Judge Dennis Davis
Representations of Lawyers in Film: To Kill A Mockingbird and Inherit the Wind
Judge Dennis Davis | Representations of Lawyers in Film: To Kill A Mockingbird and Inherit the Wind | 08.12.21
- Thank you. So, oh, it’s always fabulous to have you with us, Dennis. Thank you.
It’s a pleasure.
So over to you now, thanks.
Visuals displayed and video played throughout the presentation.
- This is a sort of beginning of a two-part series. We may extend it further depending on whether you enjoy it, looking at the question of law in film. And it is interesting, is it not, that for many of us, our main experiences of law, lawyers, courts, and the drama of courts is reflected in film. After all, vast majority of us, thank goodness, don’t land up in courts one way or the other. And I assure you that if you, in a criminal trial, as I have been on numerous occasions the judge, it’s a lot more boring than the film version thereof.
But nonetheless, it is the drama of what is portrayed on the film, which in so many ways shapes our perception of what law, and lawyers, and judges are about. And so for a number of years, I have taught courses in law in film, both extramurally, I did a number at the summer school at UCT over the years, but I’ve done it as well at various universities because it seemed to me that we could also explain quite a lot of film theory and legal theory by looking at the same medium, that is the film as it portrays lawyers. And in a way that should not be surprising for all of the reasons that have advanced.
Let me give you two illustrations, for example, of the way in which film and TV representations of lawyers have influenced us. Many of you may recall about, oh, must be probably 30 years ago, there was a famous series called “LA Law.” I was always amused by that, apart from the fact that it was very enjoyable, was that it was basically about a law firm in Los Angeles. And for 1989, the way in which the law firm was, as it were, equipped, furnish was quite, quite spectacular. And I noticed in South Africa that as that particular “LA Law” began to get legs in South Africa, it was fascinating to me how many law firms began to change their decor into something rather more fashionable, and often wondered to what extent “LA Law” influenced that. I suspect to some extent it did. And it certainly influenced the way in which a law firm and law practise was perceived.
Many students of mine, and I’m sure in many parts of the world, who’d never seen a court before, were influenced by the fact that they’d seen this television representation of the process and wanted to be lawyers for that reason. I, myself, as a a child, some of you may remember on I think Spring Bock Radio, I’m going back many, many years in South Africa, there was a thing called “Consider Your Verdict,” which was a half an hour programme of a murder trial. And as a child, I used to watch that, even though my parents wanted me to go bed early, I envisaged myself to be the great criminal lawyer defending some murderer in front of a jury. Of course, south African juries trials were abolished in 1969. But the point I’m making is that it is the media that to some extent shape our perception. The other one, and we’ve used it over and over again in our programme here, is “Judgement at Nuremberg.” I myself gave a whole lecture, and David and I have used it at least twice in the presentations we’ve given. And think about what that film does, it portrays a whole range of issues on which we can debate questions of law.
It, for example, dealt with the whole question of evil and whether evil law was law itself, which was basically what the trial was about. It focused on the responsibility of the once principled judge who had caved in to the Nazis. That was the sort of Burt Lancaster character you may remember. It focused on the way in which defence Council, Maximilian Schell, represented his client. And it also reflected on the outside pressures which are exerted on judges. You may recall that in that particular film there was a hint, not a hint, there was a real suggestion to the judge played by Spencer Tracy, who plays, again, a dominant role in tonight’s proceedings. The pressure was put on him to say, “well, give them leniency because we need the Germans in our fight against the Russians.”
So there was “Judgement at Nuremberg” basically replicating a whole range of jurisprudential, legal, philosophical, moral and technical legal questions for our consideration. And for those of us, even those of us who are lawyers, the watching of that film and the debating of these issues is particularly important in our shaping of the nature of law through film. And so what I suppose I’m trying to say is in summary is that the significant impact of law and law films is that it has a very significant impact on the public perception of law and the legal processes, and in fact even influences the practise of law itself for the reasons that I’ve advanced. It also to a large extent allows us to play a considerable focus on the notion of, as I am going to talk about tonight, the lawyer, the lawyer as the central figure within the legal drama. And I’ve chosen to start there. I am going to next week deal with two other films.
I’m going to give you a heads up in which we look to some extent at the jury system and then at the judge, I mean by that, by looking at that classic film, “12 Angry Men.” And then I will also look at the more modern, “Chicago Seven,” with the extraordinary behaviour of Judge Hoffman brilliantly played by Langella in the “Chicago Seven” But we’ll get there. But we are going to tonight look at two old films and I’ve got a special bonus at the end for you because to put up with me, you’ll get a bonus and the bonuses a third film, but I’ll introduce that very briefly towards the end. So let me without further ado, commence by looking at “To Kill a Mockingbird.” Now this particular film, of course, follows the novel by Harper Lee. The oddity of that being that Harper Lee, until we learned in 2015 when “To Set a Watchman” was published in 2015 and which was regarded as an earlier work then to “To Kill a Mockingbird,” we did not know that that Harper Lee had actually written any other book at all.
It was said that she had made such an extraordinary success in “To Kill a Mockingbird,” that she really didn’t know how to replicate that, whether that’s true or not. Essentially other than “The watchman” in 2015, her only work of fiction was “To kill A Mockingbird.” And in 1962, Robert Mulligan presented that as a film with Gregory Peck as the key figure of Atticus Finch. I should say that Harper Lee herself said that Gregory Peck, a very fine looking man, Gregory Peck resembled her father, she said, she was delighted by the fact that he had been cast as Atticus Finch. Now you may recall that what this is about was, of course, the dark South in the 1930s where Atticus Finch, a small town lawyer in a small town, is asked by the judge to defend a man called Tom Robinson, a black man accused of raping a white woman. And eventually he agrees and he does say because he does his job as a lawyer.
