From: Robert Vollum found us through: Search Engine.
on Christine Corcos' article: The Court
Ms. Corcos suggests, at the first of her review, that The Court
is a better show than First Monday. But then she proceeds to
castigate the show, among her laudatory comments, in each of
the important areas, writing and acting. I believe that The Court
stands absolutle no chance for survival for one very important
reason, and Ms. Corcos almost saw it. Sally Fields is a good
actress. But she is a perrenial teeny-bopper, in spite of the
fact that she is getting old. Did you see her practice-sitting
on the bench? She looked the poster girl for bring-your-child-to-work
day. No matter what writers go to work for her, they cannot possibly
give her any credibility, especially for the ability to think.
And the cliche of having Chris Sarandon being the stable force
on the bench by having him grow his salt and pepper beard - thereby
making him look like a worn-out old time editor - was just plain
silly. The Court is a badly written show and is an insult to
the Supreme Court of the USA.
From: Robert Vollum found us through: Search Engine.
on Paul Joseph's article: It's the Writing, Stupid (First
Or, it's the stupid writing.
First Monday has the potential to be a top-rated television show,
given the stellar cast. I have seen almost all of these actors
in more supreme quarters over the years, and I know that each
one is as capable of delivering well-written material, as they
are of the material they are given here. First, there is no reason
whatsoever to have James Garner smoking. Not only is this becoming
a passe prop, but it should be incumbent upon the person considered
to be the top judge in Ameria to be bright enough not to smoke.
Regarding the young lawyer/clerks. Their collective existences
should be downplayed in the face of such potentially high drama.
Instead we are given dialogue and presentation taken from out-pages
of the series, Friends. In this setting, who gives a damn about
the just-barely concealed sexual fortunes of this group of twinkies
and dolts? Was one of the writers was a Friends writer. The soporific
portrayal of Justice Novelli by Joseph Montegna matches his title
portrayal of Spenser, which he took over from the upbeat Robert
Urich. He slept there, too.
Why is Charles Durning in and out of a wheel chair? Is this supposed
to be a comic diversion? Is a comic diversion applicable in stories
about the Supreme Court of the USA? As if that isn't enough of
a misuse of a good actor, he is being asked to recite limerick
doggerel thereby transcending his thought acumen. A positive
suggestion: When Marcia Clark was a guest, I looked forward to
her trying her hand at drama. Instead we saw her just standing,
talking to the court.
Suggestion: Suppose the dialogue and scenes among the clerks
was supplanted by scenes of background business with the lawyers
who are going to present their cases to the court. We could be
privy to the nervousness, the plans, the strategies leading to
the arguments that these lawyers will promulgate as they face
the final judgement. Such scenes would be tossed against the
back room processes of the justices. My bottom line is that viewers
have come to see the process of this august group, and should
be accommodated as they watch justice at work, rather than, in
the case of the young turks and turkettes, work at justice. It
may also be that the writing staff should be augmented with one
or two over 50 years.
From: Miss Lisa found us through: World of mouth.
on Judith Grant's article: The Shield
I read your article on "The Shield". As morally irresponsible
as you claim it is, the fact is that it is probably the most
realistic Criminal Justice show that has ever been on t.v.
From: Walter Harris
Gavin found us through:
on linda f. harrison's article: Barbershop: Going...Going...Gone.
This is a comment on the article: "Barbarshop" and
it goes like this: What does the film Barbarshop hve to do with
the theme of the site which is "picturing justice?"
There was no correlation in the review to the concept of justice
at all. We definately need films and all types of media that
deal with the concept and theme of justice particularly with
regard to the concept of "race" as experienced in America
(see below). A Just Society. So long as we continue to view ourselves
as members of different "races" we can never have a
truly just society. We are all runners in the same race, The
Human Race. As individuals and as groups we are all running this
race differently based upon criteria that has either been established
for us or that we embrace on our own accord. Those who benefit
from the status quo, whose position vis-à-vis the social
strata permits advantages to be accrued not based upon any objective
value, but by way of group membership, will be resistant to any
notion that challenges their basic assumptions. But challenged
they must be. Likewise those for whom their group identity has
traditionally placed them in less advantaged circumstances, whose
"racial" affiliation has overtime become a source of
strength an axis point for struggle, resistance and protest must
redefine or reacquire a new perspective.
