Haller...Fred Gwyne
Jim Trotter III...Lane Smith

Released: 13 March 1992
Budget: $11 million
Box Office: $64.1 million

And here is your 12th greatest movie lawyer not named Atticus Finch...

as selected by the American Bar Association (ABA).

Dan (who will say more in our discussion tomorrow) says, "In terms of procedure, it is spot on."
In his blog Litigation and Trial, Max Kennerly writes (14 March, 2012):

My Cousin Vinny is a farce but, as New York Times film critic Vincent Canby noted, “the film has a secure and sophisticated sense of what makes farce so delicious.” That “secure and sophisticated sense” allows it to take the reality of trials — the reality of limited budgets, limited preparation, impatient judges, hostile experts, ruined dress suits, hopelessly mangled questions, completely fruitless arguments, and of real life constantly intruding — and mold it into a comedy.
The movie is close to reality even in its details. Part of why the film has such staying power among lawyers is because, unlike, say, A Few Good Men, everything that happens in the movie could happen — and often does happen — at trial. Every trial lawyer winces when they hear the Sheriff read back deadpan the police narrative where Bill inadvertently confesses “I shot the clerk,” without a hint of Bill’s actual intonation and surprise: “I shot the clerk?!”

 I'm going to take Dan and Max's word for the accuracy of this extremely silly and entertaining movie. In fact, my first reaction to My Cousin Vinny is that in its depiction of lawyers and judges and court it is more believable than what we saw in Law and Order. You can disagree, of course. That said, I bought this moment completely.

So: answer the following questions in about 250 words.

1. Your response to the movie...as a movie? Like? Dislike? What scene stayed with you and why?

2. What did you learn about the way the law works that you didn't know before from what you saw today?  Or: what surprised you about the way the law works from what you saw today? 

3. Manhattan vs. small town Alabama—in other words, Law and Order vs. My Cousin Vinny. Which one did you find most "believable" or "realistic"—I put those in quotation marks because only one of us in the classroom knows what is truly realistc—in the way it shows how the law works? And why? Use some specifics in your response—try to use some detail(s) from both sources in answering this.

Here's the trailer for the film.

See you all tomorrow.