Now, of course, there’s huge community resistance to this. The community regards Atticus Finch, his attitude is quite outrageous that he should defend a black man in that particular time on a rape charge in which Robinson is accused wrongly, as we know from the novel, of raping a woman who at the end of the day is actually abused by her father for kissing the black man. And as a result of which, her name is Mayella Ewell, and she basically lies, and Finch, under considerable pressure from his own community, then effectively decides that he has to do his duty and represent this black man. And he is a widower. He’s a small town Alabama lawyer. And effectively the way the book was portrayed, it seeks to be told through the eyes of his daughter, Jean Louise, known in the book as Scout, and the son Jeremy, Jem, we’ll see him in a moment.
And Atticus Finch is regarded as trying to show his children a sense of tolerance, integrity, and justice. And in effect, there are two people who then are, as it were, used to illustrate these propositions. One is Boo Radley, I’ll come back to him, played in the film by Robert Duvall. It was his very, very first film that he ever was in. And of course, by Tom Robinson, the black client that Finch, as a moral lawyer, seeks to defend. And as I say, the case is about Robinson accused of beating and raping the white woman, therefore totally unpopular in this town of Maycomb, and Finch, the respected small town, but decent lawyer, inculcating in his children all the best of values, seeking to represent a client but risking social isolation. It is precisely for that reason, precisely for that reason, that he is regarded, Finch, as the quintessential lawyer.
In fact, in the 2010, American Bar Association sort of regarded, wrote a whole series about Finch as being the quintessential moral lawyer, the man who stands up and defends his client no matter what. And no matter the pressure of the community. So we are dealing here with the lawyer as a hero, as a person who at the end of the day, is prepared to do that which justice dictates. It is the film, therefore, in so many ways, which quintessentially reflects the idea that even though you are in a small town and even though the entire community hates you, justice transcends, sort of if you wish, short term affection by the community. It is weird, by the way, that when you look at “The Watchman” book in 2015, there Finch is actually describe by Harper Lee as a member of the all white citizens council who opposes integration at the great fury of his daughter, Scout, who comes back to the town as an adult and confronts her father.
So there’s an irony that this great, as it were, hero of defending the unpopular black client in Harper Lee’s “To Kill a Mockingbird,” is presented in a very different way in the 2015 book, which of course has had people kind of writing all sorts of articles about reflecting about Atticus Finch. But what I do want to show you, and it’s my major disadvantage because were I to have had you all in a room, we would show the entire film, we’ve introduced it as we’ve done now, we’d watch the film, and then I would lead a serious conversation about both the film and the legal parts of the film. But I can’t do that. So I’ve chosen to give you a couple of clips to give you a flavour of what the film’s about.
The first clip is to give you an idea of the context in which why Finch is regarded as such a hero, here he’s confronted by Ewell, the father of Mayella Ewell who in the book, his name is Robert E. Lee Ewell which is particularly interesting given the fact that Robert Lee was the Confederate general. But be that as it may. And here, during a recess, we have a scene where Gregory Peck playing Atticus Finch is confronted by Robert Ewell. If we could show the first clip, Judy.
[Clip begins]
Mr. Ewell.
Captain, I’m real sorry, they picked you to defend that nigger they raped my Mayella. I don’t know why I didn’t kill him myself instead of going to the sheriff, That would have saved you and the sheriff and the taxpayers lots of trouble.
Excuse me, Mr. Ewell, I’m very busy.
Hey Capt, somebody told me just now that they thought that you believe Tom Robinson’s story again uh, you know what I said? I said, “you wrong man, you dead wrong. Mr. Finch ain’t taking this story against ourn.” Well, they was wrong, wasn’t it?
I’ve been appointed to defend Tom Robinson. Now that he’s been charged, that’s what I intend to do.
You’ve taken his-
Would you excuse me, Mr. Ewell.
What kind of man are you? You got children of your own.
[Clip ends]
- Okay, Judy, we can stop that. So that’s the first encounter in the courtroom that we see. “What kind of man are you?” And of course, you know, Ewell is brilliantly portrayed as precisely what you’d expect, but he represents the bigotry of the small town, the hatred to which the lawyer taking the unpopular cause is subjected. I turn now, and this is a slightly longer clip, but I’d like to watch it for all sorts of reasons, both it’s interesting from a range of ways, firstly because compared to what I’m going to show you when we get to the second film, “Inherit the Wind,” the difference here is the calmness, the quietness by which Peck almost, if you say the dignity, in which Peck actually comes to address the court in his closing remarks.
We’ll observe a number of other aspects. The sheer boredom almost as if it’s completely irrelevant, “I know what we’ve got to do,” of the judge is portrayed, the fact that the black audience basically passive, because after all, it’s a white man representing a black client sitting next to Gregory Peck, but the black passive audience upstairs, not downstairs, upstairs, and the cameras focus on them in a whole range of ways in the wonderfully crafted country Courtroom scene as you see from the photograph that is in front of you. And then at one point you’ll see Jem, the son of Gregory Peck, remember the book is done through the eyes of the children. There’s just a remarkable shot of that.
