Home -> Law Blog Directory -> Paralegals & Legal Secretaries Blogs -> ParalegalGateway Blawg

Paralegals & Legal Secretaries

: ParalegalGateway Blawg

Paralegal Perspective: Old Movies Lead to New Conversations

By ParalegalGateway.com

By Joanne Haffly: I?m not really a film buff. In fact, my kids lament that I neglect my cultural education by missing the latest and greatest movies.

Since I haven?t even seen ?The Lord of the Rings? trilogy from start to finish, I admit they may have a point. It?s just that I prefer to read books rather than spend almost three hours waiting for the hero of a movie to save the world, only to find out part two is in the works.

So, normally, I limit myself to an occasional Disney release or lighthearted comedy. But recently, I viewed an old classic film, ?12 Angry Men,? for my college class.

Released more than 50 years ago, this black-and-white motion picture stars Henry Fonda and other notable actors from the era, like Lee J. Cobb, Ed Begley and a young Jack Klugman.

The plot revolves around jury deliberations in a first-degree murder trial. A seemingly open-and-shut case against a young Puerto Rican kid, who was accused of murdering his father, begins to unravel when juror No. 8 (Fonda) confesses his indecisiveness in the jury room. He persuades the room full of impatient jurors to look at the problems with the evidence in the case.

Filled with inconsistencies that a good defense attorney should have caught, the case hinted of racially motivated undertones. Watching it now, the message seems as relevant today as 50 years ago.

I was required to view the film as part of my paralegal class, so we looked at it from a legal professional?s perspective, noting the judge and jury behaviors and the lack of diligence on the part of the boy?s defense attorney.

Aside from the political undercurrents that the film expressed of the judicial system, it also made me realize how much I miss the old black-and-white movies.

Two things immediately struck me as I watched first few scenes of the film. First of all, it is an all-male cast, and the actors looked liked regular men. Their naturally lined faces reflected the emotions of their dilemma and the maturity of age. The broad shoulders and thick waists of some of the middle-aged men allowed the audience to identify with the normal-looking men, not the slender, adolescent, pretty boys of today?s movies.

The second thing that I noted was the entire film ? minus three minutes ? was filmed in a narrow jury room. This low-budget movie was originally a remake of a screenplay adapted for television.

Further research revealed that the director used camera angles and a telephoto lens, shortening the depth of field to give the viewers an intimate snapshot into each actor?s expression. The feelings of claustrophobia are palatable as arguments fly across the jury table, until the exasperation peaks and the tempers explode.

My 17-year-old son, Sam, watched the movie with me for his History of American Film class. Reading through his analysis, I was impressed with two points he made.

Sam wrote, ?The clothing the jurors wore was as diverse as their personalities and matched them. Juror 8 (Henry Fonda) wore an all white suit, whereas everyone else had darker jackets and/or pants. The white caused him stand out, and made him look somewhat like a guardian angel for the boy on trial.?

He also noted, ?I found it interesting how the filmmakers showed how a person?s own prejudices and past experiences could blind them to the point of sending someone to death regardless of any evidence or reasonable doubt. For instance, Juror 10 (Ed Begley) wanted to kill the boy because the kid grew up on the wrong side of the tracks, saying ?they?re all the same over there,? or ?they?re born that way,? or my personal favorite, ?He don?t even speak good English.?

If you?re looking for a good film worthy of a deep discussion, I?d recommend borrowing this movie from the library. (Source >>>)

Full post as published by ParalegalGateway Blawg on May 30, 2008 (boomark / email).