To carry that message we need media projects, which are dedicated
to breaking down cultural barriers. To fostering individual traits,
which transcend group identity and affiliations. A media, which
acknowledges differences, uniqueness, values diversity (which
is after all is a natural occurring phenomena that we constantly
overlook) yet at the same time focuses on our commonalities,
shared dreams, shared visions.
The Human Race is an intercultural journey. The Gavin Media Institute
supports that notion and seeks to project this idea through its
programs and services. Race Across America is the major on-going
initiative to change the meaning of "race" in America
from one of a pre-determined and concrete state to a participatory
event, namely human existence.
Walter Harris Gavin, Executive Director, The Gavin Media Institute
www.raceacrossamerica.com. 703.503.1122. PO Box 16015, Alexandria,
From: Arthur A. Busch found us through: Random surfing.
on Taunya Lovell Banks' article: Bowling for Columbine
I read the review of Bowling for Columbine. Obviously Professor
Banks gets it! The connection she has drawn in the review of
Bowling for Columbine is exactly what I was hoping would be picked
up by the media in its analysis of the film. Until that little
girl was shot, I had no idea that there was any connection whatsoever
between these gun nuts and racist folks. By the way I am the
prosecutor who appears in the movie. As I lecture to local college
students, it is interesting to see the perplexed faces when a
white prosecutor talks about the issues of race, guns and law
enforcement and how I am part of a system that is institutionally
racist. Professor Banks raises a point which I also made in the
movie. Gun safety programs seemed aimed at disarming the black
community while white people run to gated communities encircling
the inner cities armed to the teeth with automatic weapons. That
same energy to encourage disarmament of suburbia is non-existent
even though this is where the ammo is located. In fact, while
we white people hate to admit it, this is happening across our
country in nearly every major city. The intellectual fuel of
the gun movement in America is found with NRA's nutty friends
in the racist hate movement. Only David Duke and David Horowitz
could use the killing of a 6 year old school girl to illustrate
their twisted ideas that it was liberal coddling of black people
not the reckless storage of firearms that was responsible for
this senseless killing. It is easy for people to dismiss Michael
Moore's style as not polite or grating but it is impossible to
dismiss the things he has discovered with a camera and a microphone.
The American icon, Charlton Heston is without his script and
you can see exactly what his real character is for yourself.
He is a man who seems more interested in his rather strange view
that America was a product of "old white men" than
to see what America is today, a melting pot and a beacon to the
world of hope. The Professor, has done a wonderful job of reviewing
this film and her observations are right on target.
From: Kensey found us through: Link from other
on Christine Corcos' article: What Happened In Greenwich (Murder
I believe that the movie did portray her tragedy, but with the
same concept of you it should have not been told in her perspective.
She is the one that was murdered and the whole movie should be
based around the night she died to when Michael was sentenced.
It is a great movie, but more attention was paid to Michael after
her death.Thank you for the time and your views. They really
helped me with my English paper.
From: Tim Young found us through:
on Michael Asimow's article: About Schmidt--The Movie
That Might Have Been
I have just finished watching the FILM having just read the BOOK
in Florence on holiday. The FORMER is one of the least interesting
and most formulaic thing I have ever seen. The LATTER was one
of the most playful and clever pieces of American fiction since
Catch 22 or Bonfire of the Vanities. What silly
people these Hollywood chaps are. I completely agree with your
article. What a waste of a wonderful thing. I feel cheated. Yours,
From: Norm Blumenthal found us through: Random surfing.
