Well, as my little info box reveals, I am a huge cinephile who happens to study philosophy. Often times, it's hard for me to ignore some great philosophical topics that I run across in film. As a hopeful law school attendee, the legal philosophical questions that certain movies ask are definitely some of the most intriguing.
Here are three films that you should see because they are great films. They just happen to offer up some great food-for-thought. (I will not give my personal opinion of the topics brought up. I just want to mention them, so you'll know what kind of fascinating dialogue is out there, waiting to be discussed.)
M (1931)
M is the first sound film from German Expressionist Fritz Lang. It details the search for a child serial killer (played by the great Peter Lorre). In the film, both the police and the criminals of the city begin separate manhunts for the killer (with the criminals using the city's beggars as their eyes). And while that dynamic between the two sides is very interesting, the roles and justification of roles each side plays are not the most fascinating questions to ponder.
Instead, that distinction belongs to the last twenty minutes of the movie. During this time, two ideas are presented: 1) To what extent does the justice system fail in terms of punishment? 2) Are there times when criminals can not be held responsible or accountable, and if so, should this fully acquit them of the supposed wrongs they've committed.
The film does an excellent job of showing how 1) and 2) are connected, meaning that any answer you think is correct to one or the other might have unforeseen consequences you may not want for the other.
Rashomon (1950)
Akira Kurosawa is considered one of the world's greatest filmmakers of all-time, and Rashomon is considered one of his masterpieces. Rashomon tells the story of a rape and murder trial. Told through flashbacks, the film presents four versions of the events from different witnesses, each contradicting the other.
At the heart of this story are questions about honesty. How vital is it that the testimony our courts rely upon be accurate? What kinds of ramifications might dishonesty have? Are these acceptable in certain instances?
Broader questions include the morality of being completely honest. What's worst: our actions or lying about them? Who's best equipped to tell the truth? What do we have to gain or lose through lying?
Now, some of this may seem pretty cut-and-dried. However, the film does an excellent job of showing why the answers to this question are not as easy as they appear. Can one be on morally higher ground by admitting to a murder than admitting to other actual actions?
12 Angry Men (1957)
Probably my favorite of the three films. 12 Angry Men simply shows a jury deliberation in a murder trial. I say simply because although this plot may be the simplest of the three films, the questions brought up are just as compelling.
(Before I continue, this film has an all-star cast of Henry Fonda, Lee J. Cobb, Martin Balsam, Ed Begley, Jack Warden, and Jack Klugman and is directed by the incredibly talented Sidney Lumet.)
Some of the issues brought up by 12 Angry Men include: is reasonable doubt a good basis for the criminal law? Should juries have to reach a unanimous verdict? Why or why not? What responsibility do jurors have to the accused? The victims and their families? What, if any, kind of compromise is acceptable in jury deliberation, given the stakes? Do the positives of a jury-based legal system outweigh the negatives?
I challenge you to see these films because they really are great films, folks. These films make us think critically about the questions/issues above, presenting them in a way that takes the black-and-white nature out of many of the assumptions we have about legal philosophy.