One final point, I mean, it’s interesting that Peck is clothed in a white suit, a light. It’s almost trying to portray him in the most possibly heroic and and stark way compared to the rest of the of the scene. And you can well understand when you listen to this particular address, why it was regarded, this was the quintessential lawyer, if you wanted to grow up, you had to be like Atticus Finch, moral, resist the bigotry of your own community and do justice. And so there’s a classic scene of precisely that that we are going to watch now.
[Clip begins]
- To begin with, this case should never have come to trial. The state has not produced one iota of medical evidence that the crime Tom Robertson is charged with ever took place. It has relied instead upon the testimony of two witnesses whose evidence has not only been called into serious question on cross-examination but has been flatly contradicted by the defendant. Now, there is circumstantial evidence to indicate that Mayella Ewell was beaten savagely by someone who led almost exclusively with his left. And Tom Robinson now sits before you having taken the oath with the only good hand he possesses, his right.
I have nothing but the pity in my heart for the chief witness for the state. She is the victim of cruel poverty and ignorance. But my pity does not extend so far as to her putting a man’s life at stake, which she has done in an effort to get rid of her own guilt. Now I say guilt, gentlemen, because it was guilt that motivated her. She’s committed no crime. She has merely broken a rigid and time honoured code of our society, a code so severe that whoever breaks it is hounded from our midst. It’s unfit to live with. She must destroy the evidence of her offence. But what was the evidence of her offence? Tom Robinson. A human being. She must put Tom Robinson away from her. Tom Robinson was to her a daily reminder of what she did. Now what did she do?
She tempted an negro, she was white and she tempted an negro. She did something that in our society is unspeakable. She kissed a black man, not an old uncle, but a strong, young, negro man. No code mattered to her before she broke it, but it came crashing down on her afterwards. The witnesses for the state, with the exception of the sheriff of Maycomb County, have presented themselves to you gentlemen, to this court, in the cynical Confidence that their testimony would not be doubted, confident that you gentlemen would go along with them on the assumption, the evil assumption that all Negros lie. All Negros are basically immoral beings. All Negro men are not to be trusted around our women.
An assumption that one associates with minds of their calibre, and which is in itself gentlemen, a lie, which I do not need to point out to you. And so a quiet, humble, respectable negro who has had the unmitigated temerity to feel sorry for a white woman, has had to put his word against two white peoples. The defendant is not guilty, but somebody in this courtroom is. And our gentlemen in this country, our courts, are the great levellers. In our courts all men are created equal. I’m no idealist to believe firmly in the integrity of our courts and of our jury system, that’s no ideal to me, that is a living, working reality.
Now I am confident that your gentleman will review without passion the evidence that you have heard, come to a decision, and restore this man to his family. In the name of God, do your duty. In the name of God, believe Tom Robinson.
[Clip ends]
- Judy, You can. There are a couple of aspects about that too. There’s quite a lot of literature now about whether Atticus thing should have been regarded such a hero, ‘cause after all, didn’t really protest about the all white jury. The fact that inevitably with an all white jury, Tom Robinson was going to and indeed was convicted. But I’m not sure that necessarily is a fair criticism. Certainly not for the 1930s. And in fact, it resonates greatly in South Africa, where of course, as I’ll come back to right at the end of this talk, lawyers were confronted with similar problems with judges who were extraordinarily biassed, particularly in criminal cases.
In Mockingbird, of course, Robinson is convicted, but he’s killed by the deputy sheriff on the ostensible basis that he’s seeking to escape when he’s taken into custody, which of course, is itself a figment. And the book and the film end in an interesting way because I mentioned Boo Radley who’s regarded as this very mysterious and so-called violent person played by Robert Duvall, as I say, his first film. And when Bob Ewell, that is the father whom we’ve seen, seeks to attack the two children of Atticus Finch, that is Jem and Scout, it is he who saves their lives by stabbing Ewell to death. And the sheriff then closes the matter by reporting that Ewell accidentally fell on his own knife. And then says, “to involve Boo in the legal system would be like killing a Mockingbird,” hence the name. So we could speak for much longer about this, but I wanted to try as best I could, to do a couple of films in one evening sitting. And that is why I’m going to move on to the second of our films, which is the film, “Inherit the Wind.”
Now in “Inherit the Wind,” we’ve already met the director of the film. Robert Mulligan, by the way, directed “To Kill a Mockingbird.” In “Inherit the Wind,” the director was Stanley Kramer and we’ve met him in “Judgement in Nuremberg,” and it won’t surprise you that Stanley Kramer chose, as it were, in the 1960s to make this film, 1960 film “Inherit the Wind,” which was based on the so-called Monkey Scopes Trial of 1925 when a young high school teacher named John T Scopes was put on trial for violating a state law, passed in the same year, prohibiting the teaching of any theory that denied the biblical account of divine creation. And as he had taught Darwinian evolution, it was evolution that was put on trial. And in the famous 1925 case, two very, very famous lawyers contested the case. They weren’t the only ones. And the film in a sense therefore distils that there were large legal teams on both sides.