I have not read the book, but intend to. I am retired and a widower
suffering the same loneliness, daughter marrying out of the faith
(I am Jewish), few friends left, etc. I'm old enough to have
seen and treasure film classics. This film, however, is special,
and has continually (since
I saw it several months ago) hit home with me. I cannot strike
it from my mind. The latest real-life incident: The other day,
I was emptying my file cabinet of proposals and ideas that span
a lifetime. I had to throw them out, they are dated and useless.
Immediately, the scene in the film in which Schmidt notices the
boxes representing his years of contributions to his firm relegated
to the garbage pile. You've got to be old enough to understand
the sadness and feeling of futility. More and more, I recall
how similar the film is to real life -- my life. As an aside,
my daughter shares my feelings. Even though we treat it lightly,
we know it is a true depiction we both understand.
From: Laura Sawtell found us through: Search Engine.
on the articles about the movie " Evelyn"
After having watched the movie Evelyn I was interested
in the accuracy of the depiction of the film as well as the issues
brought up in the film. The article gave an objective view of
the main issue, how much power governments should have with regard
to the family. As well, it cited other films, similar situations
in other countries and some other information around Evelyn's
story. Thank you for an interesting and informative article that
fed my thirst for information when most needed.
From: Sandi Griffin found us through: Link from other
First, thank you for sharing some of the real legal issues involved
in this case. Very interesting. I agree that the lawyers working
pro bono seems most heroic, and in fact the world would be a
better place if more lawyers put their hearts into their cases.
If there are any on this earth that
still do that....I have not heard of them. The legal system has
turned into "he who has the most money for the best lawyer
wins". BUT, I think the BEST of the movie begins when Doyle
gives his explanation of The Holy Family, not consisting of Mary,
Joseph, and Jesus, but of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. And
then of course how he explains his father raised him with the
guide of the Holy Spirit. This scene brings together the ultimate
tear jerker when brought together with the "angel rays".
Put those ingrediants together, and you have the perfect excuse
to grab the tissue box. But not because you're sad, but because
it brings tears of true joy. Not too many times do you see a
movie that can make you cry with joy. THAT is a writers dream.
How many times have you cried because you were so happy? I loved
it! I also enjoyed your review.
Sincerely, Sandi Griffin
Evelyn's mother was abused by her husband and that's why she
ran off - never intending to be away for anything more than a
couple of days.. but when Doyle threatened her further she feared
for her life. Several times she visited Evelyn in the orphanage
- again at risk to her own life.. and thought Evelyn (and the
boys) would be better off there than with her - she had NO rights
in Irealnd at that time - women who choose to flee the marital
home had very few allies either with the law or the church. Also
it's interesting that despite the fact Doyle had an affair with
English bar maid he is never criticised for this. Also after
the court case he LEFT THREE OF THE BOYS IN THE ORPHANAGE FOR
A FURTHER FIVE YEARS!!!!When Evelyn was reunited with her mother
years later she was welcomed into the family home and NOT rejected
for a second time as she claims. Also three of the brothers lived
with their mother for TWO years - again a fact Ms Doyle seems
to have forgotten -
From: David Friedman found us through: Search Engine.
on Shubba Ghosh's article: Leaving The Friedmans Alone
For Mr. Ghosh, Read your comments regarding the film Capturing
the Friedmans. After reading hundreds of reviews it is refreshing
to read a review from the perpective of the family in question
- mine. Every thought you had is entirely correct. I participated
in the film because Jesse was in prison , being denied parole
repeatedly, and may never have been released (civil incarceration
was looming on the NY front). My feeling is that I wish Mr. Jarecki
had made a film that came down more on the side of innocence.
his ambivalence does not serve my original goals regarding the
film. Your readers should know that I agree with every comment
you made in your article. Thank you for seeing this case in a
reasonable light. Maybe that is because you are more of an attorney
than a film reviewer. Thank you, David Friedman
From: Greg found us through: Search Engine.
Professor Ghosh, You are a very good writer. I'm not a college
graduate or even a learned person, but I found your article easy
to read and understand. I guess I suspected something more difficult
given you are a Professor of Law. I find it refreshing when people
of your obvious intelligence write so everyone can understand.
From: Joel Gomberg
on John Denvir's article: The Injustice gene
As always, I enjoyed your review. And, as always, I have a couple
of nits to pick. We all respond to injustice, I think. The only
distinction is in how encompassing the response is. My son Ben,
for example, had a highly developed sense of injustice from about
the age of three. This stemmed from his strong belief that the
universe was based on the overriding principle of unfairness
to Ben. He did not extend his concerns about justice to anybody
else. Most of us respond to injustices done to those in our "group"
-- whether defined as family, community, tribe, nation, religion,
etc. Then there are those who are exquisitely sensitive to the
sufferings of others, including members of other species. I don't
think your gene is that potent. OTOH, it seems to me, based on
anecdotal reports only, that many of those endowed with this
metaphorical gene have significant blind spots. Gandhi, MLK,
and Che were all -- no pun intended -- pricks toward women. And
there's that old saying by Tom Paine maybe? about those who have
great empathy toward human kind in general, but who can't stand
individual people. I think we can both think of examples from
CRLA consistent with that observation. And I think of all the
self-appointed Jewish leaders who insist that our holocaust has
to be number one. The Ibo and the Tutsis and all the others just
don't count. Or, their records must have an asterisk. What's
interesting about the tsunami is that we can all be voyeurs in
real time. That's something very new. In the past, we might never
have known about it. Or, if we lived after the invention of moveable
type, maybe we would have heard about it weeks or months later.
I know that your review was about the justice thing, but I wish
you would have at least mentioned the glorious scenery, the Macchu
Picchu ruins, and the extraordinary faces of the people the boys
encountered along the way. Aside from its political content,
the movie is a great National Geographic travelogue.
on Dean Hiteman's article: Setting the Stage for Justice in the
Revenge Genre Film
Revenge is not limited
to gender, either. "The Quick and the Dead" shows the
worst of both, greed and power from Gene Hackman, and the mob
rule vengeance of Sharon Stone. Most Western Classics are keen
on cowboy idealism, which I believe was the basis of its popularity
as a genre: the good winning out over evil, which wasn't necessarily
done by lawbreakers. That truth rules to create society's sense
of guilt and innocence has been perhaps lost, especially in the
legal system. And pent up emotions have been historcally shown
to be the basis of social upheavals. NPR recently commented that
the public interest has been declared unconstitutional.
From: Richard Gehl
on Taunya Lovell Banks's article: The Heart, The Rule Of Law
And In The Bedroom
Just watched the film this morning and went web surfing immediately
after and found your article. I knew shortly after frank's death
that justice would not be served in a court of law. It's a sad
world sometimes and the justice system is not perfect in many
ways. I feel the final outcome in this movie whether it weighed
on Franks parent's lives from then on or not or even other parties
partial to Richard Strout, the kids etc., was the perfect justice
and I would have done the same thing if I were in the same position
in a second, pausing only to reflect on how to do it with out
being caught. Sometimes as we hear in the movies "vengeance
is a dish best served cold" rules the day for the surviving.
From: Charles Roemer found us through: Search Engine.
on Justyna Herman's article: A Civil Action: Is There
Room For Apology in the Adversary System?
I am in the middle of settling my malpractice suit and read Lee
Taft's new article in Annals of Health Law regarding apology
and litigation. A web search led me to your article. I feel encouraged
that these ideas are expressed by young lawyers and given credibility
by someone with the stature of Mr. Taft. I have terminal cancer
and the health system and doctors failed me. I will receive a
monetary award---but in the face of death the amount seems irrelevant
in terms of giving this sad event some meaning. I would like
an apology but have been told that it will not be forthcoming.