But in the film, the legendary Clarence Darrow, the great defence lawyer is in the film, but he’s called Henry Drummond and he’s played by Spencer Tracy in a very typical Tracy performance. And then, of course, the second character was William Jennings Brian, who was a three time presidential candidate for the Democratic Party in 1898, And then twice more, sorry, 1896, he first stood for the President for the Democratic Party. And Jennings Brian is played by Frederick March also in a remarkable performance. It is interesting, Brian, of course, now referred to in this case as Brady. And he actually in real life was an anti-evolutionist because, and this was interesting, he was actually somewhat of a libertarian, perhaps even a liberal. And his argument was anti-evolutionary because he was worried about the influence of Nitra and the Superman survival of the fittest concept. And therefore it was for that reason, not for any other, that he opposed evolution. But he represented the town in its prosecution in the Monkey Scopes Trial of John T Scopes. And of course his opponent was Spencer Tracy, referred to here as of course Drummond, Henry Drummond.
One other aspect of the film is that it apparently is so that Darrow’s expenses were paid by the Baltimore Sun Newspaper. And the reason for that was that the very famous journalist, HR Minke, who’s referred to as Hornbeck, played by a Gene Kelly of all people, covered the trial and basically ensured that the Baltimore Sun covered Darrow’s expenses again called Henry Drummond in this particular case. And it’s a much more, as it were, dramatic, very much more, as it were, I should tell you that much of the text of the trial was actually taken directly from the court record of the Monkey Scopes Trial. A little bit more about that later. But the way Kramer does it, of course, is quite remarkable because it’s a film which seems to me, to speak to the present in relation to questions of intolerance, in the question of relations of anti-science, and much of it resonates today.
And one wonders whether someone would have the courage to make that kind of film quite in the way it is made then. But it starts off early on by giving you a real sense of the community in which the trial took place. And I want to play you the scene that Kramer uses to basically foreshadow exactly everything that was going to happen in the trial.
[Clip begins]
♪ Give me that old time religion… ♪ ♪ Give me that old time religion… ♪ ♪ Give me that old time religion ♪ ♪ It’s good enough for me ♪ ♪ Give me that old time religion ♪ ♪ Give me that old time religion ♪ ♪ Give me that old time religion ♪ ♪ It’s good enough for me ♪ ♪ It was good for old Jonah ♪ ♪ It was good for old Jonah ♪ ♪ It was good for old Jonah ♪ ♪ And It’s good enough for me ♪ ♪ Give me that old time religion ♪ ♪ Give me that old time religion ♪ ♪ Give me that old time religion ♪ ♪ It’s good enough for me ♪ ♪ It was good for little David ♪ ♪ It was good for little David ♪ ♪ It was good for little David ♪ ♪ And it’s good enough for me ♪ ♪ Give me that old time religion ♪ ♪ Give me that old time religion ♪ ♪ Give me that old time religion ♪ ♪ It’s good enough for me ♪ ♪ Give me that old time religion ♪ ♪ Give me that old time religion ♪ ♪ Give me that old time religion ♪ ♪ It’s good enough for me ♪ ♪ It was good for little David ♪ ♪ It was good for little David ♪ ♪ It was good for little David ♪ ♪ And it’s good enough for me ♪ ♪ Give me that old time religion ♪ ♪ Give me that old time religion ♪ ♪ Give me that old time religion ♪ ♪ It’s good enough for me ♪ ♪ Give me that old time religion ♪ ♪ Give me that old time religion ♪ ♪ Give me that old time religion ♪ ♪ It’s good enough for me ♪ ♪ It was good for old Jonah ♪ ♪ It was good for old Jonah ♪ ♪ It was good for old Jonah ♪ ♪ And it’s good enough for me ♪ ♪ It was good for old Jonah ♪ ♪ It was good for old Jonah ♪ ♪ It was good for old Jonah ♪ ♪ And it’s good enough for me ♪ ♪ Give me that old time religion ♪ ♪ Give me that old time religion ♪ ♪ Give me that old time religion ♪ ♪ It’s good enough for me ♪
[Clip ends]
- Well you can see there Gene Kelly towards the end playing the character of Hornbeck who actually is H L Menkin. The film, of course, now focuses almost exclusively thereafter on the actual trial. And as I said, even with all the real drama of it, the fact of the matter is that it follows to some considerably extent the real trial. Now the two scenes I want to play you are firstly the scene where the Drummond character, who’s referred to as Colonel Drummond, just to explain that, what happens is that they make Brady an honorary colonel of the state. They’re so pleased that he’s coming, famous man who had basically represented the Democratic party in three national elections. They made him honorary colonel.
On the first day of the trial, the Clarence Darrow, in this case Drummond, objected the fact that how can they keep on calling in Colonel Brady? This will influence the jury. So the judge realising that there was a problem, made sure that they actually made Drummond also an honorary colonel. So that’s why they referred to as colonel all the time. And no other reason. In this particular scene, the Henry Drummond character, played by wonderfully flamboyant Spencer Tracy, who of course was a somewhat more passive character when we met him in “Judgement in Nuremberg” and certainly a lot more aggressive in one of the very first films I ever saw about law “Fritz Lang’s Theory” of 1936, but that I couldn’t include for want of time.
But here, he’s objecting to the fact that he should carry on the case because there’s absolutely no point given the level of bigotry of the people crowded into the courtroom, again small town courtroom, and therefore the influence in the jury. So let’s hear what Spencer Tracy has to say to the judge in this regard.
[Clip begins]
Request permission to withdraw from this case.
Mr. Drummond, you can’t quit now.
Why not? You were ready to five minutes ago.
Colonel Drummond, what reasons can you possibly have?
Well there are 200 of them and if that’s not enough, there’s one more. I think my client has already been found guilty.
Is Mr. Drummond saying that this expression of an honest emotion will in any way influences court’s impartial administration of the law?
I say that you cannot administer a wicked law impartially, you can only destroy, you can only punish. And I warn that a wicked law like destroys everyone it touches. It’s upholders as well as its defiers.
Colonel Drummond.
Can’t you understand that if you take a law like evolution and you make it a crime to teach it in the public schools, tomorrow you can make it a crime to teach it in the private schools? And tomorrow, you may make it a crime to read about it and soon you may ban books and newspapers, and then you may turn Catholic against Protestant, and Protestant against Protestant and try to foist your own religion upon the mind of man.
If you can do one, you can do the other because fanaticism and ignorance is forever busy and needs feeding. And soon, your Honour, with banners flying and with drums beating, we’ll be marching backward, backward through the glorious ages of that 16th century when bigots burned a man who dared bring enlightenment and intelligence to the human mind.
I hope counsel does not mean to imply that this court is bigoted.
Well, your Honour has the right to hope.
I have the right to do more than that.
You have the power to do more than that.
Can I exercise that power? Colonel Drummond, I order you to show cause tomorrow morning at 10 o'clock why you should not be held in contempt of this court? And in the meanwhile, I order that you be held in custody of the bailiff. Bail is fixed at $2,000.
[Clip ends]
- Okay, thanks Judy. Well, needless to say, and that by the way is true. That actually did happen. And the lines about marching backwards into the 16th century are actually lines taken from Darrow’s confrontation of the judge. Observe in this case there is a confrontation of the judge in a way that certainly didn’t take place, the bored judge of Atticus Finch. It’s quite remarkable. Now shifting on in this very dramatic film, the further scene. Spencer Tracy seeks to bring in as expert witnesses, six scientists, very distinguished scientists, to show why evolution is so important, and why Darwin’s theory has real traction in the scientific community. The judge rules them all out of order after objection from the prosecution that they’re irrelevant.
So desperate for some ability to show the fallacy of the literal interpretation of the Bible as portrayed by the prosecutor, he calls Matthew Harrison Brady otherwise Jennings Brian. And this is game true, Jennings Brian, because he was such an egomaniac, did not object to the fact that even though he was a defence council, he was prepared to get into the box and he was prepared to defend the notion of religion in general and the text in particular. And so this particular extract, as bizarre as it may seem, actually in one way or another, with variation, did happen in court. And the drama is pretty reflective in the exchange I’m going to play for you now.
[Clip begins]
And all these holy people got themselves begat through original sin? Well, all that sin and it didn’t make them any less holy.
Your Honour. Where is this leading us? What has it got to do with the state versus Bertram case?
Colonel Drummond, The court must be satisfied that this line of questioning has some bearing on the case.
You ruled out all of my witnesses. You must allow me to examine the one witness you’ve left to me in my own way.
Your Honour, I am willing to sit here and endure Mr. Drummond sneering in his disrespect. For he is pleading the case of the prosecution by his contempt.
For all it is holy I object, I object, I object.
On what grounds? Is it possible that something is holy to the celebrated agnostic?
Yes. The individual human mind. In a child’s power to master the multiplication table, there is more sanctity than in all your shouted Amen’s and holy hollies and hosannas. An idea is a greater monument than a cathedral. And the advance of man’s knowledge is a greater miracle than all the sticks turn to snakes or the parting of the waters. But now, are we to forego all this progress because Mr. Brady now frightens us with a fable? Gentleman, progress has never been a bargain. You have to pay for it.
Sometimes I think there’s a man who sits behind a counter and says, “alright, you can have a telephone, but you lose privacy and the charm of distance. Adam, you may vote, but at a price. You lose the right to retreat behind the powder puff or your petticoat. Mr. You may conquer the air, but the birds will lose their wonder and the clouds will smell of gasoline.” Darwin took us forward to a hilltop from where we could look back and see the way from which we came. But for this insight and for this knowledge, we must abandon our faith in the pleasant poetry of Genesis.
We must not abandon faith! Faith is the most important thing.
Then why did God paint us with the power to think? Mr. Brady, why do you deny the one faculty of man that raises him above the other creatures of the earth, the power of his brain to reason, What other merit have we? The elephant is larger, the horse is swifter and stronger. The butterfly is far more beautiful. The mosquito is more prolific. Even the simple sponge is more durable. Or does a sponge think?
I don’t know, I’m a man, not a sponge.
What do you think a sponge thinks?
If the Lord wishes a sponge to think, it thinks.
Do you think a man should have the same privilege as a sponge?
Of course.
This man wishes to be acquired at the same privilege as a sponge. He wishes to think.
But your client is wrong. He is deluded. He has lost his way.
It’s sad that we don’t all have your positive knowledge of what is right and wrong. Mr. Brady. How old do you think this rock is?
I am more interested in a rock of ages than I am in the age of rock.
Dr. Page of Overland College tells me this rock is at least 10 million years old.
Well, well, Colonel Drummond, you managed to sneak in some of that scientific testimony after all.
Look, Mr. Brady, these are the fossil remains of a marine prehistoric preacher found in this very county and which lived here millions of years ago when these very mountain ranges were submerged in water.
I know, the Bible gives a fine account of the flood, but your professors all mix up on his dates. That rock is not more than 6,000 years old.
How do you know?
A fine biblical scholar, Bishop Usher, has determined for us the exact date and hour of the creation. It occurred in the year 4,004 BC.
Well that’s Bishop Usher’s opinion.
It’s not an opinion. It’s a literal fact, which the good Bishop arrived at through careful computation of the ages of the prophets as set down in the Old Testament. In fact, he determined that the Lord began the creation on the 23rd of October 4,004 BC at 9:00 AM
At Eastern Standard Time or Rocky Mountain time? It wasn’t daylight saving time, was it? Because the Lord didn’t make the sun until the fourth day?
That is correct.
That first day, what do you think it was? 24 hours long.
The Bible says it was a day.
Well, there was no sun. How do you know how long it was?
The Bible says it was a day.
Well, was it a normal day, a literal day, 24 hour day?
I don’t know.
What do you think?
I do not think about things I do not think about.
Do you ever think about things that you do think about? Isn’t it possible that it could have been 25 hours? There isn’t no way to measure it. No way to tell. Could it have been 25 hours?
It is possible.
Then you interpret that the first day is recorded in the book of Genesis could have been a day of indeterminate length?
I mean to say that it is not necessarily a 24 hour day.
It could have been 30 hours, could have been a week, could have been a month, could have been a year, could have been a hundred years or it could have been 10 million years.
I protest! This is not only irrelevant, immaterial, it is illegal. I demand to know the purpose of Mr. Drummond’s examination. What’s he trying to do?
I’ll tell you what he’s trying do. He wants to destroy everybody’s belief in the Bible and in God.
That’s not true and you know it. The Bible is a book. It’s a good book, but it is not the only book.
It is a revealed word of the Almighty God. Speak to the man who wrote the Bible.
How do you know that God didn’t speak to Charles Darwin?
I know because God tells me to oppose the evil teachings of that man.
Oh, God speaks to you?
Yes.
He tells you what is right and wrong?
Yes.
And you act accordingly.
Yes.
So you Matthew Harrison Brady, through oratory or legislature or whatever, you pass on God’s orders to the rest of the world. Well, meet the prophet from Nebraska. Is that the way of things? Is that the way of things? God tells Brady what is good, to be against Brady is to be against God.
No! Each man is a free agent.
Then what is Bertum Cates doing in a Hillsborough jail?
Supposing Mr. Cates had the influence and the lung power to railroad through the state legislature, a law saying that only Darwin could be taught in the schools.
Ridiculous. Ridiculous. There is only one great truth in the world.
The gospel. The gospel according to Brady. God speaks to Brady and Brady tells the world Brady. Brady, Brady Brady Almighty.
The Lord, the Lord is my-
Suppose that a lesser human being, suppose a Cates or a had the audacity to think that God might whisper to him, that an unbrady thought might still be holy. Must a man go to prison because he differs with the self-appointed prophet? Extend the testaments. Let us have a book of Brady. We shall hext the penny tube and slip you in neatly between Numbers and Deuteronomy.
And my friends.
Your Honour, the witnesses, my followers, ladies, the witnesses. You know what I said, what I believe. I believe in the truth of the book of Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Deuteronomy, Joshua, Judges, 1 Samuel, 2 Samuel, 1 Kings, 2 Kings, Isaiah, Jeremiah, lamentations, Ezekiel.
Court is adjourned until 10 o'clock tomorrow morning.
[Clip ends]
- Much of that actually happened. And it’s interesting the way Kramer portrays that very dramatically. You can see that old time religion community suddenly divided between those who actually realise that this is nonsense. And those who still kind of look at Brady, but finally a shock. And it is true that in the actual film, Brady dies after the verdict of guilty is handed in because nobody within that community any longer is going to sing to him in the way they did it at the beginning. The truth is he did die five days later. It’s also was the first trial which the verdict was broadcast on the radio. But there are a couple of interesting observations that I’d like to make about this before moving on to the little bonus I’ve got. “Inherit the Wind” in many ways was typical of Stanley Kramer’s films. He was regarded as a liberal who made films that had opinions and took stands.
Many critics suggested that his films had far too much pious message, preferred speeches to visual file and to cinematic originality. But, many of these films in many ways have stood the test of time. “Judgement in Nuremberg” has been crucial to many, as I’ve indicated on our series. There was “Ship of Fools.” David Pima spoke at great lengths about that too. Quite rightly so. There’s “Guess who’s Coming to Dinner,” which was a particularly important film again, and has Tracy in it in a very different role. And so one wants to really ask oneself if the film was made today, would a producer have had the nerve to question fundamentalism as bluntly as the Tracy character does? The beliefs he argues again, have clearly crept back into viewers creationist science, it’s absolutely correct that the attack on science, even now, the attack on the vaccine for the most ridiculous of reasons really reflects the kind of dilemma that Stanley Kramer was talking about then.
And it’s very interesting to me to note that when in fact all of this actually did happen. And yet many years later in a case called Kitzmiller versus Dover Area School District, a 2005 Pennsylvania case, federal court, Pennsylvania, there it is true. The court again came down, as it had done in an earlier decision given by Abe Fortas. Interesting enough, the man that that LBJ wanted to be chief justice, but for all sorts of reasons, had to resign from the court. Abe Fortas raised a judgement called Epperson versus Arkansas in 68, which basically barred, set aside, a law barring public teachers from teaching evolution. But in 2005, a similar situation occurred. What is interesting, if you read that case of Kitzmiller, it doesn’t go anywhere near to kind of attacking creationist science and anti-science in the manner that this film does.
So in many ways it’s quite a remarkable film in which, if you wish, the Drummond character is a political lawyer, he’s making a political set of points through the legal mechanism. And of course that is true in many political cases that that sort of interface between politics and law takes place. But he does so as the text shows by showing the absurdity of the Brady argument, particularly with regard to the 24 hour day. And for that reason and many others, it’s a quintessential case of, if you wish, the heroic political lawyer defending a client again in very, very difficult circumstances in a town. Whereas you could see from the beginning of the film, everyone is against him. But in this case, in that kind of liberal moment, although he’s convicted, the film portrays in a way, a liberal idea of law, that it does work itself pure. That even though he’s convicted by virtue of the nature of the trial, the very community itself knows the absurdity of that result. Well that’s a particular way of presenting a lawyer and presenting law.
I want, if I may by way of conclusion, since I’m coming to the end of the appointed hour, to just touch on very, very briefly a South African film. And some of you may have seen it, the 1989 film version of “A Dry White Season” by the eminent South African novelist, Andre Brink, who wrote the novel, “The Dry White Season.” It was made into a film. And of course in those days, it was believed that if the film, and it’s true today, I suppose, the film had to be made, had to have famous actors. So the two that you’re going to see, I’ll come back to in a moment, but just to give you the context, Brink’s book, which takes place in South Africa, roundabout the seventies, early eighties, in a sense, the kind of reflection of the developments of South African law during the time of the famous Steve Biko inquest.
Steve Biko, for those of you who did not know, was a South African student leader of immense talent and who has continued through works which he published in his twenties, to influence a whole generation of students. And he was brutally, brutally beaten and effectively murdered by the security police to the disgrace of the district surgeons who were utterly negligent and were found to be so. And then when the inquest took place, in front of perhaps the finest South African lawyer of my lifetime, Sydney Kentridge or Sir Sydney Kentridge as he’s now known, 'cause he landed up by practising with great distinction in England, and George Bezos of whom a little bit in a moment, they represented the family of Biko at the inquest in which it was found by the magistrate who was obviously a national party as that he could not determine that anybody had caused this awful death of Steve Biko. And Brink writes this book about an Afrikaans character who initially is apolitical, and then finds his driver who’s a black man first having been arrested and then murdered. And he wants justice for that. And this totally converts his perspective of the world from the privileged white Afrikaans perspective to somebody who understands justice. And in order to do so, he approaches a lawyer to represent him at the inquest. Now, the the lawyer is very cynical about the law. He takes a very different approach to either the Drummond or the Atticus Finch situation. The two actors who represent the Afrikaana and in the lawyer are not South African. They’re extremely famous actors. One of course is Donald Sutherland who acts as the South African who is now Afrikaans, who’s actually felt his life is taken on a totally different turn. And the lawyer is none other than Marlon Brando. And I think he probably modelled his character on George Bezos, a very famous South African human rights lawyer. And here is a short scene in which, if you wish, the Brando lawyer character does not have the illusions, the liberal illusions of law that we’ve seen from the other lawyers, has a very tired and cynical view of the law. Nonetheless takes the case. But this three minute little clip is a quite interesting reflection of a different perspective of a lawyer faced with an evil legal system. Let have a watch.
For Gordon Ngubene. You remember the story of Gordon Ngubene?
Dreadful, dreadful, dreadful.
I want justice for him to the full extent of the law.
You see, justice and law, Mr. Du Toit, are, are often just, well they, I suppose they could be described as distant cousins. And here in South Africa, they’re simply not on speaking terms at all. And I have, I familiarised myself with the dossier and I’m afraid that my counsel to you is to just give it up.
Give it up.
Yes.
Because there is nothing to be done. That’s what I, that’s what I said to his son when his son was keened and now his son is dead. That’s what I thought about Gordon when he was jailed and now he is dead because of my neglect. I have known that family for 15 years, Mr. McKenzie, I cannot give it up.
Yes, it does make a difference of course.
There must be some penalty under law for those who commit murder.
Mr. Du Toit, may I ask you, how long you have lived with us in South Africa?
All my life.
I’m afraid that I am, I’m just not the barest , I’m sorry.
I’m confused. Mr, McKenzie. I thought that you had undertaken many cases and won them in support of human rights.
No. You see what you don’t realise that every time I won a case, they simply changed the law. Therefore my considered council to you is to just simply chuck the lot.
I shall find another barrister and I shall prove you wrong. Good afternoon, Mr. McKenzie.
Please sit down, Mr. Du Toit, I will take your case. I will take your case if only to make it abundant clear how justice in South Africa’s misapplied when it comes to the question of race.
So I thought I’d show that by way of conclusion to give you a slightly different perspective of the tiredness that Brando brings to a lawyer who’s done many human rights cases as many did in South Africa. Not the one and only case like Finch. Darrow of course being the famous criminal lawyer who seemed to sort of have an exhaustible reserves. But here is a lawyer, I have to say, dissimilar to many of the heroic South African human rights lawyers, many of whom I should add were Jewish, but it does reflect the idea of perhaps a different approach where I’ll take the case, but to prove to you that, as he says, “law and justice are distant cousins who haven’t met for many years.” All three of these contribute to a particular perspective of how we think of law, and how we view lawyers and the nature of lawyers. What we are going to do next week is have a look at judges and juries and see how they are presented in the film world, as it were. I hope that you’ve actually enjoyed, I’m sorry I haven’t been able to show you more clips of these three films, but it does seem to me that each of them brings a message and a perspective and a framing through the language of film, of the nature of law.
Let me see if there are any questions that I should answer.
Q&A and Comments
Oh, let me just get back. Yes Alan, it’s not only the latter system that’s corrupt. I agree. Thank you Joan. Yes, “Consider Your Verdict” was fabulous. Jeffrey, it is interesting how many students were influenced by “LA Law” at the time. Perhaps they did realise the error. Gita, the actual film, the film and the book to Kill Mockingbird was at some point in time banned in South Africa, yes. As it was in parts of America. You’re right, June, I did explain that justice, well, Tom was found guilty, and, of course, I tried to explain what then happened. Curious says this week’s Well I could go on a great length on that. I’ll be doing a little dush on that on Friday night for my schull, but let me say this to you, you’re quite right that what is interesting about the Jewish tradition is we use the word, the Torah uses the word Sedik twice. And one of my teachers of always, and I can’t go into great length, would talk about the fact that there were two concepts of justice. Justice for ourselves, sedik one, and justice for others, sedik two.
Q: Is it entirely coincident that in a country like mine, so many as are indicated of the greatest human rights law were Jewish? A: For me it’s the sense of great pride and perhaps it was because they understood even if they hadn’t read the part precise implications of .
Myra, the black people upstairs reminiscent in the days the Aeon group when the wonderful black singers had to be upstairs in the city hall. Indeed, it’s precisely that. And you’re right, Peck was a consummate actor. It is true. Naomi, Robert Duval’s first movie didn’t say a word. Thank you very much, Jennifer. Interesting, Arlene, exactly about evolution not being taught and therefore the relevant stall of “Inherit the Wind.”
Q: Would Atticus Finch have survived the kind of hysterical scrutiny remain and nitpicking that neither defines American social observation? A: Terrific question. I’m not sure about that. I’m not sure that, and when I read some of the more recent commentary, Finch is attacked in a way which I don’t think contextualises the dilemma that somebody faced, let’s say in the 1930s in Alabama, would’ve faced. But I’m afraid woke culture seems to de historicize the context in which people are in and doesn’t allow us to make proper lessons from that particular period.
I agree about the drama compulsion and Orson Wells, Jonathan, I would love to have shown that, but it’s just, what can I say? June, what is unfortunate is about a century later in Tennessee and other places as perhaps you’ve seen the same unevolved, ignorant thinking and behaviours taking place. It’s exactly the point, which is why that film is so remarkably present. I agree Corrin. I think Spencer Tracy, it’s magnificent passion acting, he was one of my favourite actors. Martin, I don’t know whether she, Harper Lee suffered a backlash. It is interesting that she published nothing else other than posthumously, the 2015 book. And it’s very possible that you’re right.
“The Dry White Season,” I’m not sure it’s certainly on, I found that on YouTube, Patricia, I hope it’s there. It’s well worth seeing. And the name of the the Brando film is “A Dry White Season,” Brandy. Yeah, I thought the accents were quite good too, Corrin, thank you very much Jack and Corrin. Yes, “Cry of Freedom” is the book, Ellie, on Steve Biko. Well worth reading. One of the great tragedies and boy, have we paid that price of a brutal system which extinguished lives like that. Thank you Esther, and thank you Susan, and Sharon, and the rest. I don’t think there’s any, thank you very much. The play.
Yes, Donny, if you make a very important point, and I, perhaps I should make the point, “Inherit the Wind” was written in the fifties and indeed certainly in the position of Stanley Kramer, it was in response to the McCarthy hearings. It was about freedom of thought and indeed, I’m sorry, I should have mentioned that earlier. It definitely resonated and was located in that particular malu, the one that we had wonderful lectures on very recently on the entire McCarthy era. That particularly was one of the motivating forces for the film. But it does seem to me that when you look at it now, it’s equally important to the points of vaccines and anti-science. Thank you very much Lynn.
It’s interesting, Elaine, I dunno whether “To Kill A Mockingbird had influence on attitudes of racism or law. I can say it as unquestionably, because of the figure of Atticus Finch, has had a definitive idea about what a proper lawyer should be, a lawyer who’s committed to human rights. It is interesting that "To Set a Watchman” was written before “Mockingbird” and Atticus is much more right wing. It’s a fascinating thing and it reflects very interestingly, perhaps on Harper Lee’s own experiences. Lucy asked the really important question.
Q: Do you think the formal trials are two types of lawyers? A: Well, they’re not obviously quite the same, but I think as prototypes they give us an idea and certainly the Atticus Finch character has been so absorbed into legal culture as to what the lawyer should be obviously not all of us are as good looking as Gregory Peck and it’s a slightly artificial context. But the fact is that both of the Tracy and the Finch lawyers, and indeed, to be honest, the Brando one are reflective of a range of lawyers that we do see. Famous ones too, maybe not with astrionics but certainly on the substance.
Yes, possible that Run part of the Bay may have influence many to be barristers in the UK. I know a couple in South Africa who are rumpolean.
I think that’s about it, Judy. So there we are. I’ve answered all the questions. Thank you very much to everybody.
Thank you very much, Dennis. No, no, that was fantastic. I’m sorry that we, it was brilliant. Absolutely brilliant. And I got so much to say about both those movies.
Well, I’m happy that people do, that’s the purpose of the debate that people can.
Absolutely.
Yeah.
Very good. Thanks a million, speak soon.
Speak soon, take care.
Thanks a lot. Good, thanks, bye.