I would like the apology---but more importantly I would like
to participate in the analysis of what went wrong and have my
observations heard and respected. Maybe I can contribute to the
prevention of future mistakes? I will copy this article and send
it to the people who are involved---but I don't want to force
anyone into an apology because if it comes it won't feel real.
From: Anne found us through: Random surfing.
on Bruce Peabody's article: Lex, Flies, and Videotape
"Great!" This was a phenomenal article. Bruce Peabody
is a great writer. I commend his work on this intriguing piece.
found us through: Search Engine.
on Christine Corcos' article: Single With Children - Kevin
"Great Article". I enjoyed your article about Kevin
Hill and agree whole-heartedly that the advertising did not hit
the nail on the head for this show. Why I have decided to respond
to your article is because Kevin Hill is being cancelled and
I was hoping that you could help. I have emailed the UPN network
and also signed an online petition to try and help save the show
from cancellation. I was hoping you could do the same and maybe
write an article asking your readers to help save the show as
well. I am an African American male and like the fact that we
are shown in a positive light on Kevin Hill. I appreciate your
time. Sincerely, Karl McDowell
found us through: Search Engine.
on Taunya Lovell Banks' article: Will the Real Judge Stand Up
I was wondering exactly how "real" court shows were,
so I did a search for an article on it. Luckily I found yours.
The points generated in the article seemed as if they were stolen
from my mind and displayed in front of me, as if to say "you
already know the answer." It was just amazing. I thought
I was the only one who noticed that the judges were different
then the baliffs. In a nutshell, great article.
From: Catherine found us through: Link from other
on Michael Hoffheimer's article: Veer-Zaara: Love and
law in Bollywood
I am very impressed with the way this article has increased my
knowledge and appreciation of the film. Thank you
From: Jose Thomas found us through: Link from other
Hi Mike ...interesting article..somehow you failed to empathise
with zaaras fiance...He was the most realistic character in the
film..However comin to the point..I was saerching for the poem
veer narrates in the court..Prisoner#786( there goes bollywood
dripping religious syrup over cliched symbols..ha ha ha !!!!)
CAN YOU EMAIL ME THAT POEM OR AT LEAST A LOOSE TRANSLATION.....Do
see andhaa kanoon and inzaaf ka tarazooo.. they do have typical
bolly legal stuff... thank you... another cliche but true in
bollywood THE LAW IS AN ASS...do send me that poem or the translation
bye 4 now JOSE TORONTO CANADA
Jose, Thank you for your comments
on my article. You make an excellent point about Z's fiance.
(Not only a credible character but a very fine performance!)
Surely the filmmakers do not mean for us to sympathize with the
character. (Empathize maybe.) I don't have a translation for
Javed Akhtar's poem. The English subtitles paraphrase it, and
the original is included with the CD booklet. Here is a website
that transcribes it. http://nileshbabu.com/v2/veer-zaara/. Do
you know Hindi or Urdu? A friend tells me he liked come of the
original lyrics better than the ones created for the film. M.
From: Mary Atwell
on Stefan Machura's article: EIGHT O'CLOCK WALK - A Timeless
I wasn't familiar with this film. Wish I had known about before
I published EVOLVING STANDARDS OF DECENCY: POPULAR CULTURE AND
CAPITAL PUNISHMENT (Peter Lang, 2004). I think the issue of how
often the capital system "gets it wrong" is a pretty
powerful theme in many movies, making them an excellent discussion
starter in classes.
From: Uriel Wittenberg
on John Denvir's article: Bush's Savage War
The most significant element here, which the article largely
neglects, is represented in the first sentence: "Movies
not only entertain, they instruct." That popular culture
may have inspired Bush's "savage war," or helped him
sell it, is not the scariest thing. What's most scary is that
the violence, and increasingly, the torture, with which mainstream
media entertains the masses, is shaping, affecting, directing
our culture. The result is worse for us than a "savage war."
It's a savage culture, a savage society, and a